It’s awesome how we’re all working towards having a more positive atmosphere towards StarCraft II on various sites and forums. We’re encouraged by the results of our collaboration with all the dedicated players out there who contribute to the StarCraft community on a daily basis. Thanks to you, we’re able to make the game better through weekly updates, balance test maps, and our constructive discussions. A healthy and positive community is vital to our game, especially when it comes to attracting new players and making them feel welcome. Let’s continue to focus on constructive feedback and work towards our goal of continually improving StarCraft II.
We’d also like to congratulate everyone on the great job you’ve been doing as we continue to iterate and make the design of StarCraft II that much better. You’re also creating a much better environment for newer people to participate in a constructive way. Thank you!
KR Pro Feedback
We recently received feedback from all the professional teams in Korea regarding the current balance test map. Let’s run through what they thought.
The pros didn’t like the Siege Tank damage increase or disabling pickup, saying that Siege Tanks weren’t viable after these changes. The vibe we got was that Siege Tanks don’t need a damage increase—without mobility, they won’t be an effective tool, even if they hit much harder. We still believe that there could be a scenario where the damage is increased enough to offset the mobility loss. However, the more important question here is not about if the damage buff is stronger or the Medivac pickup is stronger. Instead, we should be more focused on the loss of micro and strategic potential versus the gain of the Siege Tank fulfilling their fantasy better by having clear strengths and weaknesses.
Regarding the Ravager change, the main feedback was that Ravagers are primarily used to counter Liberators and Widow Mines, so if a nerf is needed, then their ability cooldown should be increased instead. Our stance on this one is that the type of change we implement really depends on the issue we’re trying to solve. The damage nerf was suggested to help with not just the Siege Tank change, but also in case Ravager timing pushes are too strong versus Protoss. If either of these scenarios have changed, we would definitely need a different solution.
We also received feedback that players are still testing and figuring out our most recent changes, so it would be best if the next balance patch doesn’t happen until we are sure that the issues being addressed are real and the changes are tested. We agree; while things like Ravager timing attacks looked very strong and Protoss looked to be struggling when the last patch hit, Protoss players are still figuring out how to play in this new patch and we’re still figuring out the current state of the game.
Siege Tank Change
Let’s go into more detail about the Siege Tank change. We agree with many people out there who disagree with the changes:
Siege Tank pickup micro is definitely really cool. We see Terran players fielding a good mix of Bio and Mech units—do we really have to split those two strategies again? We definitely understand this stance. Perhaps Terran is more fun to play with and watch if there’s always a mix of the two like we’re currently seeing, and maybe we don’t need them to be completely split.
Do we really need to mix strategies up at this time due to other factors such as resource changes, the push we’re making towards map diversity, games just having a lot more action in Legacy of the Void, and so on? Our stance here is that we should have some changes tested and ready in case we get to this type of spot, so that we can react more quickly if necessary.
We also are seeing many people bring up good reasons for going through with the changes: The fantasy of the Siege Tank has diminished due to how mobile the unit is now. The changes would bring back the “lock down this location at the cost of mobility” vibe. The current test map will test how cool it would be to bring this back.
Internally, we’re wondering if there’s a way to hit the positives of both sides. For example, if we further increased the time before the Siege Tank can fire, we may be able to get the effect we’re looking for. What if the time it takes to go into siege mode and fire once is equal to the time it takes before a Siege Tank can fire once it’s dropped off by the Medivac while in Siege Mode? While we may not need to go this extreme, this example shows the direction we've recently been considering.
We also agree that this isn’t a change that needs to be implemented immediately. Therefore, we should take our time to carefully evaluate different options before making a final decision.
The State of Protoss
Contrary to right after the last patch hit, Protoss didn’t look to be struggling as much. However, we are definitely seeing the strength of early game aggression in ZvP. We will be testing some nerfs on the Zerg early game timing attack so that we can be prepared to make the change if the situation doesn’t improve over time due to players figuring out how to counter these attacks better.
Next Balance Test Map
On the next balance test map, we’re looking to swap out the Ravager and Liberator changes, potentially trying out a different change to the Ravager that only really affects ZvP, and try out a version of the Siege Tank where we heavily increase the delay before Siege Tanks can fire after being dropped off by the Medivac while in Siege Mode. We would obviously want to combo this with more of a damage buff than what we have currently.
We agree with those of you who have pointed out that testing some changes to the Cyclone would be useful. The goal here would be to increase the effectiveness of the Cyclone for early/mid stages of the game while not allowing mass Cyclones to be a viable composition in the later stages of the game. In order to do this, we’re thinking about increasing the effectiveness of Cyclones by either increasing their health or damage, and also increasing the supply cost so that their value diminishes in the late stage of the game when players’ armies start to approach max supply.
If there are other balance issues that we should be testing, please get a conversation started this week so that we can decide together what the best move will be for the next balance test map. Our hope is to evaluate this week and next week, and be in a spot where we can make a decision and release the next balance test map the week after next.
Thanks again for continuing to support and contribute to the future of StarCraft II. Although there are currently no immediate, glaring issues, let’s continue doing what we can during this time so that we can be prepared for the future.
- unsieges upon pickup - normal unload/drop leaves it in tank mode - extra button to unload/drop it where it auto transforms to siege mode
This is in line with what Blizzard has been testing with increased delay but also gives a choice to the player. In addition, it gives a visual indicator to all players of when the sieged tank can fire.
One time he has agood idea and one week later he's already reverting back on those changes. Can't describe how disappointed I am, tvt is pure cancer right now and a long delay on tanks won't fix that. Also the poll showed clearly that the vast majority wants the tank drop gone.
Edit: maybe I was to fast with my criticism because DK stated he's willing to buff tanks even further but I really don't think medivacs should be able to pick up tanks at all.
The problem with Siege Tanks without Medivac pickup is a lack of mobility that allows them to be countered so easily by certain spells. In BW, Tanks worked because the Viper didn't exist.
Changing/removing those spells (Abduct/Blinding Cloud), would go a long way in making Tanks viable again versus Zerg. They need a significant buff to shield damage versus Protoss.
On February 27 2016 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: One time he has agood idea and one week later he's already reverting back on those changes. Can't describe how disappointed I am, tvt is pure cancer right now and a long delay on tanks won't fix that. Also the poll showed clearly that the vast majority wants the tank drop gone.
David Kim has kindly asked us all to not to harshly criticize his ideas because it demotivates him and the team. And we don't want to hurt anyones feelings.
We would obviously want to combo this with more of a damage buff than we have cuttently
I really don't think tanks need even more damage especially not for tvt. The biggest issue with mech play are vipers in tvz and tempests in tvp. A further tank buff won't really help against those two units but would make them overpowered against everything else.
So maybe adress blinding cloud by reducing the range of affected units by 5 or 6 so tanks don't get nullified by it and nerf tempests which are currently problematic in every matchup.
We would obviously want to combo this with more of a damage buff than we have cuttently
I really don't think tanks need even more damage especially not for tvt. The biggest issue with mech play are vipers in tvz and tempests in tvp. A further tank buff won't really help against those two units but would make them overpowered against everything else.
So maybe adress blinding cloud by reducing the range of affected units by 5 or 6 so tanks don't get nullified by it and nerf tempests which are currently problematic in every matchup.
GSL showed it pretty well this morning, libs just shred everything and toss's only answer is the worst dps/cost unit in the game that's saving grace is that it outranges it. I think a slight increase to the time for the dropped tank to fire vs removing the mechanic. Make it 3-4 seconds so that in TvT positioning matters and for TvZ, they have a chance of repositioning their army/drones during drop/pickup play
It's kind of funny they want to change tanks to influence TvT, by doing so fuck-up TvZ and want to change that with a ravager fix that might screw ZvP. Also the fact that they literally said: PRO's think this is bad, we disagree so fuck you, that's why
I'll just hope they listen and let tank pick-up stay or at least come up with a good solution. I can't complain too much about LotV so far but i am only watching and not playing. So i get why people have complaints.
On February 27 2016 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: One time he has agood idea and one week later he's already reverting back on those changes. Can't describe how disappointed I am, tvt is pure cancer right now and a long delay on tanks won't fix that. Also the poll showed clearly that the vast majority wants the tank drop gone.
Edit: maybe I was to fast with my criticism because DK stated he's willing to buff tanks even further but I really don't think medivacs should be able to pick up tanks at all.
I really hope they remove the flying tanks, but from what I am reading in comments I am not seeing a majority wanting the tankavacs removed. Feels it really is about split, half the comments I read want it gone (I do to), the other half want it to stay.
I think it's going to stay unfortunately, I don't see Blizzard changing that at all. Flying tanks with a damage buff sounds wrong to me to xD.
We would obviously want to combo this with more of a damage buff than we have cuttently
I really don't think tanks need even more damage especially not for tvt. The biggest issue with mech play are vipers in tvz and tempests in tvp. A further tank buff won't really help against those two units but would make them overpowered against everything else.
So maybe adress blinding cloud by reducing the range of affected units by 5 or 6 so tanks don't get nullified by it and nerf tempests which are currently problematic in every matchup.
GSL showed it pretty well this morning, libs just shred everything and toss's only answer is the worst dps/cost unit in the game that's saving grace is that it outranges it. I think a slight increase to the time for the dropped tank to fire vs removing the mechanic. Make it 3-4 seconds so that in TvT positioning matters and for TvZ, they have a chance of repositioning their army/drones during drop/pickup play
If tempests get nerfed, libs can be nerfed too. It's bad design anyway that an air unit can only be countered with other air units.
