|
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20042824928
"APM Change to real time
We appreciate your bringing this to our attention and are looking into adjusting APM for real time. Our intent was to apply real time to the in-game clock in addition to all time-related information with Legacy of the Void, and this was overlooked. We don’t think this is a game breaking issue that must be fixed asap or anything like that, but we’ve definitely added this to our list of tasks to implement.
Co-op Missions Game Speed
Thank you for your suggestion regarding Co-op Missions game speed on Brutal. Our Co-op Missions team is currently looking to change the game speeds so that if both players are playing on Brutal difficulty, the game speed will be on Faster. Please let us know how this feels when the change goes in, and also remember that nothing is completely final in this area. We’ll continue to tune things if needed in the future.
Disruptors in PvP
We heard your feedback regarding Disruptors in PvP. We noticed that the majority of feedback after last weekend’s Dreamhack PvP games was extremely positive regarding how exciting and micro-based the matchup is now compared to before. We also heard some of your concerns about how heavily Protoss players need to rely on Disruptors, and how the winner is determined mostly by good Disruptor micro. We also heard some feedback regarding how players can’t really attack each other with Disruptors, and that it’s a similar situation as Swarm Hosts. We don’t quite agree with this line of thought yet because we are seeing a lot of skirmishes where actual units are being traded when Disruptors are used. However, we appreciate being made aware of this concern and we’ll definitely keep an eye on this going forward.
While we agree with you guys in that the new PvP is very exciting at the moment, we did wonder if we should eventually tune the +shields damage down a little bit so that the Disruptor continues to 1-shot units like Zealots and Stalkers, but doesn’t 1-shot other Disruptors. This would naturally buff certain Protoss ground units against the Disruptor as well, potentially lending more diversity to unit compositions in PvP.
Thor
With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass. There look to be situations where players need better counters to air, so we wonder if the best move here is to up the Thor’s damage against armored air units, such as going to flat damage on the AA weapon.
Pylon Overcharge
We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts.
Carrier build time
We believe that we over-nerfed the Carrier during the beta. Due to how strong Carriers were with their new ability, we believe the stat nerf was good. However, we do wonder if we can reduce Carrier build time again so that we can have more Carrier play in Protoss matchups. We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
Zerg Burrow Change
This week we heard feedback regarding the creation of an option for ‘how’ you Burrow. There are a few reasons we don’t want an option in this specific case. In terms of general design for StarCraft II:
-Players are already overloaded with options that result in minor changes.
-It’s already pretty difficult for players to find the exact options they want, especially if they’re not the most hardcore players out there.
-We really don’t want to create situations where “you are playing wrong because you have the wrong options set.”
-The more options we have, the higher the chance of this happening.
Those are the design reasons, and going a bit more into detail regarding this specific issue:
-We believe there is a clear right answer and we want to focus on making sure of this through Balance Test Map testing.
-We say this because we already know how the Terran mode switches work, and we don’t really see a huge upside of how the Zerg one is currently done in the live game (as many of you have already pointed out to us).
-This change is not a pressing issue. We can take as much or as little time testing it as we need.
-We want to make sure everyone spends time playing with the change before jumping to conclusions.
Let’s try to figure out what’s truly best here and avoid adding minor options as much as possible.
Zerg Strength in general
We definitely hear your feedback about Zerg being stronger, and in the games we play ourselves, we can see that a bit. However, in the highest level games that happened so far, granted there haven’t been a large number of games yet at the pro level, what we’re seeing is a bit different. This might be because the strategies against things like Ravagers or Lurker based compositions haven’t fully developed yet, and it could also be because there is some balance issue. We’ve seen plenty of times in the past where players like us have some issue, but once pro players show us the way, we perform much better. We just don’t know for certain yet, but we could definitely test things like nerfing the damage of Corrosive Bile, timing of when Lurkers are available, etc. on the Balance test map. Let’s just get discussions going on potential changes that we could be exploring.
Balance test map update
We want to get your feedback on adding all the above balance changes to the Balance Test Map. We’re not saying these changes will go into the game for certain, we just wonder if it’ll be better if we can see some of these changes in action earlier on in case something turns out to be an issue that we need to act on sooner rather than later.
As we mentioned towards the end of the beta, our current thought for Balance Test Maps and balance testing in Legacy of the Void is to more aggressively test different options even before we know that they are issues for certain. In this way, we can be more prepared to act quickly if needed. If there turns out to be no need for the change, we can simply remove the change we’re testing in the Balance Test Map and go on to other potential changes.
We want to get discussions going because this would be a big change from how the Balance Test Maps were done in Heart of the Swarm. In Heart of the Swarm, we only began testing issues once we were fairly certain that the issue was truly problematic. With Legacy of the Void, we want to get a head start.
Thank you for continuing to help make the game better. Let’s continue this collaboration and get constructive discussions going on these topics so that we can do what’s best for the game."
|
The overcharge change is disappointing. Making it 'spammable' makes the placement of every Pylon you make more important.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Wait, so they haven't gotten APM right yet?
|
Agree with these points, but can we take a look at Chrono Boost again?, it's supposed to be easier to Chrono post changes, but it's really not..
|
The thor is a good change, not sure how good but its ok.
But I'm sad they aren't adressing the discussion regarding siege tanks. Are they going to change anything? Are this going to stay as they are? What do they think about current mech? At least acknowleadging that theres a discussion going would be good.
|
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be...
|
Pylon Overcharge is silly, is it even necessary. Protoss is untouchable in the early game with these pylons so easily turned into long range murdering machines
|
Mute City2363 Posts
The PvP paragraph just makes me sad
|
Austria24417 Posts
We heard your feedback regarding Disruptors in PvP. We noticed that the majority of feedback after last weekend’s Dreamhack PvP games was extremely positive regarding how exciting and micro-based the matchup is now compared to before. We also heard some of your concerns about how heavily Protoss players need to rely on Disruptors, and how the winner is determined mostly by good Disruptor micro. We also heard some feedback regarding how players can’t really attack each other with Disruptors, and that it’s a similar situation as Swarm Hosts. We don’t quite agree with this line of thought yet because we are seeing a lot of skirmishes where actual units are being traded when Disruptors are used.
I'm gonna hang myself real fast, brb
|
My personal opinion on PvP is that it's deadly boring, I don't see any excitement in waiting 10 minutes for a disruptor to hit to get some "excitement".
|
Maybe forcefields could block or cancel out the disruptor shot
|
On December 05 2015 03:57 scoo2r wrote:
Maybe forcefields could block or cancel out the disruptor shot
That'd be cool actually. More diversity and skills.
|
I'm glad they finally addressed the mech and Siege Tank issue. Nice to see they are listening 
|
On December 05 2015 03:44 ZAiNs wrote:
The overcharge change is disappointing. Making it 'spammable' makes the placement of every Pylon you make more important.
I would say it's the other way around lol.
|
We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
haha what xD
|
Good change for the Pylon Overcharge!
My Reaper might actually be able to scout behind his mineral lines now without getting double pyloned......
|
I'm not too sure about the thor change. If its damage vs air is too great it might become too good at everything. Sick ground dps, sick air dps, high armor and tanky. It seems too strong. Perhaps its slow turn rate, general clunkyness, low mobility, high cost and supply might keep it balanced though. Guess we'll see though on paper it seems too strong were the change to happen.
Maybe it could fill mech's anti air role. My initial reaction is that its gas cost might be too expensive for anti air. However, unlike goliaths its ground weapon is insane to the point where maybe you can afford to cut back on your tank count and still have sick ground dps. I'd still just prefer that they'd add goliaths though.
I'd glad about the pylon change. Its virtually impossible for terran to cheese protoss because if it.
|
I'm glad they are nerfing Overcharge finally. Kind of dumb that they can do it 8 times right now. Don't agree with buffing Carriers, why are they trying to make it viable? I would rather mass air strategies never be viable as it's boring. If Protoss ever does get a ton of Carriers out it'll just turn into a hour long game as both sides never attack.
|
I don't really know how crucial thors are to beating ultras in lotv but generally I would be fine with buffing their AA and nerfing their ground attack.
|
On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
Disruptors in PvP
We heard your feedback regarding Disruptors in PvP. We noticed that the majority of feedback after last weekend’s Dreamhack PvP games was extremely positive regarding how exciting and micro-based the matchup is now compared to before. We also heard some of your concerns about how heavily Protoss players need to rely on Disruptors, and how the winner is determined mostly by good Disruptor micro. We also heard some feedback regarding how players can’t really attack each other with Disruptors, and that it’s a similar situation as Swarm Hosts. We don’t quite agree with this line of thought yet because we are seeing a lot of skirmishes where actual units are being traded when Disruptors are used. However, we appreciate being made aware of this concern and we’ll definitely keep an eye on this going forward.
Did they see the same series we did?
|
On December 05 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be...
Why not?
|
On December 05 2015 04:06 Gullis wrote:
I don't really know how crucial thors are to beating ultras in lotv but generally I would be fine with buffing their AA and nerfing their ground attack.
In a Mech army, Thors are there for Anti-Air and tanking damage (but mostly Anti-Air), as your tanks and maybe Liberators are units that kill Ultras. In any other army though if they're at +3 weapons they beat through Ultras pretty convincingly. Thors are extremely slow and extremely large though. Their power has to be pretty high because they don't scale well in large numbers.
Pretty much though I never build a Thor because they're too expensive and too slow. Their power and durability is all they got.
|
On December 05 2015 03:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:I'm glad they finally addressed the mech and Siege Tank issue. Nice to see they are listening
They didn't mentioned tanks :c
|
On December 05 2015 03:48 Teoita wrote:
Wait, so they haven't gotten APM right yet?
The Real APM is the APM shown by the game multiplied with 1,38
|
On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
We definitely hear your feedback about Zerg being stronger, and in the games we play ourselves, we can see that a bit. However, in the highest level games that happened so far what we’re seeing is a bit different.
I'm a bit confused by that statement. What games do they look at? Only Dreamhack? Only offline? Everything including online cups? 
|
On December 05 2015 04:06 Gullis wrote:
I don't really know how crucial thors are to beating ultras in lotv but generally I would be fine with buffing their AA and nerfing their ground attack.
I agree with doing something to the Thors, but buffing their AA straight to 12(x4) against everything is ridiculous, especially with AoE and range they currently have. Maybe reducing AA damage a little bit and then change it to do the same damage to everything. It will be a nerf against Banshees, Phoenixes, Mutas etc. but buff against everything else, and you use Liberators against those units nowadays anyway.
|
On December 05 2015 04:06 Gullis wrote:
I don't really know how crucial thors are to beating ultras in lotv but generally I would be fine with buffing their AA and nerfing their ground attack.
I see this change mostly as a needed help against corruptors (armored) trying to deny a liberator switch that tries to counter ultra tech. Good way to balance the match up.
|
On December 05 2015 04:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be... Why not?
Because this is a pretty insane number they are proposing? "Hey guys, by the way adepts now deal flat 23 damage." sounds fair right?
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
We believe that we over-nerfed the Carrier during the beta. Due to how strong Carriers were with their new ability, we believe the stat nerf was good.
JUST REMOVE/REWORK THE ABILITY, nobody on either side of the matchup wants it. Add micro-ability by making it a command to move the interceptors that you're controlling, rather than give up control of them and gaining power in several ways like we have now.
Even with that ability which adds a lot of unfun power IMO, they say it feels overnerfed.
|
On December 05 2015 04:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be... Why not? Because this is a pretty insane number they are proposing? "Hey guys, by the way adepts now deal flat 23 damage." sounds fair right?
I'd rather they change parasitic bomb so building vikings is a thing that works. But I don't think your example holds up well because the adept has a much wider array of targets to hit that a change like that would influence. Against BL/tempest/carrier/BC it's basically just the return of high impact payload (except with AoE which means no stacking but whatever). So really what's most affected is corruptors.
But they could always tweak the number.
|
All of the changes suggested are OK but please try to improve Tanks.
Tanks are already cost efficient when they are on max upgrades. Problem is that it occurs so late in the game that air counters tanks too easily at that stage.
So I suggest making tanks stronger in early game (i.e. in small numbers) but remain the same in late game, without adding any projectile attack or removing smart fire.
I suggest increasing its attack from 35 (50 vs armoured) to 40 (60 vs armoured).
The effect from attack upgrades should be decreased from 3 per upgrade (5 vs armoured) to just 2 per upgrade flat. That way a max upgraded tank would have an attack of 46 (66 vs armoured) compared to (44/65) now.
So Tanks become better in smaller numbers without becoming too strong in the late game.
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
This PvP paragraph is pretty lomo.
Oh well.
|
I would be cool with the overcharge change. I see some players use it on pylons that are about to die right now just to get off 2-3 shots. There should be more thought put behind where you overcharge then just "CAST ON ALL THE PYLONS".
|
On December 05 2015 04:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be... Why not? Because this is a pretty insane number they are proposing? "Hey guys, by the way adepts now deal flat 23 damage." sounds fair right?
They could just give back High Impact Payload and buff the Anti-Armor damage on that. I don't see why they got rid of it in the first place.
|
How'd things change, if say the Thor and the Liberator anti air attack was swapped around. They keep their current range, but splash+number of attacks+damage is swapped.
|
Wait, people complain about lurkers being too strong?
|
The Burrow paragraph confirms that they actually considered their target demographics to consist mostly of idiots. The concept of not giving people options, because they could be confused, is Apple-level stupid.
|
Just so you guys know, lifting a disruptor with a phoenix will cancel the energy ball.
|
On December 05 2015 04:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be... Why not? Because this is a pretty insane number they are proposing? "Hey guys, by the way adepts now deal flat 23 damage." sounds fair right?
But Thor AA vs. non-light has much more narrow applications than Adept vs. non-light. Off the top of my head it only changes the interaction with:
-vikings
-liberators
-BCs
-Corruptors
-BLs
-Void rays
-Carriers
-Tempest
Thors are laughably terrible against every one of those right now, and the vs. liberators, BLs, void rays, carriers, and tempests interactions virtually never come up. Of these, the only one I can see mattering very much is the vs. Corruptors interaction, and it really does not sound broken to me for javelin missiles to do more damage there - as it is now, they barely tickle them.
|
On December 05 2015 04:35 ejozl wrote:
How'd things change, if say the Thor and the Liberator anti air attack was swapped around. They keep their current range, but splash+number of attacks+damage is swapped.
I think that would increase the DPS vs air on the thor and nerf the liberator AA slightly but since thors are more expensive than liberators those would probably still be better.
|
Parasitic bomb is a joke. Mark my words. We will have in a few months Zerg dominating late games with parasitic bomb. It's even stronger than WOL's late zerg.
|
On December 05 2015 04:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be... Why not? Because this is a pretty insane number they are proposing? "Hey guys, by the way adepts now deal flat 23 damage." sounds fair right?
It sounds insane but it's not like there are lots of Thors out there and it will break the game. And IMO the Thor is such a slow and expensive unit that a stronger anti air would hardly make it the use every time kind of thing. Besides, Void Rays can focus fire shit super fast, Carriers have insane range and fire and forget interceptors, BL have broodlings that restrict movement, and air armies just suck in SC2 .
It could be a big change in numbers but unless mass Thors becomes a thing, i can hardly see much problems with it.
Expect a Hellbat buff next fallowed by "we tried to buff mech but it doesn't work" )
FIX THE TANK BLIZZARD!!!
|
On December 05 2015 04:01 Gullis wrote:
We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
haha what xD
That really is the worst "cool factor" ever. Ever. I don´t like the Carrier, i think the mechanic is really dull, but whatever.
Not sure about the other tweaks yet, pylon overcharge really feels too spammable as of yet. Increasing its duration
doesn´t sound exiting neither, kind of a tough call to make.
|
United States744 Posts
If the ability switching in the case of burrow/unburrow were streamlined to match that of terran units switching in and out of siege/assault/defender mode, that should be easier to understand even if it's "more options". For fucks sake, casuals might not be intimately familiar with the game mechanics but they're not fucking morons. If something is as consistent as it could be with the implementation of the burrow change, it should actually be helpful for someone who might not otherwise know what key to press. Hmm, I played terran and the siege tank requires two different buttons to switch back and forth. Let me glance to the bottom right corner for .5 seconds to see if this is the case with the roach. Oh, it's the D key, just like unsieging a tank. How convenient.
|
Oh well, this community feedback follows the general direction set by previous ones, small changes (or at least the intent) that make no sense, here and there, while overlooking very huge issues this game faces so far, for example: invincible not target-able (and if i've observed correctly, surrounding it with buildings is useless, units will emerge beyond) nydus worm; viper parasite bomb which pretty much (when vipers number is sufficiently high) guarantees full enemy air force wipe-out (no matter how hard you try to micro the afflicted units); no real ground based counter to any race late game air based blobs; cyclone being pretty much useless beyond early game (except some rare occasions) and so forth.
I really do not understand this "cautious" apporach; test small random changes and hope it will turn ok. Also, I have yet to understand why almost the entirety of beta was lost on promoting weird economy changes and have those reverted later on, or in the end, being toned down, while little attention was given to the actual existing and new units and their impact on the game.
"The Ravager", this unit is too much too early, in any match-up.
Reaper, cool detonation sound bro, no use past very early game.
As for disruptor in PvP, screw it, it's a mirror match-up, leave it for later. Don't mess with a unit for the sake of mirror match-up and have it become useless or way too powerful against the other races.
|
So.
I had this idea where forcefields cause a disruptor shot to reverse direction with double velocity and be momentarily uncontrollable.
Disruptor pinball >>>>> disruptor tennis.
Right? RIGHT???
|
On December 05 2015 04:52 DuB phool wrote:
So.
I had this idea where forcefields cause a disruptor shot to reverse direction with double velocity and be momentarily uncontrollable.
Disruptor pinball >>>>> disruptor tennis.
Right? RIGHT???
It would fit Protoss really well IMO
|
On December 05 2015 04:52 DuB phool wrote:
So.
I had this idea where forcefields cause a disruptor shot to reverse direction with double velocity and be momentarily uncontrollable.
Disruptor pinball >>>>> disruptor tennis.
Right? RIGHT???
lol, I would love to play that on the Arcade 
|
On December 05 2015 04:43 highsis wrote:
Parasitic bomb is a joke. Mark my words. We will have in a few months Zerg dominating late games with parasitic bomb. It's even stronger than WOL's late zerg.
I think the reason it hasn't been commented on is because lotv games rarely get to that stage, at least in my experience of never having seen a viper built in 140~ games.
|
Thor has guns on its back that cannot fire in a multiplayer game. How about removing them from the model and dropping the supply cost on the Thor?
|
On December 05 2015 04:01 Gullis wrote:
We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
haha what xD
I facepalmed at that as well. What an exciting factor!
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
screaming internally
|
On December 05 2015 04:49 HomeWorld wrote:
Oh well, this community feedback follows the general direction set by previous ones, small changes (or at least the intent) that make no sense, here and there, while overlooking very huge issues this game faces so far, for example: invincible not target-able (and if i've observed correctly, surrounding it with buildings is useless, units will emerge beyond) nydus worm; viper parasite bomb which pretty much (when vipers number is sufficiently high) guarantees full enemy air force wipe-out (no matter how hard you try to micro the afflicted units); no real ground based counter to any race late game air based blobs; cyclone being pretty much useless beyond early game (except some rare occasions) and so forth.
I really do not understand this "cautious" apporach; test small random changes and hope it will turn ok. Also, I have yet to understand why almost the entirety of beta was lost on promoting weird economy changes and have those reverted later on, or in the end, being toned down, while little attention was given to the actual existing and new units and their impact on the game.
"The Ravager", this unit is too much too early, in any match-up.
Reaper, cool detonation sound bro, no use past very early game.
As for disruptor in PvP, screw it, it's a mirror match-up, leave it for later. Don't mess with a unit for the sake of mirror match-up and have it become useless or way too powerful against the other races.
