EPTCommunity Feedback Update - February 12 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
| ||
|
TheWinks
United States572 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:54 ZAiNs wrote: They literally used the phrase 'mech viability' in the update  .Focusing on mech viability in TvT isn't really focusing on mech viability. If they want mech to be viable they would focus on viability in the non-mirror matchups and allow those changes to filter into TvT and then only worry about mech TvT after it was viable in TvZ and TvP. If you focus on TvT first, you risk harming the other matchups without even improving mech viability in them, and nerfing tankivacs actually does reduce mech viability in non-mirrors. | ||
|
mCon.Hephaistas
Netherlands891 Posts
On February 13 2016 05:21 cheekymonkey wrote: Please don't kill the reaper. It's an interesting unit right now, and reaper openings make the game more entertaining. I fear that blizzard will go overboard with this. Someone suggested making the bomb an upgrade. This would result in 0 usage of this upgrade. No one will make a tech-lab and the invest in an upgrade for a unit that loses its utility very quickly. Reaper strength is such map dependent as well, and these issues can be balanced through map design. Wide cliffs surrounding the main and natural makes the reaper good, a lot of blockage makes it bad. Hmm they need some kind of tweak, maybe slower HP regen or more cool down on their ability. Right now it's really hard to fuck up heavy reaper opening vs Zerg. Basicly a bit too low risk but high reward, and I think this needs to change a little bit. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3532 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:02 TheWinks wrote: Map with Varying Attack Route Considerations Another idea that we thought was interesting is playing around with the idea of having the main attack path to the opponent be easy to defend, and the alternate attack paths being extremely long by ground. This way, more mobility-based units and/or air unit-based strategies could be more powerful. Here are some detailed points that we’d be trying to hit:
And of course, we’ll always be on the lookout for additional suggestions. For this to work, you need less mobile units to be able to trade more efficiently with more mobile units. This is even more true for ground vs air battles. If ground based anti-air is not efficient enough, then this map is going to end up being air blobs vs air blobs. | ||
|
Whiskie
Canada2 Posts
On February 13 2016 05:30 ejozl wrote: In TvT is there no viability of making 1-3 Ghosts? I've been playing it some on my off race. Snipe is sick vs Reapers, they fair well vs Hellions and can EMP Cloaked Banshee's. That seems like it'd delay non-Barracks tech an awful lot. How early are you getting Ghosts out? | ||
|
Mightygear
81 Posts
| ||
|
Infiiiniity
45 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
| ||
|
PPN
France248 Posts
On February 13 2016 04:23 blade55555 wrote: Yeah I think they should do a ravager nerf, at minimum delay the ability. I think that and the adept's ability need longer cool downs. You shouldn't be able to spam it every 5 seconds, make it 15 seconds or something so you can't just mindlessly spam the ability with no consequence really. I imagine that would help a lot, maybe a damage tweak if needed, but at minimum delay the ability. Other then that though what do we change for pvz? What do we buff or nerf? I feel like the only possible issue would be ravagers but other then that what other issues are in the match up that people think are actually imbalanced? Would be curious to note. For me there is at least 2 things that should be changed for PvZ: - ravagers nerf as suggested - lurker vP interaction: 1) either movement speed nerf: this unit is already extremely strong in PvZ, I don't think it is normal that it can on top of it run away and reposition so easily. At 4.13 out of creep and 5.37, this supposedly siege unit outruns most of the Protoss army, WTF; 2) or give Protoss collosi 6+4 range with upgrade so that it can outrange such a fast siege unit; 3) or give a range upgrade to disruptor (same reason as 2). I don't really prefer either over another, just want a more obvious counter-play | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On February 13 2016 05:47 andrewlt wrote: For this to work, you need less mobile units to be able to trade more efficiently with more mobile units. This is even more true for ground vs air battles. If ground based anti-air is not efficient enough, then this map is going to end up being air blobs vs air blobs. This is why the strength of air units like the Liberator is such a problem, design-wise. Without a high ground advantage, the way we can create legitimately dynamic maps is limited to begin with. With very powerful air units, this dynamic of attack paths is extremely weakened, because there are less forces at play, beholding you to it. It makes things really difficult for people like me to make this game more interesting. | ||
|
BaronVonOwn
299 Posts
Hell yes to the idea of maps with short/long rush lanes. I was actually thinking of submitting a map like this for the map contest. Any kind of map that forces players to make strategic choices with regard to placement of defenses and their army could really make the game more interesting. However I worry that any such map design will be totally undercut by the extreme mobility given by warp prisms / nydus / medivac fleets. | ||
|
wjat
385 Posts
| ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
| ||
|
SiaBBo
Finland133 Posts
Hopefully they will also change 2v2/3v3/4v4 maps. On February 13 2016 06:41 H0i wrote: Instead of nerfing zerg, they should buff protoss' ability to spread out their units and defend multiple bases in some way. Preferably a way which also helps against roaches/ravagers early to midgame. Yeah it's like Protoss doesn't have warp-in mechanic that can reinforce bases immediately, Photon Overcharge or Mass Recall already. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On February 13 2016 06:30 PPN wrote: For me there is at least 2 things that should be changed for PvZ: - ravagers nerf as suggested - lurker vP interaction: 1) either movement speed nerf: this unit is already extremely strong in PvZ, I don't think it is normal that it can on top of it run away and reposition so easily. At 4.13 out of creep and 5.37, this supposedly siege unit outruns most of the Protoss army, WTF; 2) or give Protoss collosi 6+4 range with upgrade so that it can outrange such a fast siege unit; 3) or give a range upgrade to disruptor (same reason as 2). I don't really prefer either over another, just want a more obvious counter-play Hm I really don't see Lurkers as a problem in pvz. Chargelot/archon/immortal is pretty strong versus Lurker based compositions. Let alone if Zerg is being super passive with lots of Lurkers you should be transitioning into Tempests and mass expanding. I just don't see Lurkers as an issue in pvz unless the toss is going a heavy blink stalker composition, lurkers shred that like nothing. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52798 Posts
| ||
|
rockslave
Brazil318 Posts
| ||
|
Deathstar
9150 Posts
| ||
|
PPN
France248 Posts
On February 13 2016 06:49 blade55555 wrote: Hm I really don't see Lurkers as a problem in pvz. Chargelot/archon/immortal is pretty strong versus Lurker based compositions. Let alone if Zerg is being super passive with lots of Lurkers you should be transitioning into Tempests and mass expanding. I just don't see Lurkers as an issue in pvz unless the toss is going a heavy blink stalker composition, lurkers shred that like nothing. Nope, chargelot/archon/immortal are trash vs lurkers. And usually they are not alone, there are some roach/ravagers/hydra in the mix. It only works because you have a few phoenixes from your stargate opening to lift them up, but the window in which you can lift them up is pretty short due to viper's PB. Sure tempest is the endgame solution to about anything. But you have all the time in the world to die before that transition is ready if you keep running away from lurkers and they end up at your doors. This may depend greatly of maps layout I suppose. | ||
| ||