On February 27 2016 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: One time he has agood idea and one week later he's already reverting back on those changes. Can't describe how disappointed I am, tvt is pure cancer right now and a long delay on tanks won't fix that. Also the poll showed clearly that the vast majority wants the tank drop gone.
Edit: maybe I was to fast with my criticism because DK stated he's willing to buff tanks even further but I really don't think medivacs should be able to pick up tanks at all.
I really hope they remove the flying tanks, but from what I am reading in comments I am not seeing a majority wanting the tankavacs removed. Feels it really is about split, half the comments I read want it gone (I do to), the other half want it to stay.
I think it's going to stay unfortunately, I don't see Blizzard changing that at all. Flying tanks with a damage buff sounds wrong to me to xD.
the TL poll had 63% wanting the tank pickup to be removed 7% were undecided and only 30% wanted it to stay so it's not really split. also keep in mind that 2/3 of the feedback comes from people who don't experience the real reason why tankivacs are bad: TvT
A large majority of the player want to remove the tankivac and increase tank damage. Tankivacs have completely destroyed TvT and made what once was the most beautiful machup completely one dimensional.
Do let a few Korean pro players destroy the game. Blizzard first priority should be that the game is fun and varied to play, not what the pro players think.
League of Legends is popular because the priority is the players and making the game fun and varied, the e-sport scene is consequence of the game being popular, not the other way around. Blizzard should learn from this, there is no shame in copying what works, it is only smart.
I think the whole reason for this games decline is that Blizzard worries too much about e-sport instead of prioritising making the actual game fun and varied, making it is possible to use multiple compositions in every match ups.
Protoss and Zerg have lots of different viable combos. Terran has only marine/tankivac.
On February 27 2016 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: One time he has agood idea and one week later he's already reverting back on those changes. Can't describe how disappointed I am, tvt is pure cancer right now and a long delay on tanks won't fix that. Also the poll showed clearly that the vast majority wants the tank drop gone.
Edit: maybe I was to fast with my criticism because DK stated he's willing to buff tanks even further but I really don't think medivacs should be able to pick up tanks at all.
I really hope they remove the flying tanks, but from what I am reading in comments I am not seeing a majority wanting the tankavacs removed. Feels it really is about split, half the comments I read want it gone (I do to), the other half want it to stay.
I think it's going to stay unfortunately, I don't see Blizzard changing that at all. Flying tanks with a damage buff sounds wrong to me to xD.
the TL poll had 63% wanting the tank pickup to be removed 7% were undecided and only 30% wanted it to stay so it's not really split. also keep in mind that 2/3 of the feedback comes from people who don't experience the real reason why tankivacs are bad: TvT
A TL poll still isn't every player, that's only the people that go to TL. Reddit for example seems to favor keeping tankivacs more it feels like. Dunno to me it seems really split, I would need more then 1 poll for me to think it wasn't just from reading all the threads regarding the change.
You are correct on that part that 2/3 of the feedback don't know about TvT, thing is I don't think Blizzard is going to care about that fact.
On February 27 2016 04:13 BlackCompany wrote: It's kind of funny they want to change tanks to influence TvT, by doing so fuck-up TvZ and want to change that with a ravager fix that might screw ZvP. Also the fact that they literally said: PRO's think this is bad, we disagree so fuck you, that's why
I'll just hope they listen and let tank pick-up stay or at least come up with a good solution. I can't complain too much about LotV so far but i am only watching and not playing. So i get why people have complaints.
Honnestly the nerf they're proposing now only really affects TvT, that's perfect. And I'm glad they're not listening to all those for want to build 2 turrets per tank in order to have "cool mech games".
On February 27 2016 04:13 BlackCompany wrote: It's kind of funny they want to change tanks to influence TvT, by doing so fuck-up TvZ and want to change that with a ravager fix that might screw ZvP. Also the fact that they literally said: PRO's think this is bad, we disagree so fuck you, that's why
I'll just hope they listen and let tank pick-up stay or at least come up with a good solution. I can't complain too much about LotV so far but i am only watching and not playing. So i get why people have complaints.
Honnestly the nerf they're proposing now only really affects TvT, that's perfect. And I'm glad they're not listening to all those for want to build 2 turrets per tank in order to have "cool mech games".
Ya i can agree to that, changing time to fire after dropping seems like a decent idea instead of just removing pick-up.
as a compromise solution i requested a delayed initial shot and i'm glad my voice and the voice of others who felt the same way was heard.
That said PLEASE MR. KIM SIR, AS A FELLOW CANADIAN, I'M BEGGING YOU TO KEEP THE DAMAGE BUFF ON THE TANK
On February 27 2016 03:49 BronzeKnee wrote: David Kim has kindly asked us all to not to harshly criticize his ideas because it demotivates him and the team. And we don't want to hurt anyones feelings. Source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20419654373
i love the game. me and my little RTS pals are having a blast; However, being shamed into some fake positivity is total BS. It also goes against the "Blizzard philosophy" of total chaos and total anarchy.
LotV is great, but it won't return the genre to its past glory. Ms PacMan, Gallaga, and Flight Simultar 5 were all great games and none of them saved their respective genres. LotV will be no different. The RTS genre we submit to its destiny as did the Vertical-Gallery-Shooter genre, the Dot-Eating-Maze-Game genre and the Flight-Simulator genre. It doesn't matter how good LotV is. The glory days of the RTS genre are over and will never return. it's already over.
DK should not take poor LotV sales totals personally. The decrease in consumer demand for the entire genre is out of his control and at least 4 management layers above his pay-scale.
People still play dot-eating-maze games , vertical-gallery-shooters, and flight-sims. That's where the RTS genre is headed. Look for ATVI to pull the plug on Team-1 in less than a year.
Overall, David Kim is doing a great job; However, in this area of "pr management" he is making a bad move.
Well, back to playing more automated tournaments... just my $0.02.
They are making the choice to hold back on more balance changes while a big tournament finishes and the last balance patch has its issues fine tuned. Most of you may want blizzard to appeal to your wants but the fact of the matter is that the pros in this game are the only people who can truly test balance.
Also, I move to see that TL adds a league option that can be proven by forum mods through replays much like reddit and only allow Masters and Grand Masters (diamond?) to make posts on the official balance thread. As a platty id much rather see educated discussion about it in an easy to find location, right underneath the discussed issues and see other reactions in an off topic thread created along side this one.
I think possibly doubling the delay on the first shot is a decent enough compromise. I don't want to see flying tanks removed. And re: the Liberator ... what about just making it massive?
On February 27 2016 04:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: as a compromise solution i requested a delayed initial shot and i'm glad my voice and the voice of others who felt the same way was heard.
That said PLEASE MR. KIM SIR, AS A FELLOW CANADIAN, I'M BEGGING YOU TO KEEP THE DAMAGE BUFF ON THE TANK
On February 27 2016 03:49 BronzeKnee wrote: David Kim has kindly asked us all to not to harshly criticize his ideas because it demotivates him and the team. And we don't want to hurt anyones feelings. Source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20419654373
i love the game. me and my little RTS pals are having a blast; However, being shamed into some fake positivity is total BS. It also goes against the "Blizzard philosophy" of total chaos and total anarchy.
LotV is great, but it won't return the genre to its past glory. Ms PacMan, Gallaga, and Flight Simultar 5 were all great games and none of them saved their respective genres. LotV will be no different. The RTS genre we submit to its destiny as did the Vertical-Gallery-Shooter genre, the Dot-Eating-Maze-Game genre and the Flight-Simulator genre. It doesn't matter how good LotV is. The glory days of the RTS genre are over and will never return. it's already over.
DK should not take poor LotV sales totals personally. The decrease in consumer demand for the entire genre is out of his control and at least 4 management layers above his pay-scale.
People still play dot-eating-maze games , vertical-gallery-shooters, and flight-sims. That's where the RTS genre is headed. Look for ATVI to pull the plug on Team-1 in less than a year.
Overall, David Kim is doing a great job; However, in this area of "pr management" he is making a bad move.
Well, back to playing more automated tournaments... just my $0.02.
the fact that sc2 has absoulutely no competition in the RTS market should show him what a great job he has done.
As long as mech ultra boring / painful to play games are not the norm I'm fine with their changes, but tankivac is needed in TvZ (maybe in TvP too?) and TvT can be hard to figure out but I'm sure it can be learned.
On February 27 2016 04:48 Lightbrite wrote: Also, I move to see that TL adds a league option that can be proven by forum mods through replays much like reddit and only allow Masters and Grand Masters (diamond?)
Avilo was in the top 50 of Red Alert 3. His diatribes, conniptions, and Greg Black name-calling added almost nothing to Gr.Org balance patch discussion of RA3.
i'm a diamond terran and to keep myself in diamond i have 1 composition i use repeatedly. i'm in platinum with random and i learn far more about the game by playing with that account.
On February 27 2016 04:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote: as a compromise solution i requested a delayed initial shot and i'm glad my voice and the voice of others who felt the same way was heard.
That said PLEASE MR. KIM SIR, AS A FELLOW CANADIAN, I'M BEGGING YOU TO KEEP THE DAMAGE BUFF ON THE TANK
On February 27 2016 03:49 BronzeKnee wrote: David Kim has kindly asked us all to not to harshly criticize his ideas because it demotivates him and the team. And we don't want to hurt anyones feelings. Source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20419654373
i love the game. me and my little RTS pals are having a blast; However, being shamed into some fake positivity is total BS. It also goes against the "Blizzard philosophy" of total chaos and total anarchy.