Except those are not genuinely huge issues and players probably just haven't figured out how to deal with it correctly. For example, Nydus all ins are no problem if you actually prioritize your economy correctly: You just have to have enough stuff to defend vs them. But many players get caught off guard or were too greedy before and then complain when their wall doesn't save them. I mean, your perspective is kind of funny, because the entire reason for wanting to kill a nydus before units come out is because you have no way to deal with them once the units arrive. This just should never be case, and you have to adapt your openings and game progression to survive vs nydus all ins, not ask Blizzard for letting you kill Nydus so you don't have to deal with the units that come through them.
I'm obviously biased since I'm Zerg but every time I win a game and look at the replay my reaction is the same: People just play like they've played for 5 years instead of genuinely trying to change up their playstyle and then complain when it doesn't work. People were just used for 5 years that Zerg doesn't do anything too aggressive until its a full scale all in or mid game with mutas or other more aggressive units arrives, and thus haven't learned to scout and react to opponents eco when it's clear they're going to do a timing attack, and then scale back of getting upgrades or new CCs and SCVs, and make more units instead, or changing up unit compositions to deal with it. People literally just blindly build their favorite unit composition while trying to turtle and then complain when it doesn't work. Or they try blatantly greedy opening and then complain when they don't have enough units when a push arrives. Same goes for parasitic bomb: Whoops! I make 100 supply air units and my opponent beats it with only a couple of vipers! Guess parasitic bomb is imba! I hope you don't switch to Zerg, make mass mutas and corruptors and then complain that they're countered by a miniscule amount of Thors compared to your army.
I have yet to be pointed to a single replay where a Zerg does something that is considered imba right now, wins and I can say "yup, not much the T/P could've done there" or "short of amazing robot like micro nothing could be changed in the outcome here". Instead I always see giant mistakes which the all players make (ALL of them, including most pros) which could be alleviated by simple change of decision making.
But instead they just try to copy all BOs of pros they knew in the past, without actually thinking about why they're doing what they're doing. And as a result Zerg dominates, because Zerg players have been learning this skill since the very beginning when SC2 came out. To scout opponents eco, interpret it, and react to it in just the right manner that you have an econ advantage while also not dying to aggression. And the other two races now need to figure this out vs Zerg, but haven't.
|
On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
Carrier build time
We believe that we over-nerfed the Carrier during the beta. Due to how strong Carriers were with their new ability, we believe the stat nerf was good. However, we do wonder if we can reduce Carrier build time again so that we can have more Carrier play in Protoss matchups. We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
The main cool factor is, or should be, that it's a big capital ship that relies on micro to be effective, unlike Tempests, BLs or BCs.
The only thing that amazes me more then how they got the Carrier wrong is how they got the Siege Tank wrong.
|
The Thor buff is a nice step in the right direction, although being as cumbersome as it is remains a challenge. I wish they'd consider giving us Thor-minis, that are weaker, but smaller and cheaper.
Now, if Blizzard could stop being so obstinate about improving the siege tank, that'd be great. We need to continue this dialogue and continue to pester them about this.
I'm surprised to see no feedback about the cyclone, given how underutilized it is.
|
|
|
On December 05 2015 05:15 p68 wrote:
The Thor buff is a nice step in the right direction, although being as cumbersome as it is remains a challenge. I wish they'd consider giving us Thor-minis, that are weaker, but smaller and cheaper.
Now, people would usually say this is the Goliath, but they gave us Warhounds instead.
|
On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
Disruptors in PvP
While we agree with you guys in that the new PvP is very exciting at the moment, we did wonder if we should eventually tune the +shields damage down a little bit so that the Disruptor continues to 1-shot units like Zealots and Stalkers, but doesn’t 1-shot other Disruptors. This would naturally buff certain Protoss ground units against the Disruptor as well, potentially lending more diversity to unit compositions in PvP.
Sounds very reasonable. I'd hold off just a bit because we've only seen one remotely high-level PvP so far, and it's possible that other units (like Phoenixes) will find their way into the meta without any changes.
Thor
With the new units and new unit changes coming into the game, we do agree with you guys that the Thor could use a pass. There look to be situations where players need better counters to air, so we wonder if the best move here is to up the Thor’s damage against armored air units, such as going to flat damage on the AA weapon.
YES! Now we're getting somewhere.
A) Thors suck.
B) Mech anti-air sucks.
C) We're tired of air blobs countering air blobs.
This has the potential to fix all three problems in one go.
Pylon Overcharge
We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts.
Are Protoss struggling to hold off early aggression (unrelated to Zerg strength)? That's the only plausible justification for not removing/nerfing PO, which the least there is of in SC2, the better off SC2 will be. So far I haven't seen that to be the case. So... why the duration buff?
Carrier build time
We believe that we over-nerfed the Carrier during the beta. Due to how strong Carriers were with their new ability, we believe the stat nerf was good. However, we do wonder if we can reduce Carrier build time again so that we can have more Carrier play in Protoss matchups. We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
This is so confusing on so many levels.
The main cool factor of this unit is that it's rarely seen.
So you want to make it better. So it will be more often seen. Which will remove the cool factor of novelty, replacing it with the cool factor of... air deathballs?
Look guys, the Carrier right now is a shit version of the Liberator, and by "shit" I don't mean UP, I mean the design is shit. The Liberator sieges an area, but to do so it enters an immobile state and places itself next to danger. This is interesting. It means risk/reward. The Carrier sieges an area from 20 range away and flies off to do its thing. This is not interesting. I don't have a good idea of what direction to take the Carrier in right now, maybe others here do, but in waiting for a good idea I'd prefer Carriers stay as useless as possible.
Zerg Strength in general
We definitely hear your feedback about Zerg being stronger, and in the games we play ourselves, we can see that a bit. However, in the highest level games that happened so far, granted there haven’t been a large number of games yet at the pro level, what we’re seeing is a bit different. This might be because the strategies against things like Ravagers or Lurker based compositions haven’t fully developed yet, and it could also be because there is some balance issue. We’ve seen plenty of times in the past where players like us have some issue, but once pro players show us the way, we perform much better. We just don’t know for certain yet, but we could definitely test things like nerfing the damage of Corrosive Bile, timing of when Lurkers are available, etc. on the Balance test map. Let’s just get discussions going on potential changes that we could be exploring.
Ravagers come out too early is the first problem. (They may need other nerfs, they may not, but this is the first thing to look at.)
Invulnerable Nydus should not exist. Even if it turns out to be not completely unstoppable, only almost entirely unstoppable, ask yourself: what sort of gameplay will actually come out of it? BO wins. Do we like BO wins? Would we rather pros BO win against each other, or play action-packed games where they both have opportunities for comebacks? Just think about that for a minute. I don't see any upside to Invulnerable Nydus existing.
Parasitic Bomb is a very bad spell. It needs a very hard nerfing, and Hydras should get an anti-air buff to compensate.
Ultras are still ridiculous. We're not seeing any games with them yet, same as Parasitic Bomb, because the games aren't going that far. But the GSL pre-season is going to show just how ludicrous Zerg lategame has become.
There's one thing people don't really talk about, and it's that with every expansion, average map size gets bigger. This is an inherent buff to Zerg. It's a huge buff. It means that in the late game, a Terran or Protoss has a lot more ground to cover on creep, which is dangerous vs speedy Zerg units and it means they have to spend more time clearing creep before they can even engage, AND it means that a Zerg has a lot more time to react/tech switch to counter the army of his opponent. Couple that with significant buffs to Zerg lategame air (cannot be countered by other races' air now) and lategame ground (Ultras no longer countered by micro), how is that ever going to work out?
Balance test map update
We want to get your feedback on adding all the above balance changes to the Balance Test Map. We’re not saying these changes will go into the game for certain, we just wonder if it’ll be better if we can see some of these changes in action earlier on in case something turns out to be an issue that we need to act on sooner rather than later.
As we mentioned towards the end of the beta, our current thought for Balance Test Maps and balance testing in Legacy of the Void is to more aggressively test different options even before we know that they are issues for certain. In this way, we can be more prepared to act quickly if needed. If there turns out to be no need for the change, we can simply remove the change we’re testing in the Balance Test Map and go on to other potential changes.
We want to get discussions going because this would be a big change from how the Balance Test Maps were done in Heart of the Swarm. In Heart of the Swarm, we only began testing issues once we were fairly certain that the issue was truly problematic. With Legacy of the Void, we want to get a head start.
Thank you for continuing to help make the game better. Let’s continue this collaboration and get constructive discussions going on these topics so that we can do what’s best for the game."
HOLY FUCK, YES. Thank you Blizzard. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
This is what many of us have been asking for for a long, long time. This may be the most important change to come out of this update. I'm shocked speechless. This is very good news.
|
Bad patch....please dont do nothing of those. Make MSC start with only 25 or 0 of energy.
|
I was hoping to see some real adjustments to start trying on the Balance map, but guess we will have to wait another week.....
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
I hope they release good WCS-worthy maps soon. It's hard to judge things properly when some of the maps are pretty ridiculous.
|
On December 05 2015 04:52 DuB phool wrote:
So.
I had this idea where forcefields cause a disruptor shot to reverse direction with double velocity and be momentarily uncontrollable.
Disruptor pinball >>>>> disruptor tennis.
Right? RIGHT???
I thought the initial idea of having forcefields cancel disruptor shot was the best idea i've ever had , but you have perfected that idea.
|
On December 05 2015 05:33 Liquid`Ret wrote:
I hope they release good WCS-worthy maps soon. It's hard to judge things properly when some of the maps are pretty ridiculous.
I hope they go back to using community maps, they tend to be better.
|
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen?
|
On December 05 2015 04:47 banjoetheredskin wrote:
If the ability switching in the case of burrow/unburrow were streamlined to match that of terran units switching in and out of siege/assault/defender mode, that should be easier to understand even if it's "more options". For fucks sake, casuals might not be intimately familiar with the game mechanics but they're not fucking morons. If something is as consistent as it could be with the implementation of the burrow change, it should actually be helpful for someone who might not otherwise know what key to press. Hmm, I played terran and the siege tank requires two different buttons to switch back and forth. Let me glance to the bottom right corner for .5 seconds to see if this is the case with the roach. Oh, it's the D key, just like unsieging a tank. How convenient.
i think you are massively overestimating the mental capabilties of the dev team behind SC2
|
On December 05 2015 04:06 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
Disruptors in PvP
We heard your feedback regarding Disruptors in PvP. We noticed that the majority of feedback after last weekend’s Dreamhack PvP games was extremely positive regarding how exciting and micro-based the matchup is now compared to before. We also heard some of your concerns about how heavily Protoss players need to rely on Disruptors, and how the winner is determined mostly by good Disruptor micro. We also heard some feedback regarding how players can’t really attack each other with Disruptors, and that it’s a similar situation as Swarm Hosts. We don’t quite agree with this line of thought yet because we are seeing a lot of skirmishes where actual units are being traded when Disruptors are used. However, we appreciate being made aware of this concern and we’ll definitely keep an eye on this going forward.
Did they see the same series we did?
I don't know what series you were watching, but in PartinG vs Showtime, Stalkers and Disruptors were getting blown up left and right. This is fundamentally different from SH stalemates, because SH stalemates can go on indefinitely, while Disruptor wars are hard limited by the resources on the map.
There may be problems with engaging into Disruptors, as DK points out, but that can be tweaked with a few number changes.
The only quibble I have with that paragraph is it implies they're not concerned about the possibility of other races also having trouble engaging into a critical mass of Disruptors. We haven't seen this be problematic on the pro level yet, but it'd have been nice to see them acknowledge the possibility as something to look out for.
|
On December 05 2015 04:15 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
We definitely hear your feedback about Zerg being stronger, and in the games we play ourselves, we can see that a bit. However, in the highest level games that happened so far what we’re seeing is a bit different. I'm a bit confused by that statement. What games do they look at? Only Dreamhack? Only offline? Everything including online cups?
They must have looked at ByuN vs Zerg.
|
Can Blizzard add a default channel separated into leagues when we come in in addition to General? this would make finding Archon mode, Co-Op, and practice partners way easier.
|
On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen?
Buffing mech
|
is it me, or "the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen" just... doesn't seem RIGHT, at all?
|
Nothing about the bullshit nydus?
|
Thor`s 250mm is for fashion confirmed
|
On December 05 2015 05:08 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:49 HomeWorld wrote:
Oh well, this community feedback follows the general direction set by previous ones, small changes (or at least the intent) that make no sense, here and there, while overlooking very huge issues this game faces so far, for example: invincible not target-able (and if i've observed correctly, surrounding it with buildings is useless, units will emerge beyond) nydus worm; viper parasite bomb which pretty much (when vipers number is sufficiently high) guarantees full enemy air force wipe-out (no matter how hard you try to micro the afflicted units); no real ground based counter to any race late game air based blobs; cyclone being pretty much useless beyond early game (except some rare occasions) and so forth.
I really do not understand this "cautious" apporach; test small random changes and hope it will turn ok. Also, I have yet to understand why almost the entirety of beta was lost on promoting weird economy changes and have those reverted later on, or in the end, being toned down, while little attention was given to the actual existing and new units and their impact on the game.
"The Ravager", this unit is too much too early, in any match-up.
Reaper, cool detonation sound bro, no use past very early game.
As for disruptor in PvP, screw it, it's a mirror match-up, leave it for later. Don't mess with a unit for the sake of mirror match-up and have it become useless or way too powerful against the other races. Except those are not genuinely huge issues and players probably just haven't figured out how to deal with it correctly. For example, Nydus all ins are no problem if you actually prioritize your economy correctly: You just have to have enough stuff to defend vs them. But many players get caught off guard or were too greedy before and then complain when their wall doesn't save them. I mean, your perspective is kind of funny, because the entire reason for wanting to kill a nydus before units come out is because you have no way to deal with them once the units arrive. This just should never be case, and you have to adapt your openings and game progression to survive vs nydus all ins, not ask Blizzard for letting you kill Nydus so you don't have to deal with the units that come through them. I'm obviously biased since I'm Zerg but every time I win a game and look at the replay my reaction is the same: People just play like they've played for 5 years instead of genuinely trying to change up their playstyle and then complain when it doesn't work. People were just used for 5 years that Zerg doesn't do anything too aggressive until its a full scale all in or mid game with mutas or other more aggressive units arrives, and thus haven't learned to scout and react to opponents eco when it's clear they're going to do a timing attack, and then scale back of getting upgrades or new CCs and SCVs, and make more units instead, or changing up unit compositions to deal with it. People literally just blindly build their favorite unit composition while trying to turtle and then complain when it doesn't work. Or they try blatantly greedy opening and then complain when they don't have enough units when a push arrives. Same goes for parasitic bomb: Whoops! I make 100 supply air units and my opponent beats it with only a couple of vipers! Guess parasitic bomb is imba! I hope you don't switch to Zerg, make mass mutas and corruptors and then complain that they're countered by a miniscule amount of Thors compared to your army. I have yet to be pointed to a single replay where a Zerg does something that is considered imba right now, wins and I can say "yup, not much the T/P could've done there" or "short of amazing robot like micro nothing could be changed in the outcome here". Instead I always see giant mistakes which the all players make (ALL of them, including most pros) which could be alleviated by simple change of decision making. But instead they just try to copy all BOs of pros they knew in the past, without actually thinking about why they're doing what they're doing. And as a result Zerg dominates, because Zerg players have been learning this skill since the very beginning when SC2 came out. To scout opponents eco, interpret it, and react to it in just the right manner that you have an econ advantage while also not dying to aggression. And the other two races now need to figure this out vs Zerg, but haven't.
After watching 6 hours of continuous nydus network abuse, as a not Zerg player, I cannot afford myself the luxury to be biased.
If you're asking who dared to have such an immoral conduct , well, his name is ZergBonJovi the 4th.
You can find the vod quite easily.
|
Personally, I think the existence of the mothership core itself is unnecessary and we should look for ways to balance protoss without it.
What if the Nexus could construct cannons without a forge and plant it down within, say, a radius of 15. Give it 30 seconds of construction in the Nexus (probes cannot be produced during this time) and then another 10 seconds warping in (similar to the warp-in pylon ability in campaign). I think it would be relatively good in PvP as it would allow tech builds to hold against heavy aggression slightly better (compared to no overcharge) while still allowing aggressive builds to have an edge against overly greedy builds.
|
On December 05 2015 05:48 DCStarcraftGall wrote:
Can Blizzard add a default channel separated into leagues when we come in in addition to General? this would make finding Archon mode, Co-Op, and practice partners way easier.
This would be a pretty good idea I think.
|
So my thoughts on each individual change. I play zerg and don't player single player so I can only give input on some of it.
1. APM Change - Don't care
2. Co-op missions - Don't care
3. Disruptors in PvP - Proposed changes seem good, it is interesting for the spectator but that matchup needs time to develop. I don't play protoss so I can't give insight but I would like to see disruptor cost energy rather than a cooldown.
4. Thor - I can't go mutas anyway so buff the Thor all you want.
5. Pylon Overcharge - This spell mainly seems to be an issue in PvT from what I read so I can't give much input to it but it seems like it would make multi pronged aggression stronger which is always fun to see. It might be a good pre-emptive nerf to silly aggressive pylon cheese. I haven't encountered that yet though.
6. Carrier - I only see carriers in boring turtle games vs protoss so nerfing the build time doesn't affect that strategy. Maybe there is some build out there with a 2 carrier timing or something that I haven't see. Not a big change overall
7. Zerg Burrow Change - I mean I learned with the single button and it served me fine for years so I don't see the need to change it when it isn't going to be an improvement.
8. Zerg Strength in General - I can speak quite a bit to this. My main question to Terran/Protoss players would be how often are you facing an early Roach-Ravager Push and what is needed to hold this off? I don't do this strategy and maybe that is why ZvT is statistically my worse match up.
Which leads me into my experience of the ZvT matchup. If you don't do a Roach-Ravager push, there is a huge window in which Terran are stronger than zerg. Firstly there are a wide array of harasses and timing pushes that Terran can do that are very strong, hellbats, banshees,liberators, tank timings etc are all really good, and not easy to identify. After that the period "pre hive" used to be a roughly equal battle between bio and Muta,ling,bane . With the changes to Larvae and the introduction of the liberator this battle has swung in the terran favour.
If I try to go lurker, again there is a huge period where I am getting the hydra den and then morphing it, this is a long time and I have taken game ending damage waiting for this to finish and having my 10 hydras get obliterated. If I ignore or don't go lurkers I have an army of ling, bane, corrupter which is less scary than ling,bane,muta. Or I am just on ling bane until I have hive...That is a big window.
So then you get to the next complaint about zerg in this matchup which is that Ultras are too strong. I agree it is strong but it should be, It took me along time to get there, get upgrades, not die and then pay a lot to build the thing, it should be a strong unit. It shouldn't be an overpriced paperweight.
The ultralisk used to be naturally absorbed by a terran because marauders and marines could handle it. I hope I don't overstep myself by saying this but perhaps scouting the hive and anticipating the switch can lead the terran to adapt by making a different unit like a liberator or a siege tank. These units do great against the ultra. This is assuming you can't just go kill the zerg.
As for Parasitic Bomb, Again I would argue that this is an energy unit and requires a solution like a ghost or something similar. I haven't really used this unit in ZvT because I am spending my gas on banes to not die midgame, lurkers/corrupters to not die later and then my hive tech of choice. I want to hear what situations Terran has been in where they are losing games to parasitic bomb because I haven't won with it.
For ZvP. Lurkers are pretty damn good but again it's a positional unit that literally can't move as it shoots, that takes a while to get to so there are solutions. My strategy in this matchup is muta-->lurker or lurker--> muta and I've had good success with that.
I suppose my perspective gained from ladder, and watching Byun play TvZ. I don't feel like zerg is actually overpowered without roach-ravager.
My proposed idea would be a nerf to corrosive bile, ravager health and reverting the nydus wurm.
Coupled with this I think a toning down of the liberator vs air to allow mutas a place in that matchup again.
This was a bit of a wall of text so thanks if you took the time to read it.
9. Balance Test Update - To my eternal shame I don't play on the balance test map as I prefer to ladder.
I hope I didn't offend anyone with this but it is just my experience, I would echo the statements of nony, be patient and wait for things to develop and also the thoughts of ret , give better maps.
