EPTCommunity Feedback Update - January 13 - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
AdrianHealeyy
114 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3410 Posts
On January 15 2016 21:50 Penev wrote: Maybe give it the stimm treatment and increase it's research time Yeah, I mean it only makes sense. You give a decent unit in the Adept a crackling upgrade at Twilight Council. Actually it's 45% and Adrenal Glands is 40% and they even talked about nerfing Adrenal Glands in an earlier community update.. Also it's 100/100.. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On January 15 2016 21:47 Big J wrote: No it's what everybody told them right from the beginning.
Over and over again this was reiterated. But then blizzard made a clever PR move, introduced weekly feedback threads and suddenly if you gave negative feedback you were a hater and trying to kill the game. Yep. All these updates read like a politician's PR press release. It seems like calling people 'negative,' and a 'hater,' or a 'balance whiner,' are the SC2 version of racism or sexual misconduct accusations are for politics - a way for people with no good arguements to shut down debate while maintaining the appearance of moral high ground. Large corporations and their politics are very similar to governments and their politics. Nobody wants to rock the boat. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On January 15 2016 22:12 deacon.frost wrote: I'm not that sure that DKim is behind designing new things in the game. Edit> Unless you meant Dark Knight  I don't know, i thought that after Dustin took a new role with Heroes, David became the new boss of SC2. If he didn't make the design he at least decided what was good and what not. | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
On January 15 2016 22:11 Qikz wrote: I don't understand why (personally) lurkers do bonus vs armored and not light. It'd be much better to have them counter adepts/zealots and marines than what they currently counter. They'd still do well against tanks if you got in close, but they'd also be better against bio which to me is more interesting personally. Definitely, lurkers should probably do extra damage against biological (?) units. | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
On January 15 2016 22:20 AdrianHealeyy wrote: What, no bunker change? I was looking forward to individually upgraded neosteel frame bunkers. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
On January 16 2016 00:00 royalroadweed wrote: I was looking forward to individually upgraded neosteel frame bunkers. I wished they explored this in the beta. They made it so OVs can individual upgrade to dropships and I think that is pretty good design. | ||
|
p68
100 Posts
On January 16 2016 01:10 Tenks wrote: I wished they explored this in the beta. They made it so OVs can individual upgrade to dropships and I think that is pretty good design. Yep. If they're worried about bunker rushes, they can just make it so that it's an ability that unlocks upon building an armory and/or engineering bay. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
On January 16 2016 02:05 p68 wrote: Yep. If they're worried about bunker rushes, they can just make it so that it's an ability that unlocks upon building an armory and/or engineering bay. Fusion core the universal solution: if it's broken -> require fusion core | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On January 16 2016 01:10 Tenks wrote: I wished they explored this in the beta. They made it so OVs can individual upgrade to dropships and I think that is pretty good design. Individually upgrading bunkers would have to be early game, and then, it wouldn't even solve one of the biggest problems: Terran has almost no way to defend satellite expansions once you get to 5+ bases. PFs don't stop harass, and that's what gets you at that stage. We can't possibly have enough supply at these bases while still defending pushes, executing harass, or pushing effectively. I would love to see some mid--nah, fuck it. Make the shit late game, I don't care. Just some form of anti-ground static defense structure. Bunker Ideas Make the neosteel frame upgrade put an AG-only turret on the bunker. Come on, guys. Or, maybe the neosteel frame bunker gives Turrets a transformation ability, so they can transform into an AG-mode (kinda like entering and exiting siege mode, or defender mode, or hellbat mode). I don't think any buff or modification to Terran's static defense should be accessible during the bunker-rush stage of the game though. Cheese like that is really more of a Protoss thing ; ) | ||
|
bObA
France300 Posts