LotV is great, but it won't return the genre to its past glory. Ms PacMan, Gallaga, and Flight Simultar 5 were all great games and none of them saved their respective genres. LotV will be no different. The RTS genre we submit to its destiny as did the Vertical-Gallery-Shooter genre, the Dot-Eating-Maze-Game genre and the Flight-Simulator genre. It doesn't matter how good LotV is. The glory days of the RTS genre are over and will never return. it's already over.
DK should not take poor LotV sales totals personally. The decrease in consumer demand for the entire genre is out of his control and at least 4 management layers above his pay-scale.
People still play dot-eating-maze games , vertical-gallery-shooters, and flight-sims. That's where the RTS genre is headed. Look for ATVI to pull the plug on Team-1 in less than a year.
Overall, David Kim is doing a great job; However, in this area of "pr management" he is making a bad move.
Well, back to playing more automated tournaments... just my $0.02.
the fact that sc2 has absoulutely no competition in the RTS market should show him what a great job he has done.
he did a great job with CoH as well and its interesting that CoH2 is the only other RTS game we can really describe as "alive" from a financial perspective.
the guy is a really damn good game designer. Morhaime, Sigaty and Browder are fisherman.. who know how to spot another fisherman when they see one.
Disable Medivac Boost while carrying tanks in siege mode? That way you can still save them from Ravagers etc. but if you just pick up all your tanks in TvT his Vikings will get you.
For consistency they'd have to add this to the Thor as well, I guess.
On February 27 2016 04:53 DinoMight wrote: Disable Medivac Boost while carrying tanks in siege mode? That way you can still save them from Ravagers etc. but if you just pick up all your tanks in TvT his Vikings will get you.
For consistency they'd have to add this to the Thor as well, I guess.
But this should affect like 0% of pro games.
that is a cool idea. Give every unit a "mass" and when the Medivac exceeds that "mass" it can't Boost. I don't know if it makes things "too complex and convoluted" for new players though. But its a great idea.
I actually kinda dig the tank idea. Increase the duration a tank needs before it fires after being dropped to make positioning matter more. Of course, I anticipate this to do fuck all against doom drops (if you drop first you still shoot first and if I'm out of position for the 4 seconds it takes the tank it still shoots me when I get there), but then, I could also have doom dropped with unsieged tanks if I wanted to. Removing boost when units are dangling underneath and increasing the time the tank needs to shoot might be a good idea.
Would also make tankivacs more vulnerable and worth protecting more. And then you could increase the dmg further.
Since its all about the KR pro teams, why would we bother to give any feedback. But blizzard didnt listen to them till KR players expressed their opinion about the Adepts publicly. So, they want feedback but dont listen to it till everyone starts a riot.
On February 27 2016 04:48 Lightbrite wrote: Also, I move to see that TL adds a league option that can be proven by forum mods through replays much like reddit and only allow Masters and Grand Masters (diamond?)
Avilo was in the top 50 of Red Alert 3. His diatribes, conniptions, and Greg Black name-calling added almost nothing to Gr.Org balance patch discussion of RA3.
i'm a diamond terran and to keep myself in diamond i have 1 composition i use. i'm in platinum with random and i learn far more about the game by playing with that account.
I know that everyone would not fall under the restriction but most Masters+ give better detailed answers than shuffling through a forum half full of people who dont understand or care enough and just see what is in front of them and complain about it. It should be in an off-topic area. TL prides themselves on forum moderation but leaves important threads like this out in the wind for everyone to take a piece of. Id rather see those pieces cleaned up and put back on the board rather than just blown away by complaining and other useless trolling.
You also use the sc2 streamer community's most known troll player (who can actually play very well and im sure has given good feedback) as an example of what this would do to the forum. Not a real good example. Imagine if people like Neuro, Lowko, Tang, Blade (im a zerg) could have full run of a balance discussion. Imagine if blizzard had that. They really dont from the community and they beg for it. So lets work to have it done that way, im not suggesting taking everyones right to speak away rather than just leaving another thread for the players who dedicate time and money to playing this game and have a passion and understanding of the game that us 9-5ers and students dont so we have a place to go to get good knowledge and its in an organized place. Not half scewered across the internet in random outdated forum posts that you have to shuffle through and find that its a WoL strat.. not really good for new players.
On February 27 2016 04:53 DinoMight wrote: Disable Medivac Boost while carrying tanks in siege mode? That way you can still save them from Ravagers etc. but if you just pick up all your tanks in TvT his Vikings will get you.
For consistency they'd have to add this to the Thor as well, I guess.
But this should affect like 0% of pro games.
I love this idea! Sounds like a great compromise, and I'm a Terran player.
I dont understand why if the lack of mobility is an problem because mining is way more spread out, a range buff is nowhere mentioned. this would make a lot more sense because they need to cover more room in the map.
On February 27 2016 04:53 DinoMight wrote: Disable Medivac Boost while carrying tanks in siege mode? That way you can still save them from Ravagers etc. but if you just pick up all your tanks in TvT his Vikings will get you.
For consistency they'd have to add this to the Thor as well, I guess.
But this should affect like 0% of pro games.
that is a cool idea. Give every unit a "mass" and when the Medivac exceeds that "mass" it can't Boost. I don't know if it makes things "too complex and convoluted" for new players though. But its a great idea.
The mass thing would be too complicated but the visual indicator could be if the unit is visible outside of the medivac boost becomes disabled. AFAIK only the sieged tank and Thor do that.
On February 27 2016 04:48 Lightbrite wrote: Also, I move to see that TL adds a league option that can be proven by forum mods through replays much like reddit and only allow Masters and Grand Masters (diamond?)
Avilo was in the top 50 of Red Alert 3. His diatribes, conniptions, and Greg Black name-calling added almost nothing to Gr.Org balance patch discussion of RA3.
i'm a diamond terran and to keep myself in diamond i have 1 composition i use. i'm in platinum with random and i learn far more about the game by playing with that account.
I know that everyone would not fall under the restriction but most Masters+ give better detailed answers than shuffling through a forum half full of people who dont understand or care enough and just see what is in front of them and complain about it. It should be in an off-topic area. TL prides themselves on forum moderation but leaves important threads like this out in the wind for everyone to take a piece of. Id rather see those pieces cleaned up and put back on the board rather than just blown away by complaining and other useless trolling.
You also use the sc2 streamer community's most known troll player (who can actually play very well and im sure has given good feedback) as an example of what this would do to the forum. Not a real good example. Imagine if people like Neuro, Lowko, Tang, Blade (im a zerg) could have full run of a balance discussion. Imagine if blizzard had that. They really dont from the community and they beg for it. So lets work to have it done that way, im not suggesting taking everyones right to speak away rather than just leaving another thread for the players who dedicate time and money to playing this game and have a passion and understanding of the game that us 9-5ers and students dont so we have a place to go to get good knowledge and its in an organized place. Not half scewered across the internet in random outdated forum posts that you have to shuffle through and find that its a WoL strat.. not really good for new players.
my rebuttal is David Kim's speech some years ago about how he filters through pro player feedback.
this also happened in the C&C community when DasDuelon and Technique sniped back and forth on every balance discussion topic.
all this said... there is nothing wrong with a thread of nothing but GM discussion about balance. it just won't be the be-all and end-all on a topic though. it would make for interesting reading. You'll never hear that the Combat Shield is a way better upgrade than Stim Pack in this discussion because no one has an APM of 30.
On February 27 2016 05:13 matthy wrote: I dont understand why if the lack of mobility is an problem because mining is way more spread out, a range buff is nowhere mentioned. this would make a lot more sense because they need to cover more room in the map.
I think they're a bit scared of range buffs because you could make some really abusive builds for some maps where you take full advantage of the fact that you outrange literally everything.
Yeah tank range already somewhat limits mapping options. Giving it more range would make it so on like Dusk you could siege the main mineral line from the back gold base.
On February 27 2016 04:48 Lightbrite wrote: They are making the choice to hold back on more balance changes while a big tournament finishes and the last balance patch has its issues fine tuned. Most of you may want blizzard to appeal to your wants but the fact of the matter is that the pros in this game are the only people who can truly test balance.
Also, I move to see that TL adds a league option that can be proven by forum mods through replays much like reddit and only allow Masters and Grand Masters (diamond?) to make posts on the official balance thread. As a platty id much rather see educated discussion about it in an easy to find location, right underneath the discussed issues and see other reactions in an off topic thread created along side this one.
The counterargument to that is that balance should only truly be judged by the highest level of play, and that therefore a Bronze player who closely followed the Korean scene would be better informed than a Masters player who doesn't.
Additionally while being good at the game does guarantee to a certain extent that you understand the game (though the converse isn't true. Some people just have terrible mechanics), it doesn't mean that you are a good designer and that your suggestions would be any good.
So ladder rank while not entirely orthogonal to making educated posts about balance isn't really a good ranking for it.
Further increase the delay before the first shot after sieged tank is dropped, maybe even the time it takes to siege. As suggested in thread, if its that long a visual indicator would be great. I said it before, the problem is the drop, the pick part is a great feature.
The entire make mech viable thing is just silly imo, there is plenty of diversity for terran unit compositions, except for TvT, but if we want to increase it, buff thor/cyclone scaling instead. If that makes mech viable, great, if it doesn't, still great. I really don't get this need to play with one production facility.
I also saw people proposing an increased cooldown for bile instead of a damage nerf and i liked it, zerg spams bile too much, but the damage is not that high. It should help protoss anyway, i know the main problem is the burst on buildings, but zerg will be out of biles for a longer timing if they snipe a pylon or something and ravagers are quite vulnerable with no biles.