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On December 05 2015 04:47 banjoetheredskin wrote:
If the ability switching in the case of burrow/unburrow were streamlined to match that of terran units switching in and out of siege/assault/defender mode, that should be easier to understand even if it's "more options". For fucks sake, casuals might not be intimately familiar with the game mechanics but they're not fucking morons. If something is as consistent as it could be with the implementation of the burrow change, it should actually be helpful for someone who might not otherwise know what key to press. Hmm, I played terran and the siege tank requires two different buttons to switch back and forth. Let me glance to the bottom right corner for .5 seconds to see if this is the case with the roach. Oh, it's the D key, just like unsieging a tank. How convenient.
Yeah that really irritated me, Blizzard don't appear to hold the collective intelligence of the playerbase in high regard judging from that point.
|
For the Zerg Burrow/unburrow hotkey, why not just give an option to allow the player to choose between 1 hotkey or 2?
|
On December 05 2015 06:09 PepperMintTea wrote:
So then you get to the next complaint about zerg in this matchup which is that Ultras are too strong. I agree it is strong but it should be, It took me along time to get there, get upgrades, not die and then pay a lot to build the thing, it should be a strong unit. It shouldn't be an overpriced paperweight.
The ultralisk used to be naturally absorbed by a terran because marauders and marines could handle it. I hope I don't overstep myself by saying this but perhaps scouting the hive and anticipating the switch can lead the terran to adapt by making a different unit like a liberator or a siege tank. These units do great against the ultra. This is assuming you can't just go kill the zerg.
As for Parasitic Bomb, Again I would argue that this is an energy unit and requires a solution like a ghost or something similar. I haven't really used this unit in ZvT because I am spending my gas on banes to not die midgame, lurkers/corrupters to not die later and then my hive tech of choice. I want to hear what situations Terran has been in where they are losing games to parasitic bomb because I haven't won with it.
I agree that with liberators in their current state ultras aren't really op but I really despise this hardcounter mechanic.
"Oh I made 10 ultras that you didn't scout and now I win despite having half your economy"
Also it's not very good design that you need an air unit to counter a ground unit because this forces zerg to build corruptors (the only thing that deals with liberators) and then every game revolves around mass air battles - where parasitic bomb comes into play which is imo completely broken and makes the zerg army untouchable in direct fight.
Once the zerg has ultra/corruptor/viper with broodlords the only thing you can do is drop everywhere and play for the baserace because this army can't be defeated in direct combat.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
6. Carrier - I only see carriers in boring turtle games vs protoss so nerfing the build time doesn't affect that strategy. Maybe there is some build out there with a 2 carrier timing or something that I haven't see. Not a big change overall
The reason you only see them in those games is because it's basically impossible to use them for anything else (you can't do timings or expand aggressively) since they heavily nerfed the build time and also took 50 health off.
|
Maybe forcefields could block or cancel out the disruptor shot
I was pretty disappointed the first time I saw the disruptor shot pass through a force field wall.
|
While we agree with you guys in that the new PvP is very exciting at the moment, we did wonder if we should eventually tune the +shields damage down a little bit so that the Disruptor continues to 1-shot units like Zealots and Stalkers, but doesn’t 1-shot other Disruptors. This would naturally buff certain Protoss ground units against the Disruptor as well, potentially lending more diversity to unit compositions in PvP.
Ehm, this was mentioned in the communities feedback a lot. Oh well..
Nothing on bunkers either
On forcefields: Like I mentioned before, they should definitely BOUNCE BACK the disruptor ball :p
|
We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts.
Unpopular opinion, but I am actually starting to like the huge defenders advantage the low energy cost gives protoss as it makes them feel much more macrooriented and safe against stupid all-ins. 25 energy is ofc still in the low end, but I wonder if something like 30-35 wouldn't be better.
|
Does anyone else think the game is a little bit icky, if only a perfect map gives balance. Does the map pool favor zerg or is zerg op, right? This is especially problematic if the main reason a map is zerg favored is that it is an "open" map.
|
On December 05 2015 05:19 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 05:15 p68 wrote:
The Thor buff is a nice step in the right direction, although being as cumbersome as it is remains a challenge. I wish they'd consider giving us Thor-minis, that are weaker, but smaller and cheaper. Now, people would usually say this is the Goliath, but they gave us Warhounds instead.
Warhounds just needed to be toned down and a way better model. AKA baby Thors. Instead they just buried the unit and didnt give terran anything in return.
|
On December 05 2015 04:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:08 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 03:52 Big J wrote:
So Thors from 6+6 vs light (x4) to 12(x4), did I read that right? No, that can't be... Why not? Because this is a pretty insane number they are proposing? "Hey guys, by the way adepts now deal flat 23 damage." sounds fair right?
Yup. Hope it doesn't happen, if they reduce carrier build time again I'd like to see them in PvT. Or any air units, for that matter.
|
On December 05 2015 05:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen? Buffing mech
Imagine all the dead vikings and medivacs. All the juicy clumped void rays
|
On December 05 2015 06:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts. Unpopular opinion, but I am actually starting to like the huge defenders advantage the low energy cost gives protoss as it makes them feel much more macrooriented and safe against stupid all-ins. 25 energy is ofc still in the low end, but I wonder if something like 30-35 wouldn't be better.
I agree. It might very well need a nerf, but I'd like to see them try damage and/or duration reductions before they increase the energy cost.
|
Dear blizzard, take this feedback into consideration please:
You clearly have no clue what you are doing with this game.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 05 2015 06:56 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 05:19 HeroMystic wrote:On December 05 2015 05:15 p68 wrote:
The Thor buff is a nice step in the right direction, although being as cumbersome as it is remains a challenge. I wish they'd consider giving us Thor-minis, that are weaker, but smaller and cheaper. Now, people would usually say this is the Goliath, but they gave us Warhounds instead. Warhounds just needed to be toned down and a way better model. AKA baby Thors. Instead they just buried the unit and didnt give terran anything in return.
The concept of the Warhound is a ranged Hellbat that's pretty good against everything. And it had an average movement speed, fast enough to encourage mech deathballs, slow enough that it can't actually be microed.
There's basically no way in which it isn't a shitty unit.
|
On December 05 2015 06:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts. Unpopular opinion, but I am actually starting to like the huge defenders advantage the low energy cost gives protoss as it makes them feel much more macrooriented and safe against stupid all-ins. 25 energy is ofc still in the low end, but I wonder if something like 30-35 wouldn't be better.
Even less popular opinion: the race that basically negates other races defenders advantage, should not have a strong defenders advantage itself.
Thumbs up on the thor changes, i don't even remember the last time i saw one. Actually, i don't think that would change anyway, because one of the biggest problems with it is simply the size and it's unwillingness to move where you want it to go.
|
On December 05 2015 06:54 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts. Unpopular opinion, but I am actually starting to like the huge defenders advantage the low energy cost gives protoss as it makes them feel much more macrooriented and safe against stupid all-ins. 25 energy is ofc still in the low end, but I wonder if something like 30-35 wouldn't be better.
I'm sure every Terran player weeps for you.
|
On December 05 2015 07:00 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 05:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen? Buffing mech Imagine all the dead vikings and medivacs. All the juicy clumped void rays
You can do all you want, but you will never ever kill the medivac! Medivac is Terran, Terran is medivac, medivac we are all. All praise the medivac (and Dustin and David by association).
Seriously though, as interesting the Medivac is, i think it's the worst think to have happened to Terran because the entire fucking race is now build around it. I thought it was bad when Hellbats were healed by it, but now even Tanks rely on it. You could not make it up i swear lol
|
On December 05 2015 05:57 HomeWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 05:08 heishe wrote:On December 05 2015 04:49 HomeWorld wrote:
Oh well, this community feedback follows the general direction set by previous ones, small changes (or at least the intent) that make no sense, here and there, while overlooking very huge issues this game faces so far, for example: invincible not target-able (and if i've observed correctly, surrounding it with buildings is useless, units will emerge beyond) nydus worm; viper parasite bomb which pretty much (when vipers number is sufficiently high) guarantees full enemy air force wipe-out (no matter how hard you try to micro the afflicted units); no real ground based counter to any race late game air based blobs; cyclone being pretty much useless beyond early game (except some rare occasions) and so forth.
I really do not understand this "cautious" apporach; test small random changes and hope it will turn ok. Also, I have yet to understand why almost the entirety of beta was lost on promoting weird economy changes and have those reverted later on, or in the end, being toned down, while little attention was given to the actual existing and new units and their impact on the game.
"The Ravager", this unit is too much too early, in any match-up.
Reaper, cool detonation sound bro, no use past very early game.
As for disruptor in PvP, screw it, it's a mirror match-up, leave it for later. Don't mess with a unit for the sake of mirror match-up and have it become useless or way too powerful against the other races. Except those are not genuinely huge issues and players probably just haven't figured out how to deal with it correctly. For example, Nydus all ins are no problem if you actually prioritize your economy correctly: You just have to have enough stuff to defend vs them. But many players get caught off guard or were too greedy before and then complain when their wall doesn't save them. I mean, your perspective is kind of funny, because the entire reason for wanting to kill a nydus before units come out is because you have no way to deal with them once the units arrive. This just should never be case, and you have to adapt your openings and game progression to survive vs nydus all ins, not ask Blizzard for letting you kill Nydus so you don't have to deal with the units that come through them. I'm obviously biased since I'm Zerg but every time I win a game and look at the replay my reaction is the same: People just play like they've played for 5 years instead of genuinely trying to change up their playstyle and then complain when it doesn't work. People were just used for 5 years that Zerg doesn't do anything too aggressive until its a full scale all in or mid game with mutas or other more aggressive units arrives, and thus haven't learned to scout and react to opponents eco when it's clear they're going to do a timing attack, and then scale back of getting upgrades or new CCs and SCVs, and make more units instead, or changing up unit compositions to deal with it. People literally just blindly build their favorite unit composition while trying to turtle and then complain when it doesn't work. Or they try blatantly greedy opening and then complain when they don't have enough units when a push arrives. Same goes for parasitic bomb: Whoops! I make 100 supply air units and my opponent beats it with only a couple of vipers! Guess parasitic bomb is imba! I hope you don't switch to Zerg, make mass mutas and corruptors and then complain that they're countered by a miniscule amount of Thors compared to your army. I have yet to be pointed to a single replay where a Zerg does something that is considered imba right now, wins and I can say "yup, not much the T/P could've done there" or "short of amazing robot like micro nothing could be changed in the outcome here". Instead I always see giant mistakes which the all players make (ALL of them, including most pros) which could be alleviated by simple change of decision making. But instead they just try to copy all BOs of pros they knew in the past, without actually thinking about why they're doing what they're doing. And as a result Zerg dominates, because Zerg players have been learning this skill since the very beginning when SC2 came out. To scout opponents eco, interpret it, and react to it in just the right manner that you have an econ advantage while also not dying to aggression. And the other two races now need to figure this out vs Zerg, but haven't. After watching 6 hours of continuous nydus network abuse, as a not Zerg player, I cannot afford myself the luxury to be biased. If you're asking who dared to have such an immoral conduct , well, his name is ZergBonJovi the 4th. You can find the vod quite easily.
All that needs to be done to fix Nydus abuse, is simply make it so that Queens can not heal Nydus. That's all. And Nydus will be in a perfectly good place. It's not invulns making it too hard to counter. It's the fact that it is invuln UNTIL 4 queens pop out and can spam heal the damn thing.
We all know the state Nydus will be in without the invuln, and that is it would be useless like it was through most of SC2. But without the spam heals, it would be useful, but easy to counter, and only doing legitimate damage if not scouted, which is fair & balanced in comparison to other units like nitro medivacs and protoss gates.
|
"We Def heard your feedback! But don't really care."
That's how these always read. I hate these updates. They are a giant wall of text that could be TL;DR down to "minor changes coming, more time needed to see if xyz needs fixing." Lame attend to make the community feel involved but it is just such pandering to try and appease people with no real change in direction of the game.
|
On December 05 2015 04:43 highsis wrote:
Parasitic bomb is a joke. Mark my words. We will have in a few months Zerg dominating late games with parasitic bomb. It's even stronger than WOL's late zerg.
I totally agree. Maybe im beeing stupid - but its like a stacking psi storm for air. How is that fair?
|
No thoughts on Mech being completely dead right now?
Para bomb?
8 armor ultra?
Warp prism+adept?
NYDUS WORM NYDUS WORM NYDUS WORM BIG CAPITAL LETTERS NYDUS WORM
?
|
On December 05 2015 07:52 weikor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:43 highsis wrote:
Parasitic bomb is a joke. Mark my words. We will have in a few months Zerg dominating late games with parasitic bomb. It's even stronger than WOL's late zerg. I totally agree. Maybe im beeing stupid - but its like a stacking psi storm for air. How is that fair?
"We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen " DK
|
On December 05 2015 07:31 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 07:00 GinDo wrote:On December 05 2015 05:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen? Buffing mech Imagine all the dead vikings and medivacs. All the juicy clumped void rays You can do all you want, but you will never ever kill the medivac! Medivac is Terran, Terran is medivac, medivac we are all. All praise the medivac (and Dustin and David by association). Seriously though, as interesting the Medivac is, i think it's the worst think to have happened to Terran because the entire fucking race is now build around it. I thought it was bad when Hellbats were healed by it, but now even Tanks rely on it. You could not make it up i swear lol
Totally agree, i also hate how medivac clouds block everything from view.
To be honest i hate this whole air unit blob trend. In BW air unit had to be microed to be effective, now they just need to be massed.
That's why i dont mind parasitic bomb or the new thor change, because mass air is ugly as hell. The only mass air i wanna see is BC Tank Goliath TvT. Heck i even did'nt even like Carrier Pvt in BW, Arbiter games were so much more fun.
|
On December 05 2015 07:55 avilo wrote:
No thoughts on Mech being completely dead right now?
Para bomb?
8 armor ultra?
Warp prism+adept?
NYDUS WORM NYDUS WORM NYDUS WORM BIG CAPITAL LETTERS NYDUS WORM
?
They did talk about mech and the Tank. Through silence. Things that they care about and are on their mind are the bunker, the Thor anti air. If these things are worthy of bringing up in public communication, then we can see what and how much they think about Siege Tanks and mech. At least in this expassion they didn't sell the "for terran we make mech viable" oh wait )
|
On December 05 2015 03:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:I'm glad they finally addressed the mech and Siege Tank issue. Nice to see they are listening
Also yeah. It's like they are purposely trying to ignore any and all things related to this lol.
|
On December 05 2015 07:02 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 06:54 Hider wrote:We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts. Unpopular opinion, but I am actually starting to like the huge defenders advantage the low energy cost gives protoss as it makes them feel much more macrooriented and safe against stupid all-ins. 25 energy is ofc still in the low end, but I wonder if something like 30-35 wouldn't be better. I agree. It might very well need a nerf, but I'd like to see them try damage and/or duration reductions before they increase the energy cost.
Another thing I would like to see is like a small delay. Perhaps 1 second before it starts firing so the attacker has a small window to retreat before his units starts getting killed.
|
Balance changes at this point are senseless and an overreaction due to sucking at the game (i.e. less then pro players) it's simply way too soon, we've seen time and time again things that are OP after release (Hellbat drops anyone?) are figured out and become a non issue or perhaps an ever so slight nerf (Bile not being so good against structures maybe?) fixing the issue entirely.
How about some decent maps instead? Then we can figure out what units need to be figured out through patches?
|
Overall, quite sensible feedback.
APM change to real time : long overdue.
PvP : I really dislike disruptors wars and I hope something is done so that other compositions become viable -though phoenix chargelot immortal really seems to work okay. The carrier change may help.
Thor : no idea, this is probably good.
Pylon overcharge : same.
Carrier build time : as a big carrier fan, I welcome this change, though a removal of the ability + reduced build time and restored health would be better.
Zerg strength : I think balance is okayish atm, if you ask me T weakness is more blatant than Z strength.
I agree with others we desperately need good maps though, that map pool is absolutely horrendous.
|
the thor buff is nice though. Finally mech gets good AA from the factory, what mech needed the most. If only the tank would not suck mech might be playable.
|
On December 05 2015 08:01 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 07:31 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 07:00 GinDo wrote:On December 05 2015 05:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen? Buffing mech Imagine all the dead vikings and medivacs. All the juicy clumped void rays You can do all you want, but you will never ever kill the medivac! Medivac is Terran, Terran is medivac, medivac we are all. All praise the medivac (and Dustin and David by association). Seriously though, as interesting the Medivac is, i think it's the worst think to have happened to Terran because the entire fucking race is now build around it. I thought it was bad when Hellbats were healed by it, but now even Tanks rely on it. You could not make it up i swear lol Totally agree, i also hate how medivac clouds block everything from view. To be honest i hate this whole air unit blob trend. In BW air unit had to be microed to be effective, now they just need to be massed. That's why i dont mind parasitic bomb or the new thor change, because mass air is ugly as hell. The only mass air i wanna see is BC Tank Goliath TvT. Heck i even did'nt even like Carrier Pvt in BW, Arbiter games were so much more fun.
The main reason i hated P in WOL and even HOTS was because exactly what you describe. You had units(gateway) then units on top of those units (colossus) and sometime even units on top of that, voids phoenixes etc. From a spectators POV it was atrocious. I had to sit right in front of the screen to even tell what the fuck i was seeing, otherwise it was a splash of color with lasers. Hmm wander why SC2 is not so popular as an Esports...probably because the macro mechanics are hard
|
On December 05 2015 08:01 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 07:31 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 07:00 GinDo wrote:On December 05 2015 05:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen? Buffing mech Imagine all the dead vikings and medivacs. All the juicy clumped void rays You can do all you want, but you will never ever kill the medivac! Medivac is Terran, Terran is medivac, medivac we are all. All praise the medivac (and Dustin and David by association). Seriously though, as interesting the Medivac is, i think it's the worst think to have happened to Terran because the entire fucking race is now build around it. I thought it was bad when Hellbats were healed by it, but now even Tanks rely on it. You could not make it up i swear lol Totally agree, i also hate how medivac clouds block everything from view. To be honest i hate this whole air unit blob trend. In BW air unit had to be microed to be effective, now they just need to be massed. That's why i dont mind parasitic bomb or the new thor change, because mass air is ugly as hell. The only mass air i wanna see is BC Tank Goliath TvT. Heck i even did'nt even like Carrier Pvt in BW, Arbiter games were so much more fun.
All races should have anti air like parasitic bomb. Air is too strong. PB isnt too strong, anti air in general is just too WEAK!
Hopefully Thor buff means they will have similar AA too (and this is coming from a Zerg player)
|
On December 05 2015 07:34 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 05:57 HomeWorld wrote:On December 05 2015 05:08 heishe wrote:On December 05 2015 04:49 HomeWorld wrote:
Oh well, this community feedback follows the general direction set by previous ones, small changes (or at least the intent) that make no sense, here and there, while overlooking very huge issues this game faces so far, for example: invincible not target-able (and if i've observed correctly, surrounding it with buildings is useless, units will emerge beyond) nydus worm; viper parasite bomb which pretty much (when vipers number is sufficiently high) guarantees full enemy air force wipe-out (no matter how hard you try to micro the afflicted units); no real ground based counter to any race late game air based blobs; cyclone being pretty much useless beyond early game (except some rare occasions) and so forth.
I really do not understand this "cautious" apporach; test small random changes and hope it will turn ok. Also, I have yet to understand why almost the entirety of beta was lost on promoting weird economy changes and have those reverted later on, or in the end, being toned down, while little attention was given to the actual existing and new units and their impact on the game.
"The Ravager", this unit is too much too early, in any match-up.
Reaper, cool detonation sound bro, no use past very early game.