On January 16 2016 03:19 TimeSpiral wrote: Individually upgrading bunkers would have to be early game, and then, it wouldn't even solve one of the biggest problems: Terran has almost no way to defend satellite expansions once you get to 5+ bases. PFs don't stop harass, and that's what gets you at that stage. We can't possibly have enough supply at these bases while still defending pushes, executing harass, or pushing effectively. I would love to see some mid--nah, fuck it. Make the shit late game, I don't care. Just some form of anti-ground static defense structure. Bunker Ideas Make the neosteel frame upgrade put an AG-only turret on the bunker. Come on, guys. Or, maybe the neosteel frame bunker gives Turrets a transformation ability, so they can transform into an AG-mode (kinda like entering and exiting siege mode, or defender mode, or hellbat mode). I don't think any buff or modification to Terran's static defense should be accessible during the bunker-rush stage of the game though. Cheese like that is really more of a Protoss thing ; ) Really interesting and smart post I really hope David Kim will read this. | ||
|
Mozdk
Denmark6989 Posts
It's going to be a whole new match up. I hope pros figure out something stable. For both sides. I forsee this change making T heavily favoured. But let's see what it brings. And what happens to the matchup in the first few weeks. There might be undeveloped BS options  | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On January 16 2016 04:02 Mozdk wrote: Nerfing adepts (which looks needed) will make the MU last longer. And we will see more lib play. Which P has not been able to deal well with. It's going to be a whole new match up. I hope pros figure out something stable. For both sides. I forsee this change making T heavily favoured. But let's see what it brings. And what happens to the matchup in the first few weeks. There might be undeveloped BS options The warp prism will still be incredibly strong, it just won't be broken-level OP, like it is now with the Adepts. Though, like many have suggested, the Adept's shade could be the culprit (but it's too beefy and the DPS is too good for that stage of the game, I'd say). We'll see what happens. Because once Protoss starts building Tempests, things get tricky for Terran real quickly. On January 16 2016 04:00 bObA wrote: Really interesting and smart post I really hope David Kim will read this. Can't tell if serious or not ... | ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20418543041 We just wanted to quickly update you guys on a few things before the weekend: 1. We agree with your feedback on PvT. 2. Siege tanks going back to tank mode when picked up by Medivacs does seem to be a solid suggestion. We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design, and also agree that this change played the biggest part in making mech not viable in TvT. We can definitely add this to the next balance test map. 3. We're currently aiming for next week to release the balance test map. 4. We would love to get everyone's help in aggressively testing these changes so that we can quickly turn around a balance update as early as the week after next. Thank you for keeping the discussions really focused on the most critical topics this week! | ||
|
Phredxor
New Zealand15076 Posts
| ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On January 16 2016 09:15 TheWinks wrote: Update: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20418543041 We just wanted to quickly update you guys on a few things before the weekend: 2. Siege tanks going back to tank mode when picked up by Medivacs does seem to be a solid suggestion. We agree with you that Siege Tanks gaining mobility did take away from what the unit is by design, and also agree that this change played the biggest part in making mech not viable in TvT. We can definitely add this to the next balance test map. FIXED IT: 2. We realized we forgot to nerf Terran. *slaps forehead* Silly us! So, seeing as how many in the community think Tanks might need some love, we decided to nerf them extremely hard. We're hoping this helps with the only balanced matchup Terran has, TvT. See, since we love micro so much, we decided we wanted to double, triple--even quadruple!--the numbers of clicks required to not get utterly pwnd by bile, disruptors, and anything else targeting the tanks. Thanks for your solid suggestion on this. On a more serious note. If this is the route we're taking, Blizzard, please consider the following: (1) Nerf firing time after landing (while still sieged) to match the time it takes to siege. (2) Make it so a tank picked up in siege mode, unsieges in the medivac (hiding it) but then automatically sieges when you drop it. Yes, doom drops suck in TvT, but losing your tanks from free in TvZ and TvP sucks a lot worse. And if this is the route we're going, medivac micro is already pretty intense. Let's not add two clicks for every dropped tank. The micro burden will be too high. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3410 Posts
Now they just need to do non-stackable Parasitic Bomb, something that the community have also been suggesting for a God awful long time.. and Chrono Boost, fix Chrono Boost.. PLX Kim | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
| ||
| ||