About the cyclone change... im not sure damage or heath buff with a supply increase is the way to go. They could become even better early and still suck later on.
On February 27 2016 05:19 Tenks wrote: Yeah tank range already somewhat limits mapping options. Giving it more range would make it so on like Dusk you could siege the main mineral line from the back gold base.
Huh, I didn't even think of that map, you're right, with the right build you could safely set up tanks there before there's an answer. Which I assume would force every Zerg to go 2-base muta on Dusk Towers, which could then be exploited with going for other builds. My, the things a simple range change can do.
On February 27 2016 04:53 DinoMight wrote: Disable Medivac Boost while carrying tanks in siege mode? That way you can still save them from Ravagers etc. but if you just pick up all your tanks in TvT his Vikings will get you.
For consistency they'd have to add this to the Thor as well, I guess.
But this should affect like 0% of pro games.
Thanks for reminding me about INnoVation's sad and confused Thor flying around the map for five minutes.
In all seriousness, I've heard this suggestion before and I really really like it. Visually it's super intuitive. It doesn't negatively affect TvZ or TvP at all, and might actually make TvT even BETTER than it was in HOTS (fewer doom drops). Maybe we would see Mutas occasionally swooping in to pick off the slower tank-filled Medivacs of a Terran who took too many shortcuts.
I was a big fan of trying an increased attack cool down on the first shot after dropping, but now I think this is my #1 fav idea.
Removing boost from tanks doesn't really fix what they're trying to fix in TvT which is the stagnent unit composition. You'll still have to go marine + tank + medivac regardless of boost or not.
While this may not be necessarily a good move with regard to balance, I would like it if blizzard would change creep spread back to what it was in HotS. It seems to me pros invest way less in creep spread because it recedes so fast right now. I always thought of the zerg slowly taking over the entire map and the counterplay of the other races (especially terran) always was really cool and I like to see more of that.
On February 27 2016 05:26 pure.Wasted wrote: I was a big fan of trying an increased attack cool down on the first shot after dropping, but now I think this is my #1 fav idea.
I think you could do both without making tankivacs useless if you both the damage to compensate.
On February 27 2016 05:27 Tenks wrote: Removing boost from tanks doesn't really fix what they're trying to fix in TvT which is the stagnent unit composition. You'll still have to go marine + tank + medivac regardless of boost or not.
Vikings stand a chance of picking off the Medivac carrying the Tank.
On February 27 2016 05:29 MJesk wrote: While this may not be necessarily a good move with regard to balance, I would like it if blizzard would change creep spread back to what it was in HotS. It seems to me pros invest way less in creep spread because it recedes so fast right now. I always thought of the zerg slowly taking over the entire map and the counterplay of the other races (especially terran) always was really cool and I like to see more of that.
There's nothing a non-Zerg hates more than that one stupid overlord pooping creep at your 3rd or 4th base which then takes a minute to recede though. I don't think people will get behind that one.
On February 27 2016 05:27 Tenks wrote: Removing boost from tanks doesn't really fix what they're trying to fix in TvT which is the stagnent unit composition. You'll still have to go marine + tank + medivac regardless of boost or not.
Vikings stand a chance of picking off the Medivac carrying the Tank.
But what does that accomplish? Now you also have to get into a Viking arms race as well? I don't see what unit comps that opens up.
They can nerf ravagers but they need to do something with immortals as well or bring back upgraded infested terrans since spellcasters for zerg are just plain bad to their T/P counterparts
If the #1 thing they want to address is trying to discourage doom dropping in TvT why not look into making the turret do additional damage vs armored? Might break Zerg scouting with Overseers, though. Possibly make it an ebay upgrade.
On February 27 2016 05:29 MJesk wrote: While this may not be necessarily a good move with regard to balance, I would like it if blizzard would change creep spread back to what it was in HotS. It seems to me pros invest way less in creep spread because it recedes so fast right now. I always thought of the zerg slowly taking over the entire map and the counterplay of the other races (especially terran) always was really cool and I like to see more of that.
There's nothing a non-Zerg hates more than that one stupid overlord pooping creep at your 3rd or 4th base which then takes a minute to recede though. I don't think people will get behind that one.
Well, I guess that's a pain, but as a spectator it's pretty entertaining. Also, people really on top of their game kill that overlord way before they take that base. It does promote better play on both sides.
On February 27 2016 05:20 Superbanana wrote: The entire make mech viable thing is just silly imo, there is plenty of diversity for terran unit compositions, except for TvT
No there isn't. There is literally not a single viable unit composition, outside of timing attacks, that doesn't start with "OK now get a LOT of Marines and Medivacs, you should have more supply in Marines and Medivacs than in anything else..." every single game of every single MU, in some cases for years now.
Do not pretend that Zerg and Protoss is anything remotely like this. Zerg can play a lategame of just remaxing on Ultras over and over, for god's sake. Or go Roach/Ravager or go Ling/Bane or get 30 Mutas.
On February 27 2016 05:29 MJesk wrote: While this may not be necessarily a good move with regard to balance, I would like it if blizzard would change creep spread back to what it was in HotS. It seems to me pros invest way less in creep spread because it recedes so fast right now. I always thought of the zerg slowly taking over the entire map and the counterplay of the other races (especially terran) always was really cool and I like to see more of that.
There's nothing a non-Zerg hates more than that one stupid overlord pooping creep at your 3rd or 4th base which then takes a minute to recede though. I don't think people will get behind that one.
Well, I guess that's a pain, but as a spectator it's pretty entertaining. Also, people really on top of their game kill that overlord way before they take that base. It does promote better play on both sides.
People really on top of their game also still spread creep like they used to in HotS.
On February 27 2016 05:36 Tenks wrote: I found and still find creep to be the most anti-fun mechanic in the game on both sides. Spreading it and clearing it is tedious.
I always wished they had introduced different versions of creep tumors, providing different buffs/functions in their AOEs, to add a bit of strategy and decision making to the process.
Not that I mind forcing rote clicking on pros terribly much. Them Zergs gotta build something if it ain't buildings!
On February 27 2016 05:38 Penev wrote: So the liberator nerf is of the table? Damn I dislike this multi purpose unit. Especially when combined with tanks. :/
Well, they were only going to nerf the initial range anyway. Considering how strong the unit would still be (especially after the range upgrade) and that the ravager nerf isn't supposed to affect ZvT anymore I think it's fine to not change the range. Might wanna change the other stats instead...
On February 27 2016 05:36 Tenks wrote: I found and still find creep to be the most anti-fun mechanic in the game on both sides. Spreading it and clearing it is tedious.
I always wished they had introduced different versions of creep tumors, providing different buffs/functions in their AOEs, to add a bit of strategy and decision making to the process.
Not that I mind forcing rote clicking on pros terribly much. Them Zergs gotta build something if it ain't buildings!
I just wish they weren't invisible. Its already dangerous enough just walking onto creep but now I have to walk onto it and scan it away. But this discussion is completely irrelevant to the OP so I'll just stop with any creep rants. Your idea does sound pretty fun, though.
On February 27 2016 05:36 Tenks wrote: I found and still find creep to be the most anti-fun mechanic in the game on both sides. Spreading it and clearing it is tedious.
it adds to the "fantasy of zerg" slowly engulfing the entire planet.. not just living on it... but consuming it from the inside out. i like the mechanic and i like how it offers a small advantage.
Just do something about TvP already. It's ridicilous how Protoss can still play that matchup like ever he wants and going lategame against protoss is not an option. And what about Oracle? I can't figure if there is any other unit that can do so many things that Oracle does. You only need to build one Oracle and you can go safe 3rd base, it kills workers extremely fast, it is a detection, it's like the fastest unit in the game, it can scout enemy's army the whole game using revelation and it can even put some statis traps for extra map control. Oh and if you don't prepare against it you lose. And all this in one unit and you have to build only one during the whole game. Sounds fair?
Oh, and remove the Warp Prism's pickup range already. It makes no sense that it's still in the game.
Speaking of Ravager, I really really hope they don't nerf how spammable Corrosive Bile is. Corrosive Bile is a great mechanical skill check for the Zerg and his opponent. Every time it's cast is an opportunity for either player to mess up or make a great play.
I would much prefer a Bile range nerf (to make Ravagers more vulnerable) or a Ravager Warren to delay aggressive timings.
On February 27 2016 05:38 Penev wrote: So the liberator nerf is of the table? Damn I dislike this multi purpose unit. Especially when combined with tanks. :/
Well, they were only going to nerf the initial range anyway. Considering how strong the unit would still be (especially after the range upgrade) and that the ravager nerf isn't supposed to affect ZvT anymore I think it's fine to not change the range. Might wanna change the other stats instead...
Nerf ultras and adepts and we can talk about a liberator nerf. Terran needs liberators in their current state to stand a chance against the other races.
On February 27 2016 05:47 SiaBBo wrote: Just do something about TvP already. It's ridicilous how Protoss can still play that matchup like ever he wants and going lategame against protoss is not an option. And what about Oracle? I can't figure if there is any other unit that can do so many things that Oracle does. You only need to build one Oracle and you can go safe 3rd base, it kills workers extremely fast, it is a detection, it's like the fastest unit in the game, it can scout enemy's army the whole game using revelation and it can even put some statis traps for extra map control. Oh and if you don't prepare against it you lose. And all this in one unit and you have to build only one during the whole game. Sounds fair?
Oh, and remove the Warp Prism's pickup range already. It makes no sense that it's still in the game.
Should what KR pro feedback is verbalized be the right information to obtain and make a decision with? Or, should what is occurring inside of actual KR pro games at the highest level be the right information to analyze?