As for disruptor in PvP, screw it, it's a mirror match-up, leave it for later. Don't mess with a unit for the sake of mirror match-up and have it become useless or way too powerful against the other races. Except those are not genuinely huge issues and players probably just haven't figured out how to deal with it correctly. For example, Nydus all ins are no problem if you actually prioritize your economy correctly: You just have to have enough stuff to defend vs them. But many players get caught off guard or were too greedy before and then complain when their wall doesn't save them. I mean, your perspective is kind of funny, because the entire reason for wanting to kill a nydus before units come out is because you have no way to deal with them once the units arrive. This just should never be case, and you have to adapt your openings and game progression to survive vs nydus all ins, not ask Blizzard for letting you kill Nydus so you don't have to deal with the units that come through them. I'm obviously biased since I'm Zerg but every time I win a game and look at the replay my reaction is the same: People just play like they've played for 5 years instead of genuinely trying to change up their playstyle and then complain when it doesn't work. People were just used for 5 years that Zerg doesn't do anything too aggressive until its a full scale all in or mid game with mutas or other more aggressive units arrives, and thus haven't learned to scout and react to opponents eco when it's clear they're going to do a timing attack, and then scale back of getting upgrades or new CCs and SCVs, and make more units instead, or changing up unit compositions to deal with it. People literally just blindly build their favorite unit composition while trying to turtle and then complain when it doesn't work. Or they try blatantly greedy opening and then complain when they don't have enough units when a push arrives. Same goes for parasitic bomb: Whoops! I make 100 supply air units and my opponent beats it with only a couple of vipers! Guess parasitic bomb is imba! I hope you don't switch to Zerg, make mass mutas and corruptors and then complain that they're countered by a miniscule amount of Thors compared to your army. I have yet to be pointed to a single replay where a Zerg does something that is considered imba right now, wins and I can say "yup, not much the T/P could've done there" or "short of amazing robot like micro nothing could be changed in the outcome here". Instead I always see giant mistakes which the all players make (ALL of them, including most pros) which could be alleviated by simple change of decision making. But instead they just try to copy all BOs of pros they knew in the past, without actually thinking about why they're doing what they're doing. And as a result Zerg dominates, because Zerg players have been learning this skill since the very beginning when SC2 came out. To scout opponents eco, interpret it, and react to it in just the right manner that you have an econ advantage while also not dying to aggression. And the other two races now need to figure this out vs Zerg, but haven't. After watching 6 hours of continuous nydus network abuse, as a not Zerg player, I cannot afford myself the luxury to be biased. If you're asking who dared to have such an immoral conduct , well, his name is ZergBonJovi the 4th. You can find the vod quite easily. We all know the state Nydus will be in without the invuln, and that is it would be useless like it was through most of SC2. But without the spam heals, it would be useful, but easy to counter, and only doing legitimate damage if not scouted, which is fair & balanced in comparison to other units like nitro medivacs and protoss gates.
No, it isn't fair compared to Nitro Medivacs. You're comparing a pressure build that has the strength of an all-in, with a lategame upgrade. It's apples and oranges.
Aggressive Nydus is an opening that will always have a chance to just straight up win the game. Regardless of whether it's Life vs Maru or a Diamond leaguer vs Maru, if Maru happened not to scout this one structure and/or blindly prepare, he's just fucked. That is already not a strategy we should be going out of our way to keep in the game, as far as I'm concerned.
And what does it mean if a Terran holds your non-healable Nydus? It means the Zerg hasn't lost any ground units (because he didn't send them when he realized his Nydus was going to die), and it means the Terran didn't go 3CC and he didn't open Hellions, because both of those insta-lose against Nydus. So he has a slow economy and he has no map control. So how is he supposed to punish the Zerg for this aggressive opening that had a chance to win the game outright at the 5 min mark?
In contrast, Nitro Medivac is a lategame Starport upgrade that 1) a Terran first has to be good enough to survive to, 2) forces him to commit his army in enemy territory to take advantage of, and 3) doesn't give him a free win if it works, because there are many degrees of it working, from Maru walking over a Wood leaguer levels of destruction, to Maru's drops getting shut down because the Zerg was on top of his game and Maru losing as a direct result.
|
On December 05 2015 08:03 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 07:55 avilo wrote:
No thoughts on Mech being completely dead right now?
Para bomb?
8 armor ultra?
Warp prism+adept?
NYDUS WORM NYDUS WORM NYDUS WORM BIG CAPITAL LETTERS NYDUS WORM
? They did talk about mech and the Tank. Through silence. Things that they care about and are on their mind are the bunker, the Thor anti air. If these things are worthy of bringing up in public communication, then we can see what and how much they think about Siege Tanks and mech. At least in this expassion they didn't sell the "for terran we make mech viable" oh wait )
It's sad they just ignore a huge portion of the community that wants mech to be viable and not just bio 100% games.
I mean, yes, buffing thor is a great idea vs brood/carrier/tempest/BC because in general blizzard should dissuade both players from making huge mass air deathballs because those don't force action, they just force turtling.
So the thor buff, if it actually does DAMAGE to blobs of air will be great but still...
Nothing about the tank...nothing about the cyclone which is one of the two new Terran units and is basically useless atm.
And it's a bit perplexing that they mention the thor, and completely ignore the cyclone which has shown to be useless whether you go bio or mech right now.
On December 05 2015 08:09 Charoisaur wrote:
the thor buff is nice though. Finally mech gets good AA from the factory, what mech needed the most. If only the tank would not suck mech might be playable.
I wouldn't get too excited for this thor change. The last time they did this they gave the thor that different mode that was essentially a pea shooter. If your opponent even gets a few carrier/tempest the thor became useless army supply.
I mean if they make it do good damage, then yes it'll be good but it'll only be worthwhile if it's strong enough to dissuade P/Z/T from massing their capital ships.
Tank still sucks though...
Also on another note, i may have to do another 6 hr stream session of abusing the nydus worm every game =/ out of everything in this game nydus worm is the most broken thing i have ever seen straight up winning games every time i've played against it or used it i honestly feel like it's a hack/cheat. It just feels really ridiculous winning games with an invulnerable building in my opponent's base.
The people that say "you can stop it" and post those stupid screenshots of surrounding a nydus worm with 5 ebays...i cringe every time i see that because the Zerg they are playing doesn't just abuse the fact he can make a 2nd, 3rd, 4th nydus anywhere else in the guy's base or outside of it.
|
On December 05 2015 08:14 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 08:01 GinDo wrote:On December 05 2015 07:31 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 07:00 GinDo wrote:On December 05 2015 05:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen? Buffing mech Imagine all the dead vikings and medivacs. All the juicy clumped void rays You can do all you want, but you will never ever kill the medivac! Medivac is Terran, Terran is medivac, medivac we are all. All praise the medivac (and Dustin and David by association). Seriously though, as interesting the Medivac is, i think it's the worst think to have happened to Terran because the entire fucking race is now build around it. I thought it was bad when Hellbats were healed by it, but now even Tanks rely on it. You could not make it up i swear lol Totally agree, i also hate how medivac clouds block everything from view. To be honest i hate this whole air unit blob trend. In BW air unit had to be microed to be effective, now they just need to be massed. That's why i dont mind parasitic bomb or the new thor change, because mass air is ugly as hell. The only mass air i wanna see is BC Tank Goliath TvT. Heck i even did'nt even like Carrier Pvt in BW, Arbiter games were so much more fun. All races should have anti air like parasitic bomb. Air is too strong. PB isnt too strong, anti air in general is just too WEAK! Hopefully Thor buff means they will have similar AA too (and this is coming from a Zerg player)
Honestly, they should do that for all 3 races ground anti-air.
Buff hydralisk anti-air attack. Buff thor/cyclone anti-air attacks, and perhaps the stalker as well (so long as they buff/fix the siege tank ) Make it so each race has strong enough anti-air options that ground armies are able to be traded, and air remains for mostly specialized uses for say muta/banshee harrass.
Because seeing a Protoss just mass 10+ carriers and the opponent can't do anything at all other than mass his own air units is really frustrating. Same goes for Terran massing 10+ liberators, and Zerg massing brood with 10+ vipers.
If you see your opponent massing air, you should have some reliable way to respond by cranking out ground units so that action can happen in SC2. Otherwise, with air units being as strong as they are, once one person starts amassing that air army, the other person has to literally sit there and do the same exact thing...this has been an issue for a long time with Mech vs every race.
But in LOTV, the mass air issue now applies to all 3 races because vipers are broken, carriers got mega buffed, and liberators exist. So instead of being confined to mech vs Z/P, every single race now has their own super brood infestor type of army -_-
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
But in LOTV, the mass air issue now applies to all 3 races because vipers are broken, carriers got mega buffed, and liberators exist
Carriers are nerfed a ton from HOTS aside from release interceptor existing in a way that increases power. They have 50 less health and take way longer to get out because chrono is +15% instead of +50% but there's zero compensation in the build time for it.
|
On December 05 2015 08:04 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 03:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:I'm glad they finally addressed the mech and Siege Tank issue. Nice to see they are listening Also yeah. It's like they are purposely trying to ignore any and all things related to this lol.
They have been doing this since WoL and you know it. No other subject had so many blogs and threads filled with stats and custom made maps dedicated to it. It's not "like", they ARE avoiding it.
My comment at the bottom "Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!" is from when kespa joined SC2. It was clear then and it's clear now. I'm not expecting things to change TBH, David Kim wants bio with medivac to be terran; best case scenario, the factory units can be used as support.
Maybe i'm jaded but all the discussions on makeing a tank centric mech viable are just a pipe dream. I will continue to support this because i think stratigical-positioning based play centered on the Siege Tank is the apex of RTS. The Blizz team look more at MOBA then at RTS though IMO.
|
On December 05 2015 08:26 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +But in LOTV, the mass air issue now applies to all 3 races because vipers are broken, carriers got mega buffed, and liberators exist Carriers are nerfed a ton from HOTS aside from release interceptor existing in a way that increases power. They have 50 less health and take way longer to get out because chrono is +15% instead of +50% but there's zero compensation in the build time for it.
Dunno what game you are playing, carriers are insanely buffed from HOTS -> LOTV.
They are stronger because of AI changes with the leashing and just the way they work. Carriers in LOTV would literally pimp slap HOTS carriers out of the game lol :D
|
On December 05 2015 08:29 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 08:04 avilo wrote:On December 05 2015 03:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:I'm glad they finally addressed the mech and Siege Tank issue. Nice to see they are listening Also yeah. It's like they are purposely trying to ignore any and all things related to this lol. They have been doing this since WoL and you know it. No other subject had so many blogs and threads filled with stats and custom made maps dedicated to it. It's not "like", they ARE avoiding it. My comment at the bottom "Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!" is from when kespa joined SC2. It was clear then and it's clear now. I'm not expecting things to change TBH, David Kim wants bio with medivac to be terran; best case scenario, the factory units can be used as support. Maybe i'm jaded but all the discussions on makeing a tank centric mech viable are just a pipe dream. I will continue to support this because i think stratigical-positioning based play centered on the Siege Tank is the apex of RTS. The Blizz team look more at MOBA then at RTS though IMO.
ROFL i remember that...i can't find the article/interview though, do you have a link?
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
If you play pvp with LOTV carrier and don't use release interceptor, it's substantially weaker than HOTS with the +50 health and powerful chrono
|
United States525 Posts
As usual, right out of the gate, Dayvie doesn't concede any problems with balance. All of us just "need to wait for the pro players to show us the way." Dayvie...there are over 40% of players playing Zerg on ladder right now (aka. Zergcraft). I think that should be indicative of something "wrong" with the state of the game. That's when the bulb in your head should go off and lead one to question, "Why are there so many Zerg players!"
|
On December 05 2015 08:31 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 08:29 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 08:04 avilo wrote:On December 05 2015 03:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:I'm glad they finally addressed the mech and Siege Tank issue. Nice to see they are listening Also yeah. It's like they are purposely trying to ignore any and all things related to this lol. They have been doing this since WoL and you know it. No other subject had so many blogs and threads filled with stats and custom made maps dedicated to it. It's not "like", they ARE avoiding it. My comment at the bottom "Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!" is from when kespa joined SC2. It was clear then and it's clear now. I'm not expecting things to change TBH, David Kim wants bio with medivac to be terran; best case scenario, the factory units can be used as support. Maybe i'm jaded but all the discussions on makeing a tank centric mech viable are just a pipe dream. I will continue to support this because i think stratigical-positioning based play centered on the Siege Tank is the apex of RTS. The Blizz team look more at MOBA then at RTS though IMO. ROFL i remember that...i can't find the article/interview though, do you have a link?
Now i can't find it either, but it was taken from a team liquid interview/translation, so it's here.
|
On December 05 2015 08:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 07:02 robopork wrote:On December 05 2015 06:54 Hider wrote:We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts. Unpopular opinion, but I am actually starting to like the huge defenders advantage the low energy cost gives protoss as it makes them feel much more macrooriented and safe against stupid all-ins. 25 energy is ofc still in the low end, but I wonder if something like 30-35 wouldn't be better. I agree. It might very well need a nerf, but I'd like to see them try damage and/or duration reductions before they increase the energy cost. Another thing I would like to see is like a small delay. Perhaps 1 second before it starts firing so the attacker has a small window to retreat before his units starts getting killed.
I like that too, it gives the attacker the opportunity to snipe a pylon before it deals damage. That seems reasonable.
|
No mention of the weak tank, no Ravager nerfs, and no mention of how overturned parasitic bomb is. At least they addressed Zerg being too strong though.
At the very least I'm glad they're nerfing Photon Overcharge (completely broken ability) and looking into mech anti-air.
If the Thor trades some of it's ground power for air power though (as it should) then it's imperative that the tank properly fills it's role (which it doesn't at all).
|
On December 05 2015 08:26 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +But in LOTV, the mass air issue now applies to all 3 races because vipers are broken, carriers got mega buffed, and liberators exist Carriers are nerfed a ton from HOTS aside from release interceptor existing in a way that increases power. They have 50 less health and take way longer to get out because chrono is +15% instead of +50% but there's zero compensation in the build time for it.
Carriers are still way too strong if the Protoss is allowed to get a lot of them out (which shouldn't happen). I actually agree with a comment above that every race should get parasitic bomb because fuck mass air strategies, let alone them being the strongest in the game.
|
8748 Posts
I think the proposed PO change could upend a lot of builds. It's not as simple as looking at how people have played so far and seeing if the outcomes of games would change if PO was 50 energy and lasted longer. Players are playing knowing that it doesn't work like that. If they did, PvP could get messier and Protoss could get weaker against the other races, since the change would make it less effective in most situations. The current PO is in spirit with the theme of LotV in the sense that shorter duration and lower energy cost plays into more action. If it must be made weaker, then finding a damage reduction or attack speed reduction amount that would allow enemy units an extra moment to fight back or escape would feel better than the proposed redesign.
The PvP at DH is not going to be the last word on Disruptors by a long shot. The timing attacks that were hitting before an opponent got Disruptors out, or still had only a small number out, could have been executed a lot better. Players have been greedy with how they've been getting them and punishing that more effectively will reduce the number of Disruptors we see in general. Also we saw none of the Phoenix play designed to deal with Disruptors. In the first place, getting any kind of air unit dissuades someone from making a Disruptor-based army. But if they do march ahead with the Stalker/Disruptor army, then a small number of Phoenixes can lift enemy Disruptors while an anti-Stalker army marches in. Players are already doing it on the KR ladder. There are real builds for which this can actually be done at the pro level; this isn't some theorycrafted counter despite not seeing it at DH. Mass Stalker is too weak in mid-late game PvP without Disruptor support and so the composition is generally unreliable. I think PvP is a perfect situation to let develop rather than intervene in any way. Having said that in my paragraph about Disruptors, it's the PO change that would probably be more disruptive!
Reducing Carrier build time is probably the only hope Carriers have. If they're not used as part of some kind of surprise tech switch or as a finishing move that an already-losing player cannot deal with in time despite seeing it coming, then they're almost never going to be used at the pro level. All three races can currently deal with them too effectively, either by having wide windows to kill a player attempting to get them or by building units to kill the Interceptors or the Carriers themselves or, sadly enough, because their regular army that they were building anyway to deal with other things can also deal with Carriers.
|
On December 05 2015 09:03 NonY wrote:
I think the proposed PO change could upend a lot of builds. It's not as simple as looking at how people have played so far and seeing if the outcomes of games would change if PO was 50 energy and lasted longer. Players are playing knowing that it doesn't work like that. If they did, PvP could get messier and Protoss could get weaker against the other races, since the change would make it less effective in most situations. The current PO is in spirit with the theme of LotV in the sense that shorter duration and lower energy cost plays into more action. If it must be made weaker, then finding a damage reduction or attack speed reduction amount that would allow enemy units an extra moment to fight back or escape would feel better than the proposed redesign.
The PvP at DH is not going to be the last word on Disruptors by a long shot. The timing attacks that were hitting before an opponent got Disruptors out, or still had only a small number out, could have been executed a lot better. Players have been greedy with how they've been getting them and punishing that more effectively will reduce the number of Disruptors we see in general. Also we saw none of the Phoenix play designed to deal with Disruptors. In the first place, getting any kind of air unit dissuades someone from making a Disruptor-based army. But if they do march ahead with the Stalker/Disruptor army, then a small number of Phoenixes can lift enemy Disruptors while an anti-Stalker army marches in. Players are already doing it on the KR ladder. There are real builds for which this can actually be done at the pro level; this isn't some theorycrafted counter despite not seeing it at DH. Mass Stalker is too weak in mid-late game PvP without Disruptor support and so the composition is generally unreliable. I think PvP is a perfect situation to let develop rather than intervene in any way. Having said that in my paragraph about Disruptors, it's the PO change that would probably be more disruptive!
Reducing Carrier build time is probably the only hope Carriers have. If they're not used as part of some kind of surprise tech switch or as a finishing move that an already-losing player cannot deal with in time despite seeing it coming, then they're almost never going to be used at the pro level. All three races can currently deal with them too effectively, either by having wide windows to kill a player attempting to get them or by building units to kill the Interceptors or the Carriers themselves or, sadly enough, because their regular army that they were building anyway to deal with other things can also deal with Carriers.
Carriers are perfect as a surprise unit or a "you let me alone for to long" unit as long as they are a skill unit. A normal, core unit, they should never be.
Now you stop wasting time and get Incontrol and Day9 and start a new State of the Game! We miss you
|
On December 05 2015 08:14 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 08:01 GinDo wrote:On December 05 2015 07:31 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 07:00 GinDo wrote:On December 05 2015 05:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 05:36 pmp10 wrote:
Thor changes?
Not that I'm complaining but what discussion made that happen? Buffing mech Imagine all the dead vikings and medivacs. All the juicy clumped void rays You can do all you want, but you will never ever kill the medivac! Medivac is Terran, Terran is medivac, medivac we are all. All praise the medivac (and Dustin and David by association). Seriously though, as interesting the Medivac is, i think it's the worst think to have happened to Terran because the entire fucking race is now build around it. I thought it was bad when Hellbats were healed by it, but now even Tanks rely on it. You could not make it up i swear lol Totally agree, i also hate how medivac clouds block everything from view. To be honest i hate this whole air unit blob trend. In BW air unit had to be microed to be effective, now they just need to be massed. That's why i dont mind parasitic bomb or the new thor change, because mass air is ugly as hell. The only mass air i wanna see is BC Tank Goliath TvT. Heck i even did'nt even like Carrier Pvt in BW, Arbiter games were so much more fun. All races should have anti air like parasitic bomb. Air is too strong. PB isnt too strong, anti air in general is just too WEAK! Hopefully Thor buff means they will have similar AA too (and this is coming from a Zerg player)
I can agree that better anti air is needed, but imo the reason it's fine that Parasitic Bomb is SO strong, is because Zerg have in general pretty weak air styles and they're more supposed to dominate the ground. So they need a good answer for anti air aswell.
I'm fine with a Thor buff, but I wish they find one that distinguishes the attack from the Liberator more, as opposed to making the two more similar.
|
I'm usually on par with the community when it comes to whining about boring/poorly designed stuff but I feel like PvP isn't as bad at you guys depict it. I even KIND OF liked the disruptor wars that I watched during dreamhack. Yet again I haven't bought LotV (and probably won't) and haven't watched that many games.
|
- Disruptors should be able to move after they fire their shoot, also lurkers are not produced too early in the game, but can be produce 10 at a time by zerg while disruptors can be produces 2 at a time as 2 robo is a reasonable number on 3 bases . And lurker should cost a bit more too like a bit more gaz heavy i would say (150-170).
- Overcharge spam is not the real issue imo. The fact that it should be casted on pilones makes protoss overbuild them in the early game. They also have to be positionned in order to defend well but good placement for defense is not a placement for buildings. This makes protoss place more pilones than necessary or just put everything at the back of the mineral line. Simcity is very hard now and placing buildings to prevent a scout is even more difficult.
The lack of mineral makes protoss weaker against zerg, especialy heavy ling play or early attacks cuz there is no more meat shield.
-Ravager is a bit too strong i agree with that, stalker should be able to deal with them better.
-Oracle Stasis is trapping too few units it could be interresting to change this as it may change the midgame in zvp , maybe this could be better than a ravager nerf. It could also favorise mixed air and ground openings for protoss that makes him stronger in mid game when zerg decide to switch into mutas.
-Lotv Economic changes favorise zerg in my opinion and now zerg dont realy need an extra base anymore to compete with other races. It's like if they needed only half of a base i would say.
Thank you blizzard for your work and your great communication.
|
On December 05 2015 08:59 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 08:26 Cyro wrote:But in LOTV, the mass air issue now applies to all 3 races because vipers are broken, carriers got mega buffed, and liberators exist Carriers are nerfed a ton from HOTS aside from release interceptor existing in a way that increases power. They have 50 less health and take way longer to get out because chrono is +15% instead of +50% but there's zero compensation in the build time for it. Carriers are still way too strong if the Protoss is allowed to get a lot of them out (which shouldn't happen). I actually agree with a comment above that every race should get parasitic bomb because fuck mass air strategies, let alone them being the strongest in the game.
Parasitic bomb is basically a g0d mode seeker missile with no skill required. Even seeker could be completely avoided/micro'd against, parasitic bomb is just terrible gameplay period.
I agree with Carriers - because i've played all 3 races GM level, and won/lost in every single match-up. When i played ZvP/PvZ surprisingly Protoss was the race that i always won with if i got up to mass carrier / tempest / HT + mothership, and i always lost when i was the Zerg even with mass vipers/spores/hydra. Carriers are ridiculous.
As for every race getting parasitic bomb...i made an entire post about LOTV air units being too strong. Made it a few weeks ago, basically describing that once the game is more figured out every single game is going to trend towards massing your race's respective OP air unit - liberators, carriers, brood+viper.
Every race needs way better anti-air options from the ground. Hydralisks should demolish air units. Cyclones/thors should demolish air units. Stalkers arguably are already quite good against everything including air, and have "parasitic bomb" from the ground called psi storm.
Blizzard won't realize this for a few months though because they only look at early game metagame since that's all their designers are really familiar with. I can see how the meta will be months in advance because i play a defensive style with all 3 races and get to the ultimate late game.
Anyways, i agree - every race needs their "parasitic bomb". Protoss already has it aka psi storm.
Terran could get it in the next patch via new THOR DAMAGE that is splash.
Zerg should get it from a hydralisk upgrade or something or hydra buff to anti-air. And then delete parasitic bomb of course.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
I agree with Carriers - because i've played all 3 races GM level
Have you? The stuff i saw/heard implied you lost a lot and got to ~low master MMR when offracing. It was also much easier to rank on beta, my archon team was top top GM and that's two players that would never get GM on live.
|
On December 05 2015 10:21 Cyro wrote:Have you? The stuff i saw/heard implied you lost a lot and got to ~low master MMR when offracing
I have played all 3 races, every single match-up and won at GM level all through WOL, HOTS, and in LOTV. That includes mirrors of PvP/ZvZ, though obviously those are my worst match-ups out of all 9.
|
lol 50 energy.. RIP protoss to lings or any other units early in the game
"Hydras shoud demolish air units" Lol.. they do.. reason why carreir should be buffed. zerg can pop out counters before you even completed your compol
|
On December 05 2015 10:43 shin_toss wrote:
lol 50 energy.. RIP protoss to lings or any other units early in the game
Don't exaggerate. Adept still destroy all early game units.
|
Remember when Protoss' Gateway units were stronger than the other races' early game units?
Now we're discussing whether Protoss absolutely must have auto-defend pylon cannons in order to not die. This is nonsense.
|
On December 05 2015 10:24 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 10:21 Cyro wrote:I agree with Carriers - because i've played all 3 races GM level Have you? The stuff i saw/heard implied you lost a lot and got to ~low master MMR when offracing I have played all 3 races, every single match-up and won at GM level all through WOL, HOTS, and in LOTV. That includes mirrors of PvP/ZvZ, though obviously those are my worst match-ups out of all 9.
Proof?
|
I think the disruptor pvp DRAMA should stop.
Parting vs Showtime was the first pvp I enjoyed, maybe ever.
Pvp before, was get killed by my initial tech in 8 min, or lets both agree to wait another 10 min and mass and a move army.
Whoever has one more colo, wins (that was terrible).
Drisruptors make a combo of skill shots and blink dodges, add in the tempest. I would MUCH rather watch that fight then look at a couple massive colo/archon balls jerk off for positioning...
aka, late game hots pvp.
|
Make the MSC start with 0 energy. It will fix a lot of early game OPness. If it turns to 50, protoss is dead when we all realize how bad is lotv protoss macro without greedness.
|
On December 05 2015 10:24 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 10:21 Cyro wrote:I agree with Carriers - because i've played all 3 races GM level Have you? The stuff i saw/heard implied you lost a lot and got to ~low master MMR when offracing I have played all 3 races, every single match-up and won at GM level all through WOL, HOTS, and in LOTV. That includes mirrors of PvP/ZvZ, though obviously those are my worst match-ups out of all 9.
We're gonna need some evidence for this
|
-... DK point out wrong
Reason why Protoss is detrimental to zerg is not because ravager and lurker. Real reason is viper's skill, Parasitic bomb.
|
Address the worthless POS that you turned the swarm host into or just remove its carcass from the game
|
On December 05 2015 04:34 HeroMystic wrote:
They could just give back High Impact Payload and buff the Anti-Armor damage on that. I don't see why they got rid of it in the first place.
On December 05 2015 04:54 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Thor has guns on its back that cannot fire in a multiplayer game. How about removing them from the model and dropping the supply cost on the Thor?
On December 05 2015 05:52 Thouhastmail wrote:
Thor`s 250mm is for fashion confirmed
The Explosive Payload / Javelin Missile has been dumb ever since the 250mm cannons stopped being used for barrage. It's just bad design. Why use the tiny grey patches near the cockpit to fire missiles instead of the gigantic guns on the backpack?
Some design ideas for the anti-air buff:
1) Bring back Transformer Thor and buff High Impact Payload.
2) Nix the missiles and use 250mm cannons firing 12 flat damage (x4) with no projectile. Make the damage splash like a Flak Cannon.
3) Transformer Thor deploys like a Liberator, with an animation extending the heel claws and raising the 250mm cannons. It projects a forward-facing conical "no-fly zone" and is like the inverse of a Liberator: anything flying into that cone-shaped fire-zone get's BTFO by the 250mm cannons. EDIT Mech is all about stationary area-control; this could fit.
|
On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
"We heard your feedback regarding Disruptors... We noticed that the majority of feedback... We also heard... We also heard... We don’t quite agree... However, we appreciate... we did wonder..."
Yes, they heard all the feedback regarding the disruptor. But that doesn't mean shit, because they decided to filter out everything they heard.
|
On December 05 2015 08:06 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Balance changes at this point are senseless and an overreaction due to sucking at the game (i.e. less then pro players) it's simply way too soon, we've seen time and time again things that are OP after release (Hellbat drops anyone?) are figured out and become a non issue or perhaps an ever so slight nerf
I mean ... I don't disagree that the maps are part of the problem, but hellbat drops weren't "figured out". They were directly nerfed.
Yeah, the reason Blizzard claimed to need the nerf was "limiting diversity in TvT" by which they really could have said "hellbat drops are so strong that Terrans' only hope in winning against other terrans is by being better at it". Protoss and zerg weren't immune to this, it's just that Blizzard didn't think it was an issue (lots of P and Z did).
Sometimes, things can be figured out (timing attacks, for the most part, to either prevent something which truly isn't viable [once players are aware of the timing attack] ... or mitigation of timing attacks through different preparation / scouting). Most of the time, though, these are the only things that really change without a balance or map change.
Months and months of play aren't needed to see that PB shouldn't really stack.
Months and months of play aren't needed to see that Zerg is slightly too strong.
Some small changes can be done now to address issues that are glaring. Including, yes, less zerg-favored maps so that balance tuning can be more easily done.
|
What is very clear from the post is that there is a bias against zerg. Blizzard is much more willing to listen to complaints about zerg units and to nerf zerg units. the only goal for terran seems to be to get them to use a wider variety of units and this usually means that once they have made certain units ridiculously overpowered, their philosophy is to then buff the other terran units that seem weaker or less used in comparison. This approach is NEVER used by Blizzard when it comes to zerg. Blizzard is forced to admit that there were numerous complaints about the protoss disruptor and despite the ridiculous games involving mass stalker and disruptor in the Dreamhack tournament blatantly refuses to agree with what everyone can plainly see. Not only that, they actually said they want to make the disruptor not able to 1-shot other disruptors... which will only make disruptors get used even more. also the only thing that increasing the energy requirement AND duration for pylon overcharge is to decrease the micro required for a protoss player, making them MORE likely to use this ridiculous ability. I wish the word ridiculous didn't come to mind so often, but it does. I saw a couple of disruptor shots basically insta - kill about 5-6 ultralisks all at once in a particular high level game. And they don't think this is silly yet.
|
That suggestions to disruptor in PvP is actually really good, can't believe I didn't think of this simple yet effective change
|
If Thor deals flat damage, there's no need to nerf Tankivac; TvT will be dramatically changed because medivac will be easily dealt with Thor.
|
Carrier build time
We believe that we over-nerfed the Carrier during the beta. Due to how strong Carriers were with their new ability, we believe the stat nerf was good. However, we do wonder if we can reduce Carrier build time again so that we can have more Carrier play in Protoss matchups. We think the main cool factor of this unit is that it’s rarely seen.
I also feel making them more accessible is the wrong direction, if anything, i prefer if the release interceptors ability is gone/removed and the BW stats are restored - like 4+1+1+1 armor, 300 health & 140 build time (or maybe 160 because of chrono) is the correct way to do it.
Keeping carrier rare and cool is the right direction.
Also i hate the fact that protoss units are becoming made of glass....
Pylon Overcharge
We’re wondering if we can go ahead with increasing the energy cost to 50 for this, while also increasing the duration on this ability. When we analyzed Protoss games so far, it looked to us that the results of most games wouldn’t have changed drastically even with this change. We believe this change could improve the game because it would reward players that are being offensive against Protoss for utilizing good positioning as Overcharge won’t be able to cover as much ground as it does now. We are considering moving forward with this change sooner than we expected, so please give us your thoughts.
Photon overcharge needs to go entirely, i rather have the MS core spawn a phase canon for 100 energy for some fair/moderate defense
|
Genuinely curious, why don't terran players make ghosts against ultras? Their new ability shreds ultras in seconds. Also to people who are saying blizzcon much have watched a different tourney. At dream hack zerg didn't do very good outside of solar (hint: Byun wasn't there. Byun would have done the same thing as a terran if he'd been there)
|
Ravager required Lair; Ultralisk Armor back to +3; Disruptor Smart Casting improved; Make Thors smaller, cheaper and more mobile (and call them Goliaths :p); change Cyclones.
Then go from there.
|
On December 05 2015 18:31 Vedeynevin wrote:
At dream hack zerg didn't do very good outside of solar
More than half the players who won money at Dreamhack (top 12) were Zerg. Firecake who people didn't even know was good at LotV took 3rd place. If that's what it looks like when they're not doing well, I hope they never do well.
Also using ghosts properly is pretty difficult. Even out of the Korean Terrans I've seen do it, ByuN is the only one who actually makes it work consistently. At that point it's really easier to make 10 liberators and hope the Zerg suicides in. Or attack and hope someone dies before ultras come out. Also they cost a lot of money 
|
On December 05 2015 13:44 baabaa wrote:
What is very clear from the post is that there is a bias against zerg. Blizzard is much more willing to listen to complaints about zerg units and to nerf zerg units. the only goal for terran seems to be to get them to use a wider variety of units and this usually means that once they have made certain units ridiculously overpowered, their philosophy is to then buff the other terran units that seem weaker or less used in comparison. This approach is NEVER used by Blizzard when it comes to zerg. Blizzard is forced to admit that there were numerous complaints about the protoss disruptor and despite the ridiculous games involving mass stalker and disruptor in the Dreamhack tournament blatantly refuses to agree with what everyone can plainly see. Not only that, they actually said they want to make the disruptor not able to 1-shot other disruptors... which will only make disruptors get used even more. also the only thing that increasing the energy requirement AND duration for pylon overcharge is to decrease the micro required for a protoss player, making them MORE likely to use this ridiculous ability. I wish the word ridiculous didn't come to mind so often, but it does. I saw a couple of disruptor shots basically insta - kill about 5-6 ultralisks all at once in a particular high level game. And they don't think this is silly yet.
You sound like a butt-hurt Zerg. Ever thought of using statistics to check whether your fantasies are well founded? Blizzard refused to nerf Zerg during the BL/Infestor era when they completely dominated. As for Terran Blizzard took 8 months to fix the blink all in fiasco that led to only 3 Terrans out of 32 in Code S - remember ZParcraft??
Currently Zerg are dominating (although it is still early and strats are not thought out) and Blizz are keeping an eye on it. That seems fair, but if you consider that in terms of Premier and Major tournament wins Terran were almost removed from the game in 2015 there is little hope that Blizz will move quickly to address balance issues.
|
On December 05 2015 18:31 Vedeynevin wrote:
Genuinely curious, why don't terran players make ghosts against ultras? Their new ability shreds ultras in seconds. Also to people who are saying blizzcon much have watched a different tourney. At dream hack zerg didn't do very good outside of solar (hint: Byun wasn't there. Byun would have done the same thing as a terran if he'd been there)
Have you ever seens Terrans screw up their micro in a MLB vs Bio engagement? Now do the same micro, while being punished harder, on worse maps, with more action going on, WHILST using a channel spell on highly expensive, hard to produce Ghosts.
That's why.
Gonna take some time to learn the stuff
|
Pylon overcharge does not need to be in the game. Giving one race the best early game harassment and best early game defence is dumb beyond belief. Change the energy cost to 50, do not buff. Harassment should leave you somewhat vulnerable at home.
Thor model should be reduced in size too - they are too clunky. They do need the extra AA though - the current situation with air armies is not just ridiculous but also boring to watch.
A small reduction in ghost cost would be welcome too as they are rarely used.
|
|
|
Dear posters; I understand some of you want to vent frustration after you ladder. I also understand some of you like to vent frustration after your real life obligations/frustrations.
But cursing and speaking your mind right now is really just poor feedback.
First of all; we should be more patient. We have seen with the other expansions that the meta first needs to develop a bit before we see the races used better.
Second of all; a lot of criticism in here is just baseless cursing and yelling without anything substantial to back it up. Remember; the guys over at Blizzard are human beings too. Please try to moderate your tone.
Regards; a silent site-lurker.
|
|
|
On December 05 2015 19:12 MaestroMaus wrote:
Dear posters; I understand some of you want to vent frustration after you ladder. I also understand some of you like to vent frustration after your real life obligations/frustrations.
But cursing and speaking your mind right now is really just poor feedback.
First of all; we should be more patient. We have seen with the other expansions that the meta first needs to develop a bit before we see the races used better.
Second of all; a lot of criticism in here is just baseless cursing and yelling without anything substantial to back it up. Remember; the guys over at Blizzard are human beings too. Please try to moderate your tone.
Regards; a silent site-lurker.
I think lurkers are OP
Seriously though we should not do any huge changes before PL and GSL start again. Nydus, pylon spamming etc can be tweaked but hopefully they don´t change anything too drastically and give us some proper MAPS! I´m also pretty sure that TvZ will be balanced or even terran favored in the future is zerg must play roach/ravager every game. Once other top terrans really start playing Lotv, i doubt zerg´s will have fun times defending against drops without mutas/corrupters. (I know ultras are OP etc but few ultras won´t help you if you get crushed in the mid game by drops and bio).
Not sure about the thor buff. Would people use it instead of liberators? Would that make mutas even less of a thing v T? LBM seems to be quite dead so what use would thor have in the matchup? Maybe take the air AOE away from liberators and buff thor AA to encourage people to use thor´s and not liberators.
|
On December 05 2015 19:18 Scrubwave wrote:
Please, "human beings" over at Blizzard have been receiving feedback about, for example, mech being nearly useless for months (years even?). Must be the tone here that makes them incompetent.
And they have listened, not many people want Mech in the game. Thank you Blizzard for listening
|
On December 05 2015 11:43 ValidParties wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:34 HeroMystic wrote:
They could just give back High Impact Payload and buff the Anti-Armor damage on that. I don't see why they got rid of it in the first place. Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 04:54 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Thor has guns on its back that cannot fire in a multiplayer game. How about removing them from the model and dropping the supply cost on the Thor? Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 05:52 Thouhastmail wrote:
Thor`s 250mm is for fashion confirmed The Explosive Payload / Javelin Missile has been dumb ever since the 250mm cannons stopped being used for barrage. It's just bad design. Why use the tiny grey patches near the cockpit to fire missiles instead of the gigantic guns on the backpack? Some design ideas for the anti-air buff: 1) Bring back Transformer Thor and buff High Impact Payload. 2) Nix the missiles and use 250mm cannons firing 12 flat damage (x4) with no projectile. Make the damage splash like a Flak Cannon. 3) Transformer Thor deploys like a Liberator, with an animation extending the heel claws and raising the 250mm cannons. It projects a forward-facing conical "no-fly zone" and is like the inverse of a Liberator: anything flying into that cone-shaped fire-zone get's BTFO by the 250mm cannons. EDIT Mech is all about stationary area-control; this could fit.
Ha!
www.teamliquid.net
Tank for ground zoning, Thor for Air zoning, Liberator for trash can zoning.
|
On December 05 2015 19:26 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 19:12 MaestroMaus wrote:
Dear posters; I understand some of you want to vent frustration after you ladder. I also understand some of you like to vent frustration after your real life obligations/frustrations.
But cursing and speaking your mind right now is really just poor feedback.
First of all; we should be more patient. We have seen with the other expansions that the meta first needs to develop a bit before we see the races used better.
Second of all; a lot of criticism in here is just baseless cursing and yelling without anything substantial to back it up. Remember; the guys over at Blizzard are human beings too. Please try to moderate your tone.
Regards; a silent site-lurker. I think lurkers are OP Seriously though we should not do any huge changes before PL and GSL start again. Nydus, pylon spamming etc can be tweaked but hopefully they don´t change anything too drastically and give us some proper MAPS! I´m also pretty sure that TvZ will be balanced or even terran favored in the future is zerg must play roach/ravager every game. Once other top terrans really start playing Lotv, i doubt zerg´s will have fun times defending against drops without mutas/corrupters. (I know ultras are OP etc but few ultras won´t help you if you get crushed in the mid game by drops and bio). Not sure about the thor buff. Would people use it instead of liberators? Would that make mutas even less of a thing v T? LBM seems to be quite dead so what use would thor have in the matchup? Maybe take the air AOE away from liberators and buff thor AA to encourage people to use thor´s and not liberators.
Thors and Liberators aren't competing with each other. Thor pretty much only exists right now to compete with Ultras when the Terran player doesn't like the idea of using Ghosts. Liberators are used to zone out ground armies with Defender Mode, meaning they can't use their Anti-Air and relies on other Anti-Air to not die.