If I am a KR pro and my livelihood in the next few tournaments depends on whether a powerful ability is removed, or left in the game for my race - what should I be saying to succeed? "Blizzard, Remove the tankivac it's wrong" and then go grind out my 12 hour training day in the game so that i can pay my bills?
Is what is being said/sold important to adjust gameplay/balance, or the actual game data (watching replays) at the highest level? I am of the view that there could be a gap between the two.
On February 27 2016 05:47 SiaBBo wrote: Just do something about TvP already. It's ridicilous how Protoss can still play that matchup like ever he wants and going lategame against protoss is not an option. And what about Oracle? I can't figure if there is any other unit that can do so many things that Oracle does. You only need to build one Oracle and you can go safe 3rd base, it kills workers extremely fast, it is a detection, it's like the fastest unit in the game, it can scout enemy's army the whole game using revelation and it can even put some statis traps for extra map control. Oh and if you don't prepare against it you lose. And all this in one unit and you have to build only one during the whole game. Sounds fair?
Oh, and remove the Warp Prism's pickup range already. It makes no sense that it's still in the game.
On February 27 2016 05:38 Penev wrote: So the liberator nerf is of the table? Damn I dislike this multi purpose unit. Especially when combined with tanks. :/
Well, they were only going to nerf the initial range anyway. Considering how strong the unit would still be (especially after the range upgrade) and that the ravager nerf isn't supposed to affect ZvT anymore I think it's fine to not change the range. Might wanna change the other stats instead...
Nerf ultras and adepts and we can talk about a liberator nerf. Terran needs liberators in their current state to stand a chance against the other races.
It's just a hypothetical scenario that would only make sense to consider with a tank buff.
On February 27 2016 05:36 Tenks wrote: I found and still find creep to be the most anti-fun mechanic in the game on both sides. Spreading it and clearing it is tedious.
it adds to the "fantasy of zerg" slowly engulfing the entire planet.. not just living on it... but consuming it from the inside out. i like the mechanic and i like how it offers a small advantage.
That is how I see it as well.. adds to the infestation. It is a nuisance for sure, but very "in character" for the Zerg race.
I play Terran, but I love the diversity of the mechanics for all the races.
Please take notice that four out of five factory units are currently under performing in this current LOTV version of SC. Hellions are beautiful of course. We thank you for Hellions.
I have to say that I am a bit concerned that all discussions seem to go as follows:
- Maybe Thors are in need of some help, well maybe not. - Maybe Cyclones are broken, well, let's wait and see. - Maybe Tanks should obtain a damage buff, or maybe they shouldn't.
If all three units were new to LOTV, I would be less concerned. Unfortunately, two have been in a mediocre or bad state for quite some time (HOTS). Furthermore, I wouldn't call the fourth unit in need of help, Hellbats, game ending even if you are ahead in economy and/or army supply. Hellbats can be useful at times at KR level play - at best.
Rarely will you hear: "Pro player has an army supply and is moving across the map to end this with an impressive army supply of Hellbat, Cyclone, Thors and Tanks". We are not asking for OP - just for something not too far behind nine barracks power to move out on the map and possibly finish a game when you are significantly ahead of your opponent.
Edit: The widow mine is great but still a niche unit I think. No death ball or push at 200/200 is really having mines unless as support for MMM on many rax with double EB.
this isn’t a change that needs to be implemented immediately. Therefore, we should take our time to carefully evaluate different options before making a final decision.
it's like getting told your tumor isn't large enough yet so they can't operate
after a few more months of TvT cancer david kim is gonna go with some shitty compromise like picking up sieged tanks in tank mode
this isn’t a change that needs to be implemented immediately. Therefore, we should take our time to carefully evaluate different options before making a final decision.
it's like getting told your tumor isn't large enough yet so they can't operate
after a few more months of TvT cancer david kim is gonna go with some shitty compromise like picking up sieged tanks in tank mode
no i think its more like entering a thread about SC2 balance and then having to read tumour and cancer analogies.
On February 27 2016 05:38 Penev wrote: So the liberator nerf is of the table? Damn I dislike this multi purpose unit. Especially when combined with tanks. :/
Well, they were only going to nerf the initial range anyway. Considering how strong the unit would still be (especially after the range upgrade) and that the ravager nerf isn't supposed to affect ZvT anymore I think it's fine to not change the range. Might wanna change the other stats instead...
Nerf ultras and adepts and we can talk about a liberator nerf. Terran needs liberators in their current state to stand a chance against the other races.
I can say that zerg needs ultras to survive against terran lol
On February 27 2016 03:49 Charoisaur wrote: One time he has agood idea and one week later he's already reverting back on those changes. Can't describe how disappointed I am, tvt is pure cancer right now and a long delay on tanks won't fix that. Also the poll showed clearly that the vast majority wants the tank drop gone.
It's been obvious since beta that they really don't give a damn what the players want. Polls were even clearer during beta, and they completed ignored them then. They will do the same again now too.
It shows once again that their stance is a pure PR perspective. It doesn't matter what polls say, if it's anything that sparks any sort of major debate with top players, they will revert, regardless if it's better for the health of the game in the long run. The game is being designed for PR to minimize losses during it's decline, rather than being designed intelligently towards an overall vision of the game that will be approved by the community as a whole.
Come on, are you really surprised? I mean look at how they opened up this weeks update...
On February 27 2016 03:38 purakushi wrote: It’s awesome how we’re all working towards having a more positive atmosphere towards StarCraft II on various sites and forums. We’re encouraged by the results of our collaboration with all the dedicated players out there who contribute to the StarCraft community on a daily basis. Thanks to you, we’re able to make the game better through weekly updates, balance test maps, and our constructive discussions. A healthy and positive community is vital to our game, especially when it comes to attracting new players and making them feel welcome. Let’s continue to focus on constructive feedback and work towards our goal of continually improving StarCraft II.
Yeah... Because the atmosphere of the community is so positive right now.... In reality it's at one of the lowest points it's been at for the whole life of SC2...
This is PR. They don't give a crap about polls. They don't give a damn about reality. The only thing that care about is that the few players and pro teams who have stuck with them this far don't leave. And that means no major changes. Even though major changes are what the game needs if it ever wants to receive a truly positive reception ever again.
They should be focusing on growth, they even say "attracting new players and making them feel welcome" in the update, but in reality they are focusing on minimizing losses. Absolutely nothing they are doing is focusing on growth of the game. Absolutely nothing they are doing is going to attract new players or make them feel welcome. That should send a message to all of us loud and clear...
On February 27 2016 05:38 Penev wrote: So the liberator nerf is of the table? Damn I dislike this multi purpose unit. Especially when combined with tanks. :/
Well, they were only going to nerf the initial range anyway. Considering how strong the unit would still be (especially after the range upgrade) and that the ravager nerf isn't supposed to affect ZvT anymore I think it's fine to not change the range. Might wanna change the other stats instead...
Nerf ultras and adepts and we can talk about a liberator nerf. Terran needs liberators in their current state to stand a chance against the other races.
I can say that zerg needs ultras to survive against terran lol
yeah, all 3 races depend on their "op units" in the current state of the game.
We would obviously want to combo this with more of a damage buff than we have cuttently
I really don't think tanks need even more damage especially not for tvt. The biggest issue with mech play are vipers in tvz and tempests in tvp. A further tank buff won't really help against those two units but would make them overpowered against everything else.
So maybe adress blinding cloud by reducing the range of affected units by 5 or 6 so tanks don't get nullified by it and nerf tempests which are currently problematic in every matchup.
GSL showed it pretty well this morning, libs just shred everything and toss's only answer is the worst dps/cost unit in the game that's saving grace is that it outranges it. I think a slight increase to the time for the dropped tank to fire vs removing the mechanic. Make it 3-4 seconds so that in TvT positioning matters and for TvZ, they have a chance of repositioning their army/drones during drop/pickup play
If tempests get nerfed, libs can be nerfed too. It's bad design anyway that an air unit can only be countered with other air units.
I really don't think tempest needs to be nerfed. Revelation of the oracle is the real problem in my opinion.
Happy to see that tankivacs might stay in the game.
I think they should have siege tanks picked up in siege mode and dropped off in tank mode for increased damage instead. The current suggestion to have siege tanks retain their ability to be picked up and dropped off in siege mode with an increased delay and damage is not enough of a change. Also, the original suggestion of having siege tanks not be able to be picked up in siege mode at allis not going to result in Bio/Mech disappearing in exchange for Bio and Mech. It will likely result in Bio, Bio/Mech and Mech all becoming useful compositions.
On February 27 2016 04:53 DinoMight wrote: Disable Medivac Boost while carrying tanks in siege mode? That way you can still save them from Ravagers etc. but if you just pick up all your tanks in TvT his Vikings will get you.
For consistency they'd have to add this to the Thor as well, I guess.
But this should affect like 0% of pro games.
I love this idea! Sounds like a great compromise, and I'm a Terran player.
I also like this one, the medivac could be even slower. It limits the mobility of flying Siege Tanks and makes doom drops riskier, while those cool defensive pick-ups could still be feasible. Combined with a higher delay when shooting, and a damage buff, we could have the best from both options.
For example, if we further increased the time before the Siege Tank can fire, we may be able to get the effect we’re looking for. What if the time it takes to go into siege mode and fire once is equal to the time it takes before a Siege Tank can fire once it’s dropped off by the Medivac while in Siege Mode?
Well I think it needs to be slightly higher. The delay should be doubled from where it is now (so up to 3 seconds from 1.5 seconds).
On February 27 2016 05:32 Nerchio wrote: They can nerf ravagers but they need to do something with immortals as well or bring back upgraded infested terrans since spellcasters for zerg are just plain bad to their T/P counterparts
Do you really think the viper is bad? Or is it just the infestor?
On February 27 2016 05:32 Nerchio wrote: They can nerf ravagers but they need to do something with immortals as well or bring back upgraded infested terrans since spellcasters for zerg are just plain bad to their T/P counterparts
Do you really think the viper is bad? Or is it just the infestor?
The Viper is so strong that it straight up prevents Terran from building half of their units in fear that the Viper will easily shut them down.
Which means Zerg never actually needs to build Vipers.
Which means Vipers feel useless.
It's like Immortals in HOTS PvT, they seem completely useless but if they didn't exist mech might actually be viable (maybe possibly) and then you'd desperately want Immortals.
They really do need to fix TvT. It is about as tedious to play as the HotS hellbat bullshit. It is just absolutely no fun with doom drop into counter doom drop.
It’s awesome how we’re all working towards having a more positive atmosphere towards StarCraft II on various sites and forums.
Urgh really? The first thing they say? The attempt to prevent any criticism of their actions just disgusts me. It's pretty clear that they are not a balance/design team anymore, they are just a PR team.
I don't know David Kim, but what I'm reading is that half of the players defending the tankivac start their posts with "I'm only watching the game". There is a basic understanding issue, a balanced SC2 will always produce great games, the skill level is way too high not to. Even an imbalanced SC2 produces great games on the highest level. But viewers that have no clue about the game and should have no saying then use those games to justify the state of the game. Those games would happen with or without the tankivac.
On the other hand I tune into Nathanias stream for 5 seconds and I hear him complain about him winning by dropping his tankivacs first. Dunno, but the main argument I read from the actual players in favor of the tankivac are balance-concerns, mainly in ZvT, not how incredible fun TvT with tankivacs is.
We would obviously want to combo this with more of a damage buff than we have cuttently
I really don't think tanks need even more damage especially not for tvt. The biggest issue with mech play are vipers in tvz and tempests in tvp. A further tank buff won't really help against those two units but would make them overpowered against everything else.
So maybe adress blinding cloud by reducing the range of affected units by 5 or 6 so tanks don't get nullified by it and nerf tempests which are currently problematic in every matchup.
GSL showed it pretty well this morning, libs just shred everything and toss's only answer is the worst dps/cost unit in the game that's saving grace is that it outranges it. I think a slight increase to the time for the dropped tank to fire vs removing the mechanic. Make it 3-4 seconds so that in TvT positioning matters and for TvZ, they have a chance of repositioning their army/drones during drop/pickup play
If tempests get nerfed, libs can be nerfed too. It's bad design anyway that an air unit can only be countered with other air units.
This. It's so stupid to be forced to get tempests in PvT or lose the game. One response only.
Well one thing is sure, if they don't remove tankivacs and buff siege tanks like proposed, mech will pretty much never be used both in TvT and TvP. It will pretty much always be what we are seeing right now and that has been figured out already: Bio + tankivacs or liberators.
To me it's already feeling redundant and I'm all for some new fresh builds and meta...If really it's a must to be able to pick up sieged tanks I would make it so they unload unsieged, that way they could at least be saved agaisn't ravagers and they would require more micro and time to siege them up again so it would be fair.
With that said, depending on what they do with tankivacs, the ravagers will also need to be tweaked. There are so many ways to do this: increase their morphing time, require lair, make them armored, increase corrosive bile cooldown, nerf corrosive bile damage... This needs to be tested !
On February 27 2016 08:36 Psychobabas wrote: My god if they dont buff the damn tank damage... so frustrating...
Something tells me they didn't give up on that idea.
On February 27 2016 03:38 purakushi wrote: try out a version of the Siege Tank where we heavily increase the delay before Siege Tanks can fire after being dropped off by the Medivac while in Siege Mode. We would obviously want to combo this with more of a damage buff than what we have currently.
Concerning the liberators, they are like most of the air units slightly too strong at the moment. I'm all for nerfing them a little but I'm afraid decreasing their range will actually render them useless without the upgrade... I would look into increasing their supply cost to 4, reducing their move speed or reducing their attack speed instead...
That being said I would do something similar with the tempest: either increase their supply cost to 6, reduce their attack speed or even make them attack air only.
It’s awesome how we’re all working towards having a more positive atmosphere towards StarCraft II on various sites and forums.
Urgh really? The first thing they say? The attempt to prevent any criticism of their actions just disgusts me. It's pretty clear that they are not a balance/design team anymore, they are just a PR team.
Exactly!!
Design went out the window when they admit to choosing inferior design in order to avoid "negative perception from the community" during beta. The transition from Design team to PR team was completed at that point, and we've been screwed ever since.
On February 27 2016 08:36 Psychobabas wrote: My god if they dont buff the damn tank damage... so frustrating...
Welcome to everyday life when dealing with the SC2 development team.
Makes me so damn frustrated and angry. More than other games. Because SC2 SHOULD be a good game. Blizzard SHOULD have made major changes and turned things around by now. At least some-what. Just like they have did in the past on D2, WC3, D3, and basically every game of theirs except WoW.
Their vanilla games are not always the best reception, but Blizzard usually puts in the work to make each of their games a success. With SC2, I don't know what the hell they are doing anymore...
About the Korean pros well, they obviously have a lot of experience and we cannot ignore them, but I think their opinion can be biased simply because their actual life and income depends on the current game design and maps. So of course if they are winning with one strat all the time on the current map pool they will not want any change whatsoever...
The fact is that pretty much all the top T koreans are doing the same exact build which is Bio+ Libs some maybe using tankivas and that's pretty much all we will ever see unless we are willing to make some change...
On February 27 2016 08:57 MaxTa wrote: About the Korean pros well, they obviously have a lot of experience and we cannot ignore them, but I think their opinion can be biased simply because their actual life and income depends on the current game design and maps. So of course if they are winning with one strat all the time on the current map pool they will not want any change whatsoever...
The fact is that pretty much all the top T koreans are doing the same exact build which is Bio+ Libs some maybe using tankivas and that's pretty much all we will ever see unless we are willing to make some change...
You're implying that people who disagree with them are somehow not biased for any reason. Which I doubt.
Just posting here to say that I think the flying tanks in their current implementation in pro play are really cool, and I don't want them to take away flying tanks. I think the higher damage and longer delay could be cooler tho
Flying tanks + higher damage would be way too strong though, that's all we would see... It's either we keep everything like it is now or we buff their DPS but adjust accordingly...
On February 27 2016 07:59 Tenks wrote: They really do need to fix TvT. It is about as tedious to play as the HotS hellbat bullshit. It is just absolutely no fun with doom drop into counter doom drop.
Funny considering we're seing like 1/10 of the doom dropping action that there was in HotS in LotV pro games when both players are going marine/tank. I'd guess that until a certain skill level doom drops are still strong because players are unable to react properly with their own tankivacs.
On February 27 2016 09:02 MaxTa wrote: We're all at least slightly biased but Korean pros making a living out of it are more proned to it, im my opinion
at least they're not that awful that doom dropping is an issue because I'm pretty sure canon rushing should be an issue somewhere on the ladder too.
Tankivacs are too strong in TvT period. We need a different comp that can fight them on equal foot, to get the variety and strategy back in the match up.
I don't know how you can change this without impacting other match ups too much, though :
-remove them? -make them slower? -reduce their dmg? -buffing another Terran unit?
Whatever, something has to be done, or nobody will want to play not watch TvT in a few monthes.
On February 27 2016 09:27 Gwavajuice wrote: Tankivacs are too strong in TvT period. We need a different comp that can fight them on equal foot, to get the variety and strategy back in the match up.
I don't know how you can change this without impacting other match ups too much, though :
-remove them? -make them slower? -reduce their dmg? -buffing another Terran unit?
Whatever, something has to be done, or nobody will want to play not watch TvT in a few monthes.
Also, could the people that keep insulting DK and the balance team on every thread just shut the fuck up please?
removing boost or a higher delay between the siege and the volley are two things that don't have monstruous impact vP/Z (even if that means TY vs Solar could no longer be played) and are compatible with a slight tank buff I think, while effectively killing tankivac outside of early game in TvT.
Removing boost on certain units seems a bit too weird and breaking the rules. Doom drops will still arrive but with the tanks slightly delayed, I'm not sure it will change the outcome enough...
Personally, I like the Tankivac and would like it to stay, in some form or another. I think most people's preference really comes down to whether they like it as a mechanic or not, rather than anything to do with balance (tank purists vs. those that love fancy micro). Obviously, if it is removed then this will create some issues due to the design of the ravager. The reason I want it to stay is I love the idea of forced counter micro in legacy, even if it's slightly predictable to watch as a viewer sometimes. The reason I love it is because it allows great players for force extra actions out of their opponents and allows the player with better mechanics and multi-tasking to shine, leading to the better player gaining an advantage. The other school of thought though, is that the pick up mechanic takes away from those players with strong tactics and positioning skills. Historically these slower and less mechanically able players were able to compete by cleverly using positioning. It really comes down to what you prefer for your playing/viewing experience.
I admit I do miss the good old positional chess battles of TvT but despite this, it's hard to deny how exciting aLive vs. TY was the other night. I think I'd rather that kind of game than a siege line slug fest any day. Because TvT, rather than TvZ seems to be the area of most concern, I am in favor of a further delay between drop and firing, this will give more advantage to the player who has his tanks pre-sieged and the player with the faster reaction time. A damage buff may not be necessary, however, could result in a return of mech in the TvT meta at least.