Thor's actual competition is with the Siege Tank. In smaller numbers, Thor's ground DPS is better, but in bigger numbers and with plausible fodder to support them, a group of Siege Tanks drastically trumps Thors in damage. Thor's Anti-air has been complete and utter garbage to anything besides a Mutalisk-ball ever since WoL, and Thors have been easily Magic-box'd due to their slowness (magic boxing also works against Liberators, but Liberators are much faster with a better firing rate, so this turns into a micro battle, unlike the Thor where it's basically a sitting duck). The Thor was meant to be a general all-purpose unit (like the Marine), but the lack of Factory Anti-Air forced them into that role.
|
On December 05 2015 18:31 Vedeynevin wrote:
Genuinely curious, why don't terran players make ghosts against ultras? Their new ability shreds ultras in seconds. Also to people who are saying blizzcon much have watched a different tourney. At dream hack zerg didn't do very good outside of solar (hint: Byun wasn't there. Byun would have done the same thing as a terran if he'd been there)
Its a consequence of a consequence, something like not very well thought design that lead to another design-decision, let me explain:
- I am talking about making the ghost very well rounded combat unit that is both tanky & damage dealing, which lead to very high resource costs, and this high price makes ghosts unattractive option.
Maybe if they would be less of a combat unit and more of a specialty unit things would be much different.
lets say something like 70hp instead of 100
Reduce damage from 10(20vs light) to 2(20vs light)
Reduce cost to 25M/125G
And greatly reduce nuke costs, maybe something like 25M/75G
There will be no reason not to use ghosts
|
Thor change might give the Thor a reasonable role in the game again.
But Mech still wont be viable in TvZ or TvP, simply because it's way to weak.
I would rather see a corrosive bill upgrade instead of a dmg nerf - but as long as they nerf the ravager some how, then it's gonna be good.
Still no BC or big mech change T_T
|
On December 05 2015 03:57 scoo2r wrote:
Maybe forcefields could block or cancel out the disruptor shot
That would be awesome since you could block the disruptor shot really close to the other player army
On December 05 2015 18:49 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 13:44 baabaa wrote:
What is very clear from the post is that there is a bias against zerg. Blizzard is much more willing to listen to complaints about zerg units and to nerf zerg units. the only goal for terran seems to be to get them to use a wider variety of units and this usually means that once they have made certain units ridiculously overpowered, their philosophy is to then buff the other terran units that seem weaker or less used in comparison. This approach is NEVER used by Blizzard when it comes to zerg. Blizzard is forced to admit that there were numerous complaints about the protoss disruptor and despite the ridiculous games involving mass stalker and disruptor in the Dreamhack tournament blatantly refuses to agree with what everyone can plainly see. Not only that, they actually said they want to make the disruptor not able to 1-shot other disruptors... which will only make disruptors get used even more. also the only thing that increasing the energy requirement AND duration for pylon overcharge is to decrease the micro required for a protoss player, making them MORE likely to use this ridiculous ability. I wish the word ridiculous didn't come to mind so often, but it does. I saw a couple of disruptor shots basically insta - kill about 5-6 ultralisks all at once in a particular high level game. And they don't think this is silly yet. You sound like a butt-hurt Zerg. Ever thought of using statistics to check whether your fantasies are well founded? Blizzard refused to nerf Zerg during the BL/Infestor era when they completely dominated. As for Terran Blizzard took 8 months to fix the blink all in fiasco that led to only 3 Terrans out of 32 in Code S - remember ZParcraft?? Currently Zerg are dominating (although it is still early and strats are not thought out) and Blizz are keeping an eye on it. That seems fair, but if you consider that in terms of Premier and Major tournament wins Terran were almost removed from the game in 2015 there is little hope that Blizz will move quickly to address balance issues.
I like how you didn't mention GomTvT
|
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once.
|
On December 05 2015 21:16 FFW_Rude wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 03:57 scoo2r wrote:
Maybe forcefields could block or cancel out the disruptor shot That would be awesome since you could block the disruptor shot really close to the other player army Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 18:49 DeadByDawn wrote:On December 05 2015 13:44 baabaa wrote:
What is very clear from the post is that there is a bias against zerg. Blizzard is much more willing to listen to complaints about zerg units and to nerf zerg units. the only goal for terran seems to be to get them to use a wider variety of units and this usually means that once they have made certain units ridiculously overpowered, their philosophy is to then buff the other terran units that seem weaker or less used in comparison. This approach is NEVER used by Blizzard when it comes to zerg. Blizzard is forced to admit that there were numerous complaints about the protoss disruptor and despite the ridiculous games involving mass stalker and disruptor in the Dreamhack tournament blatantly refuses to agree with what everyone can plainly see. Not only that, they actually said they want to make the disruptor not able to 1-shot other disruptors... which will only make disruptors get used even more. also the only thing that increasing the energy requirement AND duration for pylon overcharge is to decrease the micro required for a protoss player, making them MORE likely to use this ridiculous ability. I wish the word ridiculous didn't come to mind so often, but it does. I saw a couple of disruptor shots basically insta - kill about 5-6 ultralisks all at once in a particular high level game. And they don't think this is silly yet. You sound like a butt-hurt Zerg. Ever thought of using statistics to check whether your fantasies are well founded? Blizzard refused to nerf Zerg during the BL/Infestor era when they completely dominated. As for Terran Blizzard took 8 months to fix the blink all in fiasco that led to only 3 Terrans out of 32 in Code S - remember ZParcraft?? Currently Zerg are dominating (although it is still early and strats are not thought out) and Blizz are keeping an eye on it. That seems fair, but if you consider that in terms of Premier and Major tournament wins Terran were almost removed from the game in 2015 there is little hope that Blizz will move quickly to address balance issues. I like how you didn't mention GomTvT
That too. But I was really responding to the claim that Blizz is biased against Zerg and favor Terran. I want all races to have a chance of winning - that way when my favourite Terrans win it is meaningful. I generally dislike mirror matches, and the blue flame Hellion wars at MLG, and the Hellbat drop wars in HoTS were of little interest to me.
Also, the idea that Force Fields should block disruptor shots is a good one. You should be able to EMP the shot as well.
|
Carrier change is good, Thor change is fantastic (maybe now we can use the big cannons animation instead ?). I don't really care about the other changes.
The co-op thing is good.
|
China6327 Posts
Can't they just let the players pick game speed in coop? It's a weird design choice.
|
On December 05 2015 22:37 digmouse wrote:
Can't they just let the players pick game speed in coop? It's a weird design choice.
I think it is for the same reason we don't have additional difficulties.
It is supposed to be a game mode for everyone.
That was their response to people saying that the co op was to easy.
|
On December 05 2015 22:37 digmouse wrote:
Can't they just let the players pick game speed in coop? It's a weird design choice.
Wouldn't it be complicated to find matching partners then, unless you played on the most popular - highest - speed?
|
The carrier absolutely does not need a buff, and the photon overcharge should be flat out nerfed without a duration increase.
|
Buffing carrier isn't good. They are not fun in any way. The only way to use them is to turtle and amove. Any micro and fun resembling their BW state is gone.
|
On December 05 2015 19:30 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 19:18 Scrubwave wrote:
Please, "human beings" over at Blizzard have been receiving feedback about, for example, mech being nearly useless for months (years even?). Must be the tone here that makes them incompetent. And they have listened, not many people want Mech in the game. Thank you Blizzard for listening
I dont like playing vs Protoss pls remove Blizzard kthx. Yes we should base decisions only on majorities so we buff the most played race and nerf or remove the others. This is the game everyone wants.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On December 06 2015 00:12 Tuczniak wrote:
Buffing carrier isn't good. They are not fun in any way. The only way to use them is to turtle and amove. Any micro and fun resembling their BW state is gone.
Have you played carrier in legacy? They added some control and can add a lot more. You're also saying no buff for design reasons, rather than balance reasons. I think a lot of the designs suck too but it doesn't change how much better or worse than your opponent you need to be to win when using strategies revolving around X unit/style.
|
On December 06 2015 00:12 Tuczniak wrote:
Buffing carrier isn't good. They are not fun in any way. The only way to use them is to turtle and amove. Any micro and fun resembling their BW state is gone.
That type of argument can be broadly applied to many units and strategies in the game though. Blizzard has put in too many units and many of them with questionable design. Now they either make them viable - which might lead to rotten playstyles - or they leave them useless - which is incredibly bad design to begin with.
It's a bit of a catch-22 at this point, if they don't consider real deep design changes like making air units viable around more harass and less about combat (BC, BL, Carrier, Voidray), or tackling fundamental issues with playstyles like Mech - insane power for insanely bad production and mobility --> turtleplay.
|
Don't think we should change anything right now
|
On December 05 2015 04:15 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 03:41 eviltomahawk wrote:
We definitely hear your feedback about Zerg being stronger, and in the games we play ourselves, we can see that a bit. However, in the highest level games that happened so far what we’re seeing is a bit different. I'm a bit confused by that statement. What games do they look at? Only Dreamhack? Only offline? Everything including online cups?
I think you are mis-interpreting their statement. They are looking at the same games we are watching. They just have a different perspective/opinion on those games.
|
I don't like the idea of forcefields blocking disruptor shots. In fact, I am not a fan of any ability canceling out another. I know there are a few interactions currently in the game (e.g. corrosive bile vs forcefields), but I think these kinds of interaction should be highly limited.
Let me explain my reasoning.
In a game with lots of abilities, it will become too much hard counters if ability interaction starts canceling each other out. Imagine if EMP also canceled out Immortal's new hardened shield? What if storm also cleared away viper blinding cloud? You see the problem?
As well, describing abilities will be problematic. Blizzard wants abilities that are easy to describe. If abilities start canceling each other out, should players be told what are these interactions? Should they learn through the fire?
I do think forcefields blocking disruptor shots might be interesting to test, but these kinds of interactions should be kept as minimal as possible.
|
On December 05 2015 21:20 HeroMystic wrote:
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once.
Another problem of using ghosts to counter Ultras is that, as you said, you need meat shield in front, and this meat shield simply disappears in seconds against ultra's AOE.
|
On December 06 2015 02:13 Fran_ wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 21:20 HeroMystic wrote:
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once. Another problem of using ghosts to counter Ultras is that, as you said, you need meat shield in front, and this meat shield simply disappears in seconds against ultra's AOE.
I think players will learn how to use ghost better. This isn't like feedback. It can be interrupted and all your ghosts are suddenly dead. When ByuN uses them they're never in the open. His ghost are always up a cliff or behind gap or someplace where lings and ultras can't interrupt their spell.
|
On December 06 2015 02:25 royalroadweed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 02:13 Fran_ wrote:On December 05 2015 21:20 HeroMystic wrote:
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once. Another problem of using ghosts to counter Ultras is that, as you said, you need meat shield in front, and this meat shield simply disappears in seconds against ultra's AOE. I think players will learn how to use ghost better. This isn't like feedback. It can be interrupted and all your ghosts are suddenly dead. When ByuN uses them they're never in the open. His ghost are always up a cliff or behind gap or someplace where lings and ultras can't interrupt their spell.
In other words, Ghosts are mech now.
|
Im going to throw something out there..i think the game had sped up TOO much. Because of the low resource number per base games end sooner because minerals run out quicker. 2 base plays have less chance of successful transition to third base rtc etc. i hate not having intense late games. I rarely see teir 3 because of this. Whats the point of having teir three if its never used? I think just making the minerals 1200 and 1500. Would be a compromise between HOTS and Cocaine lotv right now. 1200 mins may not sound like a lot, but look how much things changed with 2400 mineral decrease per base!
|
On December 06 2015 03:11 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
Im going to throw something out there..i think the game had sped up TOO much. Because of the low resource number per base games end sooner because minerals run out quicker. 2 base plays have less chance of successful transition to third base rtc etc. i hate not having intense late games. I rarely see teir 3 because of this. Whats the point of having teir three if its never used? I think just making the minerals 1200 and 1500. Would be a compromise between HOTS and Cocaine lotv right now. 1200 mins may not sound like a lot, but look how much things changed with 2400 mineral decrease per base!
Well, the game is still pretty new and noone knows how to react properly. Therefore 2 basing is much more successful to begin with and then on top of that, mainly due to the changes and the 12 worker start we don't even know if certain timings are even fair, so those get played much more than they hopefully will get played eventually. Therefore many games end long before the lategame.
I don't think it has that much to do with the mineral change.
|
On December 06 2015 02:25 royalroadweed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 02:13 Fran_ wrote:On December 05 2015 21:20 HeroMystic wrote:
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once. Another problem of using ghosts to counter Ultras is that, as you said, you need meat shield in front, and this meat shield simply disappears in seconds against ultra's AOE. I think players will learn how to use ghost better. This isn't like feedback. It can be interrupted and all your ghosts are suddenly dead. When ByuN uses them they're never in the open. His ghost are always up a cliff or behind gap or someplace where lings and ultras can't interrupt their spell.
The problem with this though, is that although it's doable, it totally nullifies a major characteristic of bio; i.e. that it is flexible and can easily reposition and take fights most places. People won't use the ghost for the same reason that people won't use the ghost much in TvP, because using it necessarily limits the capability of your bio army.
|
On December 05 2015 08:41 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 08:31 avilo wrote:On December 05 2015 08:29 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 05 2015 08:04 avilo wrote:On December 05 2015 03:59 Sapphire.lux wrote:I'm glad they finally addressed the mech and Siege Tank issue. Nice to see they are listening Also yeah. It's like they are purposely trying to ignore any and all things related to this lol. They have been doing this since WoL and you know it. No other subject had so many blogs and threads filled with stats and custom made maps dedicated to it. It's not "like", they ARE avoiding it. My comment at the bottom "Head Coach Park: "They should buff tanks!" is from when kespa joined SC2. It was clear then and it's clear now. I'm not expecting things to change TBH, David Kim wants bio with medivac to be terran; best case scenario, the factory units can be used as support. Maybe i'm jaded but all the discussions on makeing a tank centric mech viable are just a pipe dream. I will continue to support this because i think stratigical-positioning based play centered on the Siege Tank is the apex of RTS. The Blizz team look more at MOBA then at RTS though IMO. ROFL i remember that...i can't find the article/interview though, do you have a link? Now i can't find it either, but it was taken from a team liquid interview/translation, so it's here.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/news-archive/339200-interviews-bisu-coach-park-and-jaedong#park
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
On December 06 2015 02:25 royalroadweed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 02:13 Fran_ wrote:On December 05 2015 21:20 HeroMystic wrote:
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once. Another problem of using ghosts to counter Ultras is that, as you said, you need meat shield in front, and this meat shield simply disappears in seconds against ultra's AOE. I think players will learn how to use ghost better. This isn't like feedback. It can be interrupted and all your ghosts are suddenly dead. When ByuN uses them they're never in the open. His ghost are always up a cliff or behind gap or someplace where lings and ultras can't interrupt their spell.
I haven't got to see Byun's Ghost play in action, heard a fair bit about it though. Pretty intrigued to check it out, any idea where I could find some VoDs of him playing with them in TvZ?
|
On December 06 2015 01:46 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
I don't like the idea of forcefields blocking disruptor shots. In fact, I am not a fan of any ability canceling out another. I know there are a few interactions currently in the game (e.g. corrosive bile vs forcefields), but I think these kinds of interaction should be highly limited.
Let me explain my reasoning.
In a game with lots of abilities, it will become too much hard counters if ability interaction starts canceling each other out. Imagine if EMP also canceled out Immortal's new hardened shield? What if storm also cleared away viper blinding cloud? You see the problem?
As well, describing abilities will be problematic. Blizzard wants abilities that are easy to describe. If abilities start canceling each other out, should players be told what are these interactions? Should they learn through the fire?
I do think forcefields blocking disruptor shots might be interesting to test, but these kinds of interactions should be kept as minimal as possible.
I think it's an intuitive change though, since people keep independently coming up with the same suggestion. Maybe it would be correct to add a small visual effect to a disruptor shot being blocked / deflected so that it becomes clearer to players.
Honestly I don't think every interaction in the game needs to be documented thoroughly, especially for something that's only useful for mirror match-ups. Because even if you weren't aware of this functionality of forcefield, you'll spot it the first time you're using disruptors against another protoss. Seeing something in a game is a better way to learn and discover than having to read a tooltip and personally I think it could be a quite cool experience for a new player to witness that.
|
Wooohooo, what a overall meaningless update from Blizzard. They are not adressing most of the important things at all:
- Ultralisk armor, esp. in combination with the significant (!!!!) Maradeur nerf
- Viper lategame/air strength
- Untouchable nydus worm
- Ravager strength/accessibility
- Stupid tankivac mechanic (please simply remove this shi**)
- Reaper grenades hurting early game and not enabling reaper use in later stages
- Terran gameplay has to be centered around a bad designed (op) unit like the liberator to stand a chance in both matchups
- Weakness of tanks & cyclones and mech in general
- Untouchable Protoss early/midgame due to spammable overcharge while having all offensive "killing" options (e.g. WP+Adept, Oracles, etc etc) at the same time
- Disruptor focus in all P matchups
- Bad/unusable units: ghost, infestor, swarmhost etc etc
The game feels overall very bad from a terran perspective. The race feels very weak and vulnerable in the early- and midgame and you basically have to survive until you reach a good liberator count. The entire terran gameplan is centered around reaching liberators which is bad. The unit is loveless designed, misses the originally role of a AA-unit and is kinda overpowered right now. The TvX winrates might be okay-ish at the moment, but playing terran feels really stupid and dumb.
On December 05 2015 05:08 heishe wrote:
Except those are not genuinely huge issues and players probably just haven't figured out how to deal with it correctly. For example, Nydus all ins are no problem if you actually prioritize your economy correctly: You just have to have enough stuff to defend vs them. But many players get caught off guard or were too greedy before and then complain when their wall doesn't save them. I mean, your perspective is kind of funny, because the entire reason for wanting to kill a nydus before units come out is because you have no way to deal with them once the units arrive. This just should never be case, and you have to adapt your openings and game progression to survive vs nydus all ins, not ask Blizzard for letting you kill Nydus so you don't have to deal with the units that come through them.
(...)
But instead they just try to copy all BOs of pros they knew in the past, without actually thinking about why they're doing what they're doing. And as a result Zerg dominates, because Zerg players have been learning this skill since the very beginning when SC2 came out. To scout opponents eco, interpret it, and react to it in just the right manner that you have an econ advantage while also not dying to aggression. And the other two races now need to figure this out vs Zerg, but haven't.
Oh dude, what a biased statement! Let me answer from a terran perspective here:
- Scouting: I would love to put my flying depots on high grounds around the opponents base, but thats not possible. In reality scouting options past the reaper era are somewhat limited (speedling map control) or expensive (scan). It's not that easy to exactly figure out what the zerg is doing because he needs no real infrastructure to produce and you only see if he is building drones or units when the eggs pop. It's obv. possible to scout for a 3rd base timing, the amount of units/queens and maybe the gas timing at the natural, but you'll never know exactly what the zerg is planning. When you for example scout a "normal" timed 3rd base, you can not know if the zerg is aiming for a full saturation there OR if he plans to use the additional hatchery only for distraction and as a additional production facility.
- Adjustment: In comparison to zerg the other races can not adjust fast and without difficulties to scouting information. We have to setup production infrastructure a long time before we can actually start pumping out units. We probably have to start building our 3rd command center BEFORE we are able to scout the zergs allin to not be behind by default. We obv. can stop worker production, but the effect on our unit production is very limited, because we don't have additional infrastructure to spend our (saved) money. It's sometimes simply not possible to have enough stuff do defend because we have to make critical decisions (e.g. 3rd CC vs 4th/5th barracks) a lot earlier in the game and can not adjust in real time.
- Wall-in/Nydus worm: I really had to laugh here! The entire game is balanced around using structures to block off certain areas, otherwise terrans would simply be overrun by zergs in the early game. You need to have a defenders advantage to enable strategic play and decision making. The invulnerable nydus worm (combined with a proper roach allin) is kinda unstoppable even when scouted. It feels overall wrong to me that you are not able to deny/react to something even when you managed to spot it PLUS it looks really dumb/stupid when your entire army/workerline is surrounding a invulnerable enemy building
Just my 2 cents & sorry for bad english
|
The problem with ravagers (for terran) is
A: they can come out almost as fast as a reaper,
B: if a terran sees roaches early game he is forced to overeact because...