I think the ravager-liberator interaction is balanced currently, as is the liberator range. Four shots is too many to kill a liberator. However, ZvP early ravager aggression definitely needs to be addressed. I think a cool-down nerf or a decrease in the amount of damage corrosive bile does to buildings are good starting points for testing, they could also tinker with increasing pylon health but I don't really like this as PO is already so strong.
As for the cyclone, I think it's basic attack should be increased to range 7, to match it's lock-on range. I don't think it's damage should be increased, as it already does plenty of damage while locked and higher damage will promote massing in the mid game, even if the supply cost is increased. A slight armor or health buff to increase survive-ability is probably the way to go.
On February 27 2016 05:38 Penev wrote: So the liberator nerf is of the table? Damn I dislike this multi purpose unit. Especially when combined with tanks. :/
Well, they were only going to nerf the initial range anyway. Considering how strong the unit would still be (especially after the range upgrade) and that the ravager nerf isn't supposed to affect ZvT anymore I think it's fine to not change the range. Might wanna change the other stats instead...
The nerf would make it at least a little less multi purpose as it would make it less of a banshee/ harass unit..
I really don't get why people are so disgusted by mech play though... Harassing with hellions and banshees while slowly expanding and securing your expos with tanks and even mixing it with some ghosts or cyclones/mines !! Why is it that terrible and awful to watch compared to marine + tankivacs drop ??
On February 27 2016 10:05 MaxTa wrote: I really don't get why people are so disgusted by mech play though... Harassing with hellions and banshees while slowly expanding and securing your expos with tanks and even mixing it with some ghosts or cyclones/mines !! Why is it that terrible and awful to watch compared to marine + tankivacs drop ??
most games you'll play the mech players will make 50 turrets and 10 pf. 90% of the mech players on the ladder are just wanna be Goody. At the highest level it could be decent if it's not an air rush due to the liberator being way stronger than mech aa.
And it's funny that people keep mentionning doom drop when it's clearly not a problem in pro games (and most of the doom dropping taking place doesn't have tankivacs but siege tanks in medivacs because you want to carry over marines too).
People talking about doom drop and lack of positionning need to realize that those were huge problems in hots marine tank mirrors and the cause is the medivac boost, not the tankivac or something else. The ability to fly over your army in the main base of your opponent regardless of the presence of those 3 turrets is entirely due to the boost. The boost that killed the ability of an MMA or Gumiho to be a drop god by allowing everyone else to do it.
I really don't get why people are so disgusted by mech play though... Harassing with hellions and banshees while slowly expanding and securing your expos with tanks and even mixing it with some ghosts or cyclones/mines !! Why is it that terrible and awful to watch compared to marine + tankivacs drop ??
ANSWER: Because it's too hard to control 2-3 control groups in different locations at the same time and I'd rather scan and A-move boost into my opponent's base !!! LOL !
But seriously players massing turrets and planetary everywhere without thinking are wasting so many ressources !! When you see this you can simply out expand them right away and get ahead in tech and army size...
On February 27 2016 10:05 MaxTa wrote: I really don't get why people are so disgusted by mech play though... Harassing with hellions and banshees while slowly expanding and securing your expos with tanks and even mixing it with some ghosts or cyclones/mines !! Why is it that terrible and awful to watch compared to marine + tankivacs drop ??
Answer: because zergs and protoss want to play vs the same army composition every game so they don't have to adapt their playstyle to their opponent
Reading community updates like this puts my mind at rest that I made a correct decision 5 years ago to never touch Sc2 again. The decadence is even more apparent when every single community feedback has to open with paragraphs about feedback having to be presented on a velour cushion (we wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings), and the frequency of the word "cool" seems to rise in each issue.
You are getting PAID to develop what should have been the best RTS in the world. Why in god's name should and would internet feedback (that you don't even listen to anyway) be allowed to have such an effect on team morale??
On February 27 2016 08:17 Big J wrote: I don't know David Kim, but what I'm reading is that half of the players defending the tankivac start their posts with "I'm only watching the game". There is a basic understanding issue, a balanced SC2 will always produce great games, the skill level is way too high not to. Even an imbalanced SC2 produces great games on the highest level. But viewers that have no clue about the game and should have no saying then use those games to justify the state of the game. Those games would happen with or without the tankivac.
On the other hand I tune into Nathanias stream for 5 seconds and I hear him complain about him winning by dropping his tankivacs first. Dunno, but the main argument I read from the actual players in favor of the tankivac are balance-concerns, mainly in ZvT, not how incredible fun TvT with tankivacs is.
This.
And Terran pros need tankivac to perform in all 3 matchups in the next 3 tourneys, stay on their contracts, and make the car/appartment payment. They are not going to speak just to TvT issues.
Why would any GSL code S pro have agreed in HOTS that the solution was to nerf Hellbats? Think about it. But we all know the gameplay in TvT was nonsense.
I think that pro KR feedback should come from the devs observing the actual games not sitting down to listen to KR pros.
What I'm getting is that Siege Tanks aren't going to be viable while they have so many hard counters that Terran can't effectively combat.
The proposed damage buff always seemed sketchy to me.
One problem with tanks is that they've just never been very cost effective vs Protoss mid-game. It's worth noting that the way Explosive damage worked in BW, Siege Tanks were more effective against Protoss than other races. That's why Dragoons died in only 3 hits despite having 180 effective HP, while at the same time Zerglings could still be strong against tank lines. Addressing the former with a straight damage buff is concerning, units that weren't even that good against tanks to begin with get crapped on harder by the extra splash damage. Make no mistake, you're talking about making SC2 tanks significantly stronger against low-tech units than even BW tanks were. No overkill, favorable splash origin, tighter unit clumping and now higher damage as well. How is that not the final death knell for ling/bling? It's a hamhanded solution. There has to be a better way.
Reading community updates like this puts my mind at rest that I made a correct decision 5 years ago to never touch Sc2 again. The decadence is even more apparent when every single community feedback has to open with paragraphs about feedback having to be presented on a velour cushion (we wouldn't want to hurt anyone's feelings), and the frequency of the word "cool" seems to rise in each issue.
You are getting PAID to develop what should have been the best RTS in the world. Why in god's name should and would internet feedback (that you don't even listen to anyway) be allowed to have such an effect on team morale??
Because this is the world we live in now bro it's called 21st century...
Based on this update, to truly keep up and "field a good mix of Bio/Mech" style of Terran instead of going Bio, I'm making two EB plus two armories and getting fifteen upgrades for 3-3 on all my production like toss/zerg?
Really? Will all Terran upgrade costs and EB/Armory costs be halved so we can push this 200/200 fielded mix of Terran into Toss/Zerg and remax at 3-3 like they do?
On February 27 2016 11:34 PressureSC2 wrote: So, let me get this right.
Based on this update, to truly keep up and "field a good mix of Bio/Mech" style of Terran instead of going Bio, I'm making two EB plus two armories and getting fifteen upgrades for 3-3 on all my production like toss/zerg?
Really? Will all Terran upgrade costs and EB/Armory costs be halved so we can push this 200/200 fielded mix of Terran into Toss/Zerg and remax at 3-3 like they do?
actually all races have same amount of upgrades. protoss have their armor and shield armor seperated, zerg have their ranged and melee seperated.
I expected the kind of KR feedback. The mobility has made the tank an effective tool in LOTV's midgame armies: Ravager based comps, Adept-centric comps. There isn't a healthy exchange to totally change mobility for power. The battles are too spread and the 2base attacks are flexible.
I do mourn mech viability in TvT. I don't think we can bring that back at this state of balance without hurting Terran's other matchups.
I'm glad, given the extent of the proposed changes, that Blizzard is taking their time with testing. It doesn't help anyone overnerfing the siege tank and hurriedly buffing something else mid-tournament.
Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
I can't help but think that these types of changes should've been done in LotV beta instead of rushing out the final product in time for christmas. Really saddened that the siege tank of all units is in this dire state now.
LOTV has a lot of potential, but if they keep introducing changes so slowly it's gonna take a thousand patches to finish the game. There are so many major flaws they still haven't stared at... -Protoss has not the necesary mobility to defend in the late game -Some units are almost useless because they have been widely replaced: zealots, banshees or swarm hosts are clear examples. -The liberator is completely OP, and is the main reason why Ts are winning games despite if they made a lot of mistakes during the game. In TvP, Ts send liberators to harras and they don't mind to lose them because it still worths, Ts even don't make any effort to keep them alive. This is ridiculous and unnatural to the spirit and gameplay of SC. -No need to mention lurkers or ravager early pushes. -Cyclone is barely useless...
And much more, I wonder if it worths to play a game which is going to change so much in the next year.
On February 27 2016 04:28 MockHamill wrote: I am very disappointed in this update.
A large majority of the player want to remove the tankivac and increase tank damage. Tankivacs have completely destroyed TvT and made what once was the most beautiful machup completely one dimensional.
Do let a few Korean pro players destroy the game. Blizzard first priority should be that the game is fun and varied to play, not what the pro players think.
League of Legends is popular because the priority is the players and making the game fun and varied, the e-sport scene is consequence of the game being popular, not the other way around. Blizzard should learn from this, there is no shame in copying what works, it is only smart.
I think the whole reason for this games decline is that Blizzard worries too much about e-sport instead of prioritising making the actual game fun and varied, making it is possible to use multiple compositions in every match ups.
Protoss and Zerg have lots of different viable combos. Terran has only marine/tankivac.