C. Bile does too much to bunkers, tank and medi are only way and
D. Zerg has no investment going the route, they can just not morph ravagers and be ahead because terran had to prepare.
To fix most of these, why not make the roach warren morph into something in order to make ravagers, that way terran can scan and see if they need to prepare and zergs have to invest more into a rush. I dont know why roachs dont need a special buildig to morph to ravagers when...
Ling needa bane nest to morph banes
Hydra need lurker den to morph lurkers
Corruptor need greater spire to morph brood lord
Overlord need lair to morph overseer
Roaches need no further tech to morph ravager!?!?
Like why!?
|
On December 06 2015 04:46 StaN.de wrote:
- Terran gameplay has to be centered around a bad designed (op) unit like the liberator to stand a chance in both matchups
that's true; i feel like protoss in wol and hots with the collossus.
|
On December 06 2015 05:33 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 04:46 StaN.de wrote:
- Terran gameplay has to be centered around a bad designed (op) unit like the liberator to stand a chance in both matchups
that's true; i feel like protoss in wol and hots with the collossus.
I would say it's built around the medivac.
|
On December 06 2015 05:32 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote:
The problem with ravagers (for terran) is
A: they can come out almost as fast as a reaper,
B: if a terran sees roaches early game he is forced to overeact because...
C. Bile does too much to bunkers, tank and medi are only way and
D. Zerg has no investment going the route, they can just not morph ravagers and be ahead because terran had to prepare.
To fix most of these, why not make the roach warren morph into something in order to make ravagers, that way terran can scan and see if they need to prepare and zergs have to invest more into a rush. I dont know why roachs dont need a special buildig to morph to ravagers when...
Ling needa bane nest to morph banes
Hydra need lurker den to morph lurkers
Corruptor need greater spire to morph brood lord
Overlord need lair to morph overseer
Roaches need no further tech to morph ravager!?!?
Like why!?
A) I don't get how this is even relevant but anyways it's objectively false. Even if you went all in went 13 pool -> roach warren -> roach -> ravager your opponent can probably have 2 reapers by the time you get the first ravager. Unless you mean the build time of a roach + upgrade time to ravager. In that case I have no idea how this is relevant to anything. Imo it wouldn't change a thing if the upgrade time of ravagers was increased to 15 seconds for example.
B,C) No, you don't understand how to counter them. Roach/ravager push is countered by mass marines and micro + medivacs, nothing to do with tanks.
D) No investment? They cost 100 gas each, it completely disables Zerg from going Mutas right after, for example, and it will significantly delay Zerg tech for quite a while. Not to mention that Zergs actually have to spend the larvae (instead of droning up themselves) in order to reliably push and do enough damage to make it worth it).
Ravagers primary use is actually in breaking up walls and other static defenses to punish opponents who rely too much on their walls and not enough on actual units. The same for Nydus network. Imo they are completely useless against actual units because you can easily outmicro the biles. I get quite happy in ZvZ every time I see my opponent over invest in ravagers for this exact reason.
I will say it again, the perspective of people who complain about Ultras/Nydus and Ravagers is completely wrong and warped. They expect to not have to adapt to something and still win. Afraid of Nydus? Make some actual units instead of hardcore teching early on. Afraid of Ultras? How about you don't mass M&m and do more tanks and hellbats instead? Afraid of ravagers? Again, rely on units, not on your wall, and learn to micro. I facepalm every time when I see a replay where a dude has no units and gets crushed by Nydus because they don't scout and have not learned to interpret Zerg drone counts + expo timings + units that are already in their base, and have tons of tech buildings in their base and upgrades running instead of actually having units to defend.
Although my point on the ravager bile might be significantly less true in lower leagues (diamond and below). I suppose players of equal skill level there will heavily favor Zerg because bile is easier to use than it is to micro away from the bile shots. This is a design problem with I feel like 90% of abilities in the game though. Too many of them are easy to use and rely on your opponent making mistakes, not on you executing it well (like the reaver/shuttle micro from Brood War)
|
@heishe
Roaches (!!!!!!) and Ravagers can not be countered by "mass marines", esp. early on without stim, shields and medivacs. Nevertheless, you are a very funny and entertaining guy Thumbs up!
|
On December 06 2015 04:28 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 02:25 royalroadweed wrote:On December 06 2015 02:13 Fran_ wrote:On December 05 2015 21:20 HeroMystic wrote:
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once. Another problem of using ghosts to counter Ultras is that, as you said, you need meat shield in front, and this meat shield simply disappears in seconds against ultra's AOE. I think players will learn how to use ghost better. This isn't like feedback. It can be interrupted and all your ghosts are suddenly dead. When ByuN uses them they're never in the open. His ghost are always up a cliff or behind gap or someplace where lings and ultras can't interrupt their spell. I haven't got to see Byun's Ghost play in action, heard a fair bit about it though. Pretty intrigued to check it out, any idea where I could find some VoDs of him playing with them in TvZ?
I think you can check basetrade tv for Olimo league, I think Byun won every TvZ since the release of LoTV.
|
On December 06 2015 06:25 Vanadiel wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 04:28 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 06 2015 02:25 royalroadweed wrote:On December 06 2015 02:13 Fran_ wrote:On December 05 2015 21:20 HeroMystic wrote:
Ghosts are not tanky at all, and their damage output has been very low ever since the Snipe nerf.
Ghosts were a very unattractive option because for them to be effective you needed a handful of them. This remains to be true. However before their movement speed buff, they had no escape option if there was detection looming around. Now they have the movement speed to get away from bad situations, but that is stopped cold by the fact that Steady Targeting requires a ghost to stand still for 2 seconds, which leads them to dying if they don't have fodder in front of them.
You are right though that Ghosts being a counter to Ultras was not very well thought out. It works, but it's extremely clunky and it ties into your production of Marines and Marauders, while literally being double the cost to Marauders, meaning if they die then that's a lot of resources down the drain. It's one of many band-aids that Blizzard put on Terran because they realized Ghosts weren't used in TvZ.
Edit: That said, I would actually argue Ghosts are being used a good deal vs Ultras, but it's just given very negative reception for how poorly implemented Steady Targeting is, in addition to having to micro your Bioball, along with other things. Not even Koreans have the APM to do all of that at once. Another problem of using ghosts to counter Ultras is that, as you said, you need meat shield in front, and this meat shield simply disappears in seconds against ultra's AOE. I think players will learn how to use ghost better. This isn't like feedback. It can be interrupted and all your ghosts are suddenly dead. When ByuN uses them they're never in the open. His ghost are always up a cliff or behind gap or someplace where lings and ultras can't interrupt their spell. I haven't got to see Byun's Ghost play in action, heard a fair bit about it though. Pretty intrigued to check it out, any idea where I could find some VoDs of him playing with them in TvZ? I think you can check basetrade tv for Olimo league, I think Byun won every TvZ since the release of LoTV.
He's lost some series to Nerchio.
|
On December 06 2015 06:21 StaN.de wrote:@heishe Roaches (!!!!!!) and Ravagers can not be countered by "mass marines", esp. early on without stim, shields and medivacs. Nevertheless, you are a very funny and entertaining guy Thumbs up!
Just watch games by Byul or others when he crushes ravager attacks. It's always the massive amount of marines and other mobile backup, he makes ravagers look mostly useless. He has tanks to back it up, but they mostly don't much contribute to the outcome of the fights.
By the way, any reasonable ravager push arrives way after you get stim, shields, and medivacs. I really hope you're not complaining about some kind of early pool into one base ravager all in, that would be ridiculous.
|
On December 06 2015 06:21 StaN.de wrote:@heishe Roaches (!!!!!!) and Ravagers can not be countered by "mass marines", esp. early on without stim, shields and medivacs. Nevertheless, you are a very funny and entertaining guy Thumbs up!
Roaches are well countered by mass marine/medivac, obviously even harder when you also field marauders. Same goes for when the opponent brings ravagers and you dodge the shots.
Obviously there is a big question to be answered whether you can get the amounts necessary especially early on given how larva production works (also as you point out you need stim+shields) but cost for cost and supply for supply marine(/marauder)/medivac is a good solution to roach/ravager.
And in any case, Tank/medivac or banshees are good solutions against the early pushes before you get the production to go head to head with them. In all scenarios there is also a huge micro component, given the nature of corrosive bile and medivacs and concaves.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
- Disruptor focus in all P matchups
That's just what's going to happen when you nerf colossus and carrier to death but you can't go toe to toe with any race using a primarily gateway force. There's no other unit to fall back to and if the disruptor were removed overnight, toss would be pretty screwed.
It's also somewhat weird to see so many people simultaneously complaining about protoss gateway being too weak and too strong. IMO they're alright to strong in the early game but zerg/terran have some very powerful options (stim, medivac, liberator, lurker) which makes it impossible to stand against them in the mid-lategame without units like the disruptor being very powerful.
|
I don't think the pylon overcharge change would be good. You actually need a lot of overcharges in early game.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On December 06 2015 06:56 [PkF] Wire wrote:
I don't think the pylon overcharge change would be good. You actually need a lot of overcharges in early game.
Then buff other units to compensate, timings etc. Plenty of stuff never got a proper pass over with the acceleration of the early game and the huge nerfs to chrono boost and there's no need for a band-aid fix in OP overcharge when you can fix it at the source
the only thing that i think would be really annoying is the protoss who just send 2 adept shades into your base every 30 seconds like 5 times in a row, that's annoying even now but you can just overcharge every time they do it and come out healthy
|
On December 06 2015 06:13 heishe wrote:Too many of them are easy to use and rely on your opponent making mistakes, not on you executing it well (like the reaver/shuttle micro from Brood War)
(reaver/shuttle micro in bw is quite risky and difficult, you can do it in different ways, and you must choose well when to really engage in it, playing against also)
|
On December 06 2015 07:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 06:13 heishe wrote:Too many of them are easy to use and rely on your opponent making mistakes, not on you executing it well (like the reaver/shuttle micro from Brood War) (reaver/shuttle micro in bw is quite risky and difficult, you can do it in different ways, and you must choose well when to really engage in it, playing against also)
Yes that's what I meant.
|
On December 06 2015 07:17 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2015 07:04 ProMeTheus112 wrote:On December 06 2015 06:13 heishe wrote:Too many of them are easy to use and rely on your opponent making mistakes, not on you executing it well (like the reaver/shuttle micro from Brood War) (reaver/shuttle micro in bw is quite risky and difficult, you can do it in different ways, and you must choose well when to really engage in it, playing against also) Yes that's what I meant.
edit: oh I got it wrong my bad!!!
|
On December 05 2015 03:44 ZAiNs wrote:
The overcharge change is disappointing. Making it 'spammable' makes the placement of every Pylon you make more important.
Not just that, it almost makes protoss immune to early game aggression. The dps is simply too high. Don't like anything that makes other strategies completely unviable regardless of micro.
|
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with Zerg is the Muta switch. Protoss and terran have very little ability to zone where a muta flock goes without using their entire army. I think buffing archon dmg or splash vs air would be a good fix for toss, and increasing Thor dmg vs air would be good for Terran.
|
Reducing carrier build time because Mr. D. Kim wants to see them more often. Seems a legit reason.
|
On December 07 2015 02:40 ThunderJunk wrote:
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with Zerg is the Muta switch. Protoss and terran have very little ability to zone where a muta flock goes without using their entire army. I think buffing archon dmg or splash vs air would be a good fix for toss, and increasing Thor dmg vs air would be good for Terran.
Terran has plenty of ways to deal with Mutas. Personally don't see the problem with them on T side.
Protoss though does have legit problems with Muta switches if they don't scout for it. Sometimes it can end up being an automatic loss.
|
Northern Ireland24488 Posts
Muta vP have long been a bit of an issue for me since they got their regen, very difficult to handle with anything other than Phoenixes, but if you get them out they render Mutas redundant. Never really liked the all-or-nothing kind of relationship that exists there.
|
On December 07 2015 02:40 ThunderJunk wrote:
Honestly, I think the biggest problem with Zerg is the Muta switch. Protoss and terran have very little ability to zone where a muta flock goes without using their entire army. I think buffing archon dmg or splash vs air would be a good fix for toss, and increasing Thor dmg vs air would be good for Terran.
Yes, in vs Protoss obviously. One really must be blind to not see how Protoss vs Zerg has so far for 5 years relied on Protoss being overpowered on the ground and zerg being able to techswitch to the skies - swarm host times were the exception and not even then because zerg was still heavily reliant on mass corruptor/viper - to prevent strategies like double robo from becoming viable (Mutas, Broodlords, Broodlord/Infestor, Muta Switches). Now that Zerg has gotten units that can straight up compete with the Protoss ground deathball - lurker, ravager to some degree, ultra to some degree - Protoss is suddenly fucked because they still can't go double robo or something of that kind to actually build their techunit count up on time without taking an extreme gamble.
Against Zerg mass mutas have been very dominant since the infestor nerf, though roach timings held them back in long phases of the metagame. Until they popped up again and the games turned out to be mass muta again...
Against Terran I don't agree though, especially nowadays with liberators in the picture.
But I'm sure blizzard will do the right thing and not touch their beloved "fuck-your-base-from-behind"-units and rather make half of the ground units in the game unplayable.
|
Mutas shouldn't be a problem because when they're low in number they're easily countered by static defense and a couple of roaming stalkers or marines and good sim city. Not that you're not going to take damage from it: You will, but you just have to take less damage then the investment of mutas + drones + tech time not invested otherwise was worth it. And when they're really high in number you did something wrong. . A zerg doesn't just get 2-4k gas and makes masses of mutas and beats you with it without you doing something very wrong. Probably the game is already over anyways and it doesnt matter what units the Zerg does because of eco advantage but it's just dragging on because the Zerg couldn't finish you so he makes mass mutas with his mass bases vs yours.
For example, the muta switch you're talking about is more of a follow up when you can't manage to beat a Toss or Terran in a push. It's mostly meant to stall and do eco damage while you're recovering the rest of your army. If a fight ends evenly or you're ahead, you're not going to have a problem with it. However, if you just barely held a push against a +30 and upwards supply army, you shouldn't be surprised if the follow up of a muta switch harass + some ground units is stronger than you can deal with because at that point your opponent is most likely way ahead in econ. and unit numbers. You can see this literally in all games from DH where Solar used the Muta switch to great effect for example.
I don't get it, the argumentation in this thread is all the same. People argue in a vacuum and complain about getting steamrolled by mass ultras for example. Well I can tell you one thing for sure, if the Zerg has the time to not only tech to, but assemble, a mass ultra army with full upgrades he either has such an economy advantage vs. you that it isn't funny, or you have more than enough tools available to scout and counter it. But people don't seem to get it and ask for a "get out of jail free card" instead. Focus too much on "my opponent has [x], why can't I beat it?" not enough on "how did opponent get [x]" and "why do I even have 50 supply less than my opponent". They want to beat a 150 supply roach/ravager army with 100 supply worth of whatever by having Blizzard introduce or buff something into a roll that can do this. This is not supposed to happen without a great use of skill (such as Byuls mass drop play he's often used recently) and I hope it never will.
|
On December 07 2015 06:00 heishe wrote:
A zerg doesn't just get 2-4k gas and makes masses of mutas and beats you with it without you doing something very wrong. Probably the game is already over anyways and it doesnt matter what units the Zerg does because of eco advantage but it's just dragging on because the Zerg couldn't finish you so he makes mass mutas with his mass bases vs yours.
I disagree with this part, sometimes in games you can have prolonged stalemates where both sides are unable to engage the other and both players build up large banks. The main reason muta switches are so strong (in particular vs Protoss) is because you don't know what zerg is going to remax on, making it a prediction game. It isn't particularly overpowered (because phoenix counters mutalisks so hard), but it creates a bad dynamic where Zerg wins because you guessed wrong or zerg gets crushed because you happened to guess correctly.
I feel a lot of this stems from how one-sided battles become depending on whether Protoss has build enough hard counters (phoenix vs muta, immortal vs ultra). Without enough of a particular counter, Protoss gets crushed pretty hard most of the time and with enough of it Zerg gets annihilated.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
A zerg doesn't just get 2-4k gas and makes masses of mutas and beats you with it without you doing something very wrong.
They do, 2000 gas isn't very much in legacy. Random 15-20 muta happens commonly and people just build a spire and continue flooding lurker etc in a ton of games - it's largely a matter of reacting to instant 15 mutas than it is of scouting for it before it happens because of that
|
I would prefer to buff ground attack and HP of Thor instead of its air attack. I think it would be cool as a damage soaking unit that you'd send into Siege Tank fire in TvT just like you would with Immortals in PvT.
|
Thor's ground damage is already some of the best in the game. The reason why Immortals were able to rush into Siege Tank fire before was because of Hardened Shields. They really can't do that anymore ever since Blizzard replaced the ability.
|
I wish the speed was faster for all co-op difficulties...
|
Thor's ground damage is very good, but the animation is horrible.
I'd like the thor to recieve an HP buff and change its attacks animation, even if it mean reducing its AG damage.
|
I'm a Protoss player and I HATE THE DISRUPTOR more then anything you have ever done in SC2 history.
Are you gonna take as many years as you did with swarmhost to realize and ADMIT that this unit is a COMPLETE design flaw from your side and that it doesnt make for great games?.
Everyone I know in SC2 community and everyone they know HATE THIS UNIT and everything in my Protoss soul tells me this unit is a completely flawed unit that does not add anything good to SC2.
Look at Swarm host now, you NEVER SEE IT.
At Blizzcon you said you learned alot from WOL and HOTS, well I have yet to see it.
Hopeless
|
On December 07 2015 07:06 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +A zerg doesn't just get 2-4k gas and makes masses of mutas and beats you with it without you doing something very wrong. They do, 2000 gas isn't very much in legacy. Random 15-20 muta happens commonly and people just build a spire and continue flooding lurker etc in a ton of games - it's largely a matter of reacting to instant 15 mutas than it is of scouting for it before it happens because of that
This is my thought exactly. LoTV you max quick, you start banking resources quickly. You spend 70% of the the game posturing. Games that I win in PvZ is when the Zerg keeps bashing their heads onto my third and we keep trading. This is largely because I know their spending their gas and can't switch into 20 mutas, or Ultras. But when the Zerg sits there, parked behind some lurkers and does not attack and just banks resources...it's not hard to switch into anything after remax and there's no way of knowing what it will be. It's not like the eggs have a sign on them (like a stargate) that tells you what they're making..
|
So when is the patch release?
|
On December 07 2015 10:04 raXNT wrote:
I'm a Protoss player and I HATE THE DISRUPTOR more then anything you have ever done in SC2 history.
Are you gonna take as many years as you did with swarmhost to realize and ADMIT that this unit is a COMPLETE design flaw from your side and that it doesnt make for great games?.
Everyone I know in SC2 community and everyone they know HATE THIS UNIT and everything in my Protoss soul tells me this unit is a completely flawed unit that does not add anything good to SC2.
Look at Swarm host now, you NEVER SEE IT.
At Blizzcon you said you learned alot from WOL and HOTS, well I have yet to see it.
Hopeless
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence:
"I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either."
You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something
|
On December 05 2015 03:53 Topdoller wrote:
Pylon Overcharge is silly, is it even necessary. Protoss is untouchable in the early game with these pylons so easily turned into long range murdering machines
I suggest that the overcharge be replaced with an ability that can temporarily cloak all the surrounding units like mothership's. That would make all your probes and units practically invulnerable in the early game when there's no means of detection, but the point is, in that circumstance, you MUST have a handful of units to defend your base instead of just a pylon and nothing else.
|
disruptor shots just shouldn't be able to "phase" through units and therefore also forcefields, buildings etc. That would allow for some counter play with units blocking path with their bodies in wall for example.
Ofc it is a obvious nerf to disruptor so to keep balance is same place I suggested slightly reducing Nova cooldown which also would help with more consistent dmg output with disruptors.
|
[/QUOTE]
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence:
"I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either."
You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something[/QUOTE]
Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS"
It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based.
Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit.
The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit.
Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify.
You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches.
|
On December 07 2015 18:14 egrimm wrote:
disruptor shots just shouldn't be able to "phase" through units and therefore also forcefields, buildings etc. That would allow for some counter play with units blocking path with their bodies in wall for example.
Ofc it is a obvious nerf to disruptor so to keep balance is same place I suggested slightly reducing Nova cooldown which also would help with more consistent dmg output with disruptors.
They don't phase through buildings, that's one way to defend disruptors shots by the way, you put one spore crawler in your mineral line and you mineral walk your drones at the other side of the spore crawler, and it will block the nova.
I actually really like Disruptors, except in PvP, which might be fixed by giving to forcefield the ability to block it.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches.
The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
|
Big J has that point spot on, the number of behind the mineral line abusive units in the game is at epidemic proportions. Prisms,Oracles, Warpivacs and Mutas that make the Millennium Falcon look slow are just a few i can name.
You need cat like reflexes just to react to the damn things
|
On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches. The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
There's always someone unhappy.
|
On December 07 2015 10:04 raXNT wrote:
I'm a Protoss player and I HATE THE DISRUPTOR more then anything you have ever done in SC2 history.
Are you gonna take as many years as you did with swarmhost to realize and ADMIT that this unit is a COMPLETE design flaw from your side and that it doesnt make for great games?.
Everyone I know in SC2 community and everyone they know HATE THIS UNIT and everything in my Protoss soul tells me this unit is a completely flawed unit that does not add anything good to SC2.
Look at Swarm host now, you NEVER SEE IT.
At Blizzcon you said you learned alot from WOL and HOTS, well I have yet to see it.
Hopeless
Yo my brother, long time no see.
I've also bought LoTv. Half the unints are over powered, and they other half are unplayable.
I actually cannot believe how thin this "Community Feedback" was from blizzard...
|
On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches. The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
I don't know if we played the same game but BW reaver micro took great skill and multi tasking, especially with shuttle micro. The stark contrast between those army compositions and SC2 army compositions is that... stalkers have an ability... sentries have abilities... adepts have an ability... templar have an ability... and to even use your 'new reaver' you have to essentially baby sit the control while also avoiding the others. It'd be like if you had to manually move your reaver scarab after targetting something.
Moreover, how unforgiving this unit is in PvP is almost hilarious. It's not the greatest thing as P when your army cost efficiency is supposed to be what is so great and it all dies in 1 shot in a mirror >.>...
|
On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:
The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
You also have to keep in mind, that Reavers in BW were not as strong as the Disruptor is now. Reavers did not 1 shot dragoons. They also did less damage the further a unit was away from the impact point. Reaver scarabs also suffered from pathing, could not traverse cliffs or go past buildings or even hit a unit within a group if the group was moving.
Yes, the Disruptor is kind of similar to the Reaver, but I would argue that it is a more extreme version of the Reaver. More movement, more damage, more APM required, more more more. At some point its just too much and it crosses the line twice.
|
Watching Bombers stream, seeing how Pylons are being used as Offensive Cannons when he goes CC first.
I can hardly imagine that was what was intended when Photon Overcharge was put into the game.
I mean, its like Terran Supply Depots turning into offensive planetary fortresses in a 11/11.
Clearly something needs to be changed. I dont know how 50 energy would change it.. But still.
|
On December 08 2015 01:52 Glorfindel! wrote:
Watching Bombers stream, seeing how Pylons are being used as Offensive Cannons when he goes CC first.
I can hardly imagine that was what was intended when Photon Overcharge was put into the game.
I mean, its like Terran Supply Depots turning into offensive planetary fortresses in a 11/11.
Clearly something needs to be changed. I dont know how 50 energy would change it.. But still.
First of all, it doesn't really matter what the intent was, Blizzard expects and wants people to use things in ways they didn't expect. Secondly, the offensive capabilities of Pylon Overcharge are intentional. When the change first happened in beta, the main feedback was that only Pylons touching a Nexus/Warpgate (i.e., have fast warp-in capabilities) should be Overchargeable, but Blizzard straight up said they liked the offensive options it can provide.
|
On December 08 2015 02:22 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2015 01:52 Glorfindel! wrote:
Watching Bombers stream, seeing how Pylons are being used as Offensive Cannons when he goes CC first.
I can hardly imagine that was what was intended when Photon Overcharge was put into the game.
I mean, its like Terran Supply Depots turning into offensive planetary fortresses in a 11/11.
Clearly something needs to be changed. I dont know how 50 energy would change it.. But still. First of all, it doesn't really matter what the intent was, Blizzard expects and wants people to use things in ways they didn't expect. Secondly, the offensive capabilities of Pylon Overcharge are intentional. When the change first happened in beta, the main feedback was that only Pylons touching a Nexus/Warpgate (i.e., have fast warp-in capabilities) should be Overchargeable, but Blizzard straight up said they liked the offensive options it can provide.
Of course it matters what the intention was. That's the difference between a successful design and an unsuccessful one. If the intention as you say was that people should use it "whatever way they can figure" or straight up offensively than that is obviously OK. But yeah, intentions are what defines a designer. A designer with no intentions is no designer at all.
Also I think they said something along the lines of people figuring out the offensive PO already and therefore it not being an issue. Which obviously is a bad argumentation basis if it is not actually disappearing and being figured out.
|
I recall the widow mine originally being something like a spider mine, but then Blizzard elected to make it reusable. Now the disruptor was originally like a reusable scarab, but now they turned it into something which spawns scarabs. There seem to be some parallels here, and generally speaking units seem to be more reusable than they used to. One might speak of a trend.
If one looks at the additions made in the recent two expansions, virtually every change has made specific units more rather than less resilient. Medivacs now have an escape ability, mutalisks have increased regeneration, tanks synergize with medivacs, ultralisks have extreme armor, mutalisks, phoenixes and many others are faster, tempests and swarm hosts are long distance units, warp prisms can employ more securely, cyclones are incredibly fast, adepts have a blink-esque escape ability. And casters like ghosts, infestors, vipers have always been long-range units that one can aim to preserve.
And at the same time there is more fire power added to the game which excels at blowing up mineral-only units. Disruptors, widow mines, ravagers, lurkers, banelings, psionic storm can wreak devastation on marines and the like. And I wonder if with the new economy people tend to have an easier time getting a relatively higher gas income, although I'm not sure.
My hypothesis is this might privilege gas units over mineral units, the latter will become purely fodder while your gas units constitute the bulk of your army over time. This will happen especially in scenarios where there is frequent trading, since that's where your mineral units are most literally expendable. Think of the widow mine parade pushes in TvZ where you never need to replenish medivacs and therefore gas will keep building up until you no longer have any use for it. As players learn to adjust for these scenarios they might start to give gas units more prominent roles in their armies.
Anyhow, that's the theory, but I wonder if it holds up. Has anyone had any experience with these sort of things?
|
On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:Show nested quote +
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence:
"I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either."
You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something
Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches.
Again, most of your statements go no deeper than "I don't like the unit." "The wow factor is not there" is subjective, so you're ultimately just saying that you don't get a sense of "wow" from the unit.
The one statement that gives a reason for your opinion is saying that the unit is random and luck-based, but on the first point that's demonstrably untrue - every behavior of the unit is deterministic, with no RNG at any point - and on the latter point it seems a bit early to say the skill cap with the unit has been reached, and players will no longer be able to differentiate themselves by microing with and against disruptors better than other players
|
You seen terran and toss learning how to deal with zergs more and more with every weekly cup and every ladder game. Lurkers already take forever to get to and people are figureing out how to deal with ravagers. I think people are just complaining because the meta is so new right now. I would wait a long time before nerfing zerg.
|
Probably more frustrated with Blizzard now than I have been at any point in SC2. It's an odd sense of stubbornness that has always existed, yet after so many years of it, instead of pushing back, I feel like giving up.
|
please improve cyclones somehow they are just to expensive for what they do.
|
Race distribution by league:
GM: Terran: 29.96% Zerg 40.20% Protoss 27.18% Random 2.65%
Masters: Terran 33.31% Zerg 38.59% Protoss 24.93% Random 3.18%
Diamond: Terran 30.65% Zerg 40.48% Protoss 22.44% Random 6.43%
Plat: Terran 27.99% Zerg 37.76% Protoss 23.01% Random 11.24%
Gold: Terran 26.93% Zerg 33.71% Protoss 27.86% Random 11.50%
Silver: Terran 27.27% Zerg 28.09% Protoss 33.50% Random 11.14%
Bronze: Terran 29.59% Zerg 22.24% Protoss 36.44% Random 11.73%
Do you really think, this evens out eventually, when "the pros" show us ways to beat zerg, like they suggested? I was a diamond protoss in Hots and now i can only beat gold zergs, barely being able to play in plat right now.
|
On December 08 2015 17:00 donek99 wrote:
Do you really think, this evens out eventually, when "the pros" show us ways to beat zerg, like they suggested? I was a diamond protoss in Hots and now i can only beat gold zergs, barely being able to play in plat right now.
I don't quite understand this argument. Balance at lower lvls should be secondary AND ease of execution shouldn't even really come in the picture.
In brood war, protoss is A LOT easier to play at the lowest lvls. The message to terrans and zergs is to get better. A great message for life in general instead of expecting an entire game's balance being upset or resources being dedicated to figuring out how to make your life easier.
|
On December 08 2015 19:07 B-royal wrote:
...
I don't quite understand this argument. Balance at lower lvls should be secondary AND ease of execution shouldn't even really come in the picture.
...
Actually you and the rest of the people that think like you are very wrong. Please do not take any offence by this statement as it is not intended.
Let's have a look at some numbers first, not accurate by any means but they should be enough to prove the point.
- 6% of the players are "pro" level
- 94% of the players are the masses
Now, those 6% players are very very good at advertising the game for the rest of the 94%.
However, the rest 94% of the players are the cash milking cow. They are the ones that pay cash from their own pockets to keep those 6%, Blizzard and the whole SC2 scene happy (by donating to tournaments, buying the game, buying tickets to tournaments, viewing commercials during high level play, etc.).
So no i ask you, balance at lower levels should be secondary ? It seams that it is, there is no question about it.
Is it good that it is on a secondary level tough ? No! This is the exact same reason why the turnover rate is so high with SC2, and the same reason why Blizzard has hard times keeping those 94% of players active without releasing new content.
The game is slowly but surely shifting away from what we actually want, we want to play a game. A game, nothing more, nothing less. We do not plan to get to "pro" level play, we just want to have fun and we are also paying cash for it.
It's very hard to keep 94% of the players happy and i understand that, but by no means they should be treated on a secondary level or else they will get back to the daily lives and you'll have problems with getting viewers for the "pro" guys. The scene will slowly but surely go under the radar if this is the case (as it was the case with WoL and HotS, do we really want LotV to become the same ?).
It looks like Blizzard has seen the light tough with co-op missions, online tournaments, etc., but it's not enough.
p.s. I understand that once the 6% game play will become balanced it will slowly go down the ladder, and it will balance the lower leagues also. Only time will tell if it will be soon enough tough.
p.s.s. No offence to anybody, please let's not start a war
|
Let's have a good discussion about this
The infamous casual player who's just here to play a game. Why does a casual player care whether he has to exert more effort to win versus a supposedly worse player? If he's here just to have fun, he can have fun whether he's in bronze league or in gold league, "justified" or not.
If balance at lower leagues is skewed all that will happen is a reshuffling of players. Players that have the same skill as those of another race, which is favoured against them, will be in a lower league playing opponents that are objectively worse than them. However, they'll be able to win 50% of their games in this lower league, what's so bad about this?
Brood war never failed to attract players. If a game is fun, people will play it. You said it yourself, they're not looking to be competitive, so why compare your skill level with someone else's?
It is absolutely critical that at the highest level the game is balanced or there won't be an eSports. Balance at the professional level trumps everything. Now if balance has been achieved at the professional lvl and there's some MAJOR issues at lower lvls, you could consider changing things that are irrelevant at the higher lvls (for example making a race mechanically less demanding for lower lvls => stacking injects).
The only downside I really see is that having one race be considerably easier for beginners could result in one race being hugely overrepresented leading to a less fun ladder experience. Having varied races, with tons of different units and unique art styles could counteract this.
|
On December 09 2015 02:05 B-royal wrote:
...
You make one critical mistake with your arguments: you use logic.
People do not behave logical. Their feelings are not bound by the laws of logic. Even iff they have no reason to care about rank or balance they still do. Bronze league players who "just want to play the game" still bitch about other races being OP. They probably do so much more then pros. The pros have every right to cry about balance. Their job depends on it. But its not the pros that are the balance whiners. Its those who do not have to care but who care anyways.
|
On December 09 2015 03:19 RoomOfMush wrote:You make one critical mistake with your arguments: you use logic. People do not behave logical. Their feelings are not bound by the laws of logic. Even iff they have no reason to care about rank or balance they still do. Bronze league players who "just want to play the game" still bitch about other races being OP. They probably do so much more then pros. The pros have every right to cry about balance. Their job depends on it. But its not the pros that are the balance whiners. Its those who do not have to care but who care anyways.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tfHzLmX.jpg)
Had to put this here
|
On December 05 2015 03:48 Teoita wrote:
Wait, so they haven't gotten APM right yet?
The technology just isn't there yet.
On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches. The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers.
Don't count me in everyone.
|
zzzz dunno why this keeps on happening when I want to edit :S
|
On December 09 2015 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2015 03:48 Teoita wrote:
Wait, so they haven't gotten APM right yet? The technology just isn't there yet. Show nested quote +On December 07 2015 20:07 Heyoka wrote:On December 07 2015 19:28 raXNT wrote:
Care to give a reason for any of your opinions? As it is I think your post can be boiled down to one sentence: "I don't like the disruptor, and my friends don't either." You talk about the swarm host, but don't establish how they're similar, you say it's a design flaw but don't say why. If Blizzard gets a lot of feedback, some in favor of the disruptor, some opposed, then one more person saying "I don't like it" isn't gonna change anything. If you talked about why it's bad, and ways that it could be better, at least your feedback might be useful for something Yes please show me where Blizzard are getting their claimed "majority of feedback" "WE LOVE PVP DISRUPTOR WARS" It's a random unit that can end games in 1 shot its extremely volatile and luck based. Blizzard has tried to get away from "volatile" game play yet they managed to create this unit. The wow and excitement factor Blizzard are talking about is not there, and what little excitement there is will dissapear as people will win games they dont diserve to win because of this badly designed unit. Just like the swarm host the cost efficiency potential is beyond anything you can possibly justify. You are going to see games in Korea where players will insta GG out of the game too 1 disruptor shot hit in big matches. The great irony in these arguments is that for like a solid 2 years of WoL everyone complained that there wasn't enough volatile abilities like BW Reavers. Don't count me in everyone.
Yeah, that specific complaint was a mixture of "Fuck Colossi, give us reavers" and just general BW lovers who would have hated the disruptor just as much as the Colossus for not being the reaver.
|
Disruptor is still better than the collossus for all concerned.
|
I think the disruptor is essentially an SC2 reaver. It's faster, doesn't have to build scarabs, and you can micro the scarabs. Also it's called the disruptor, name needs a buff
|
On December 09 2015 05:07 Xenotolerance wrote:
I think the disruptor is essentially an SC2 reaver. It's faster, doesn't have to build scarabs, and you can micro the scarabs. Also it's called the disruptor, name needs a buff
The disruptor is almost nothing like the reaver tbh. It is more like a spellcaster.
The current design of it basically promotes stalemates (every one dodging the "balls") at a certain point and if you have only one or two the dmg is INCREDIBLY unreliable.
So yeah not my favorite sc2 unit.
Is it better than the colossus? In some aspects for sure, in others it's actually worse.
|
On December 10 2015 01:20 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2015 05:07 Xenotolerance wrote:
I think the disruptor is essentially an SC2 reaver. It's faster, doesn't have to build scarabs, and you can micro the scarabs. Also it's called the disruptor, name needs a buff The disruptor is almost nothing like the reaver tbh. It is more like a spellcaster. The current design of it basically promotes stallmates (every one dodging the "balls") at a certain point and if you have only one or two the dmg is INCREDIBLY unreliable. So yeah not my favorite sc2 unit. Is it better than the colossus? In some aspects for sure, in others it's actually worse.
Reaver shots cost money and can't be avoided yet expose the reaver to more risk, it's different from a shot which doesn't cost anything which can be avoided and doesn't put the disruptor at risk. I think the disruptor lends itself to more opportunistic play where free of charge you can constantly test your opponent (which is stressful and annoying).
To be fair to Blizzard, the new version of the disruptor wasn't tested that much since they switched from the original design. And someone told me the new design was based on some user-made video(??), so perhaps they were too quick to adapt something from the community without thoroughly verifying?
|
I will laugh so hard when blizzard changes the disruptor because people don't like to deal with things that are constant, stressful mechanic checks. Meanwhile community pressure has made injects stay which are the same thing, but brainless and with no player interaction whatsoever.
|
On December 10 2015 07:05 Big J wrote:
I will laugh so hard when blizzard changes the disruptor because people don't like to deal with things that are constant, stressful mechanic checks. Meanwhile community pressure has made injects stay which are the same thing, but brainless and with no player interaction whatsoever.
Well they did change that, they can be stacked now.
|
On December 10 2015 07:05 Big J wrote:
I will laugh so hard when blizzard changes the disruptor because people don't like to deal with things that are constant, stressful mechanic checks. Meanwhile community pressure has made injects stay which are the same thing, but brainless and with no player interaction whatsoever.
people just prefer the shit they know over the shit thats new
just imagine the outrage if lotv actually introduced macro mechanics and they didnt exist in hots :o
|
On December 10 2015 03:32 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 01:20 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 09 2015 05:07 Xenotolerance wrote:
I think the disruptor is essentially an SC2 reaver. It's faster, doesn't have to build scarabs, and you can micro the scarabs. Also it's called the disruptor, name needs a buff The disruptor is almost nothing like the reaver tbh. It is more like a spellcaster. The current design of it basically promotes stallmates (every one dodging the "balls") at a certain point and if you have only one or two the dmg is INCREDIBLY unreliable. So yeah not my favorite sc2 unit. Is it better than the colossus? In some aspects for sure, in others it's actually worse. Reaver shots cost money and can't be avoided yet expose the reaver to more risk, it's different from a shot which doesn't cost anything which can be avoided and doesn't put the disruptor at risk. I think the disruptor lends itself to more opportunistic play where free of charge you can constantly test your opponent (which is stressful and annoying). To be fair to Blizzard, the new version of the disruptor wasn't tested that much since they switched from the original design. And someone told me the new design was based on some user-made video(??), so perhaps they were too quick to adapt something from the community without thoroughly verifying?
All fair points, but real talk, it's a robo unit that blows shit up with a splodey ball. I believe the resemblance is clear
|
On December 10 2015 07:20 summerloud wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2015 07:05 Big J wrote:
I will laugh so hard when blizzard changes the disruptor because people don't like to deal with things that are constant, stressful mechanic checks. Meanwhile community pressure has made injects stay which are the same thing, but brainless and with no player interaction whatsoever. people just prefer the shit they know over the shit thats new just imagine the outrage if lotv actually introduced macro mechanics and they didnt exist in hots :o
Yeah I think so too. It's the same with ravagers/adepts... "Hey, units that the opponent can use in most scenarios... must be completely broken!!!"... guys? Marines, Marauders? Zerglings, roaches? Stalkers? (that doesn't mean they must be fine... but still, the fact that you can play a unit in bigger amounts in many scenarios is nothing new)
|
also, am i the only one that hates the way they changes pinging?
was there any reason to make it more complicated? or to limit the number of pings besides a very very small amount of griefers in team games?
|
On December 10 2015 08:03 summerloud wrote:
also, am i the only one that hates the way they changes pinging?
was there any reason to make it more complicated? or to limit the number of pings besides a very very small amount of griefers in team games?
No idea but it bugs the shit out of me. I switch my team color about 4 times before successfully pinging and by the time the ping goes off whatever I was pointing at is gone -.-'
|
what I would like to see is that the disruptors movement speed gets significantly lowered so it's more of a positional unit than a deathball unit. Right now you can just amove your disruptor deathball across the map and shoot with them at everything that comes close.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