I cannot emphasize this line of thinking enough. Blizzard has their approach to SC2 pretty much ass backwards. Even in this update, they justify almost everything with "what we think is cool", because they think that translates directly into an e-sport. It doesn't. You can look at any and every sport in existence, at some point or another every sport got the traction it has by being a fun game to play. Basketball wasn't designed from the ground up to be spectator-friendly, they didn't do stuff like make the ball explode and leave a hole in the court every time it's dunked, because that isn't how it became a sport. It became a sport by being a solid game that people love to play, and it does that by having rock-solid fundamentals and a variety of ways to play it.
I honestly wonder what would happen if David Kim couldn't use the word cool, nor any synonym for the word cool. I don't think he'd be able to write another update.
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
On February 27 2016 04:28 MockHamill wrote: I am very disappointed in this update.
A large majority of the player want to remove the tankivac and increase tank damage. Tankivacs have completely destroyed TvT and made what once was the most beautiful machup completely one dimensional.
Do let a few Korean pro players destroy the game. Blizzard first priority should be that the game is fun and varied to play, not what the pro players think.
League of Legends is popular because the priority is the players and making the game fun and varied, the e-sport scene is consequence of the game being popular, not the other way around. Blizzard should learn from this, there is no shame in copying what works, it is only smart.
I think the whole reason for this games decline is that Blizzard worries too much about e-sport instead of prioritising making the actual game fun and varied, making it is possible to use multiple compositions in every match ups.
Protoss and Zerg have lots of different viable combos. Terran has only marine/tankivac.
Yep, that is very true. Blizzard needs to stop buffing/nerfing units for 5 korean pros that exist in whatever proleague/tourney. They sacrifice the possibility of diverse play because medivacs or tankivacs or whatever are "too strong" or "too weak" in the hands of a few top players.
The game itself needs to be tweaked to have more strategies and be balanced/diverse. I honestly do not care what the top 5 korean pros want because they are extremely biased and if progamers had their way...
THERE WOULD BE ZERO CHANGES TO THE GAME EVER.
Yep, you read that right. SC2 pros for some reason all never want any change at all, even if every single game till the end of time will be 100% bio + tankivac every single game. They'd be fine with that because it gets them their pay day and they don't have to adapt.
I think a lot of the community and player base wants to be able to do more than just 1 strategy. People for YEARS, YEARS,, YEARS, have wanted viable mech play, but for some reason everything is done to basically make mech and strategic diversity obsolete it seems, and just have spastic bio play to be the only way to play the game.
The tankivac is literally just a bio unit. It's literally made a tank into a bio unit. The tank is supposed to be a fearsome ground control unit that says "you do not go here, or you make a definitive engagement and fight me. But also i cannot retreat from this situation too as a weakness."
Blizzard basically is doing the same mistake they did when they started the bullshit "now medivacs can heal hellbats." Trying to turn our beloved siege tank into another bio unit. I'm going to say it here - tankivacs suck, i don't want the last bastion of a mech unit to be bastardized into another bio unit. I'm honestly tired of it.
I've tried for years playing this game to get feedback to blizzard on how they can very easily make mech viable without making it OP - and none of it is listened to. It's still basically brushed aside imo, and i have THOUSANDS of mech tvt/tvz/tvp to draw experience from and give my feedback.
You would think blizzard would do the same thing Riot does and consult people in the community that are knowledgeable about that specific champion or strategy to help them out on changes. If anyone from blizzard is willing to contact me, by all means, we can have a great conversation and i can help articulate why mech is the way it is currently and point blizzard in the direction of a couple changes i believe will add strategic diversity to SC2.
Now seeing they are so hesitant again to really elevate SC2 strategic diversity to the level it should be...
SC2 CAN BE THE #1 E-SPORT AGAIN. Some people are going to say, "fuck you avilo it doesn't need to be." etc etc. But guess what? SC2 LOTV viewer numbers are rising. But a lot of people do not seem to understand WHY.
Why are LOTV numbers growing slowly but growing compared to HOTS? It's because of not just THE changes to gameplay but the fact that THERE ARE CHANGES - THE FACT THAT CHANGES ARE BEING MADE THEMSELVES IS GETTING PEOPLE TO PLAY AND WATCH THE GAME.
This is a key point i feel not even our beloved GSL/community commentators are able to articulate properly.
Tankivacs, ravagers, lurkers, adepts, etc etc. all are patch changes. Changes that you can easily argue make watching the game exciting not because tankivacs are some fast paced bullshit, but because it's fucking new, and different, and that is what viewers are attracted to like crack.
Viewers do NOT want to see the same game 1000 games in a row of reaper expand, into 3 rax double medivac drop, etc etc u get the point i'm trying to make. People want patch changes, people want diverse strategies. If we for example continue to see Zerg players making 100% roach/ravager every single pro level ZvT...i think viewer numbers will start to drop again pretty quickly. Things like that need to be fixed.
Anyways, back to the point - MECH. Why after 5-6 years of SC2 can we just not get the 50 flat damage and upgrades back onto the siege tank? Why does it take years of time and still no changes to mech anti-air to make it so people can't just spam mass tempest and beat everything you have?
There are so many blatantly obvious changes to the game that can bring MECH back into the game in a HEALTHY WAY.
NO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT TURTLE BULLSHIT MECH, BUT ACTUAL MECH.
1) Make tanks not suck again, remove the tankivac that is just now a bio unit. Stop trying to turn mech units into bio units.
2) Make thors/cyclones able to handle air units. If my opponent gets out 5 tempest i should not have to sit there for 20 more minutes making 5 starports to have to counter his air. Mech will be more aggro/action packed if someone that opts to go mech can go up to 8-10 factories instead of being forced to turtle into mass starports/vikings/air.
I dunno...i'm pretty disillusioned at this point with blizzard ever truly making mech or any other strat than bio viable for Terran. They just keep trying to turn every mech unit into a bio unit. -_-
On February 27 2016 04:28 MockHamill wrote: I am very disappointed in this update.
A large majority of the player want to remove the tankivac and increase tank damage. Tankivacs have completely destroyed TvT and made what once was the most beautiful machup completely one dimensional.
Do let a few Korean pro players destroy the game. Blizzard first priority should be that the game is fun and varied to play, not what the pro players think.
League of Legends is popular because the priority is the players and making the game fun and varied, the e-sport scene is consequence of the game being popular, not the other way around. Blizzard should learn from this, there is no shame in copying what works, it is only smart.
I think the whole reason for this games decline is that Blizzard worries too much about e-sport instead of prioritising making the actual game fun and varied, making it is possible to use multiple compositions in every match ups.
Protoss and Zerg have lots of different viable combos. Terran has only marine/tankivac.
I cannot emphasize this line of thinking enough. Blizzard has their approach to SC2 pretty much ass backwards. Even in this update, they justify almost everything with "what we think is cool", because they think that translates directly into an e-sport. It doesn't. You can look at any and every sport in existence, at some point or another every sport got the traction it has by being a fun game to play. Basketball wasn't designed from the ground up to be spectator-friendly, they didn't do stuff like make the ball explode and leave a hole in the court every time it's dunked, because that isn't how it became a sport. It became a sport by being a solid game that people love to play, and it does that by having rock-solid fundamentals and a variety of ways to play it.
I honestly wonder what would happen if David Kim couldn't use the word cool, nor any synonym for the word cool. I don't think he'd be able to write another update.
Yeah and that's why Flash playing Broodwar has 75k viewers while premier SC2 tournaments struggle to get as many viewers. SC2 is a good game, but it has been butchered repeatedly by "cool" design decisions.
On February 27 2016 10:05 MaxTa wrote: I really don't get why people are so disgusted by mech play though... Harassing with hellions and banshees while slowly expanding and securing your expos with tanks and even mixing it with some ghosts or cyclones/mines !! Why is it that terrible and awful to watch compared to marine + tankivacs drop ??
Answer: because zergs and protoss want to play vs the same army composition every game so they don't have to adapt their playstyle to their opponent
Aren´t you the one who want´s to be able to play only mech? One composition? Also what about the huge amount of whine about ultras from terrans who now have to do something else than go marine/marauder all game? Zerg´s have adapted to the new situation. LBM has given way to roach/ravager/lurker/infestor/ultra/BL mixes.
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
Sieged up tanks that fly !! As in tanks you pressed a button to make immobile. It's like Griphons carrying archer towers.
On February 27 2016 04:28 MockHamill wrote: I am very disappointed in this update.
A large majority of the player want to remove the tankivac and increase tank damage. Tankivacs have completely destroyed TvT and made what once was the most beautiful machup completely one dimensional.
Do let a few Korean pro players destroy the game. Blizzard first priority should be that the game is fun and varied to play, not what the pro players think.
League of Legends is popular because the priority is the players and making the game fun and varied, the e-sport scene is consequence of the game being popular, not the other way around. Blizzard should learn from this, there is no shame in copying what works, it is only smart.
I think the whole reason for this games decline is that Blizzard worries too much about e-sport instead of prioritising making the actual game fun and varied, making it is possible to use multiple compositions in every match ups.
Protoss and Zerg have lots of different viable combos. Terran has only marine/tankivac.
I cannot emphasize this line of thinking enough. Blizzard has their approach to SC2 pretty much ass backwards. Even in this update, they justify almost everything with "what we think is cool", because they think that translates directly into an e-sport. It doesn't. You can look at any and every sport in existence, at some point or another every sport got the traction it has by being a fun game to play. Basketball wasn't designed from the ground up to be spectator-friendly, they didn't do stuff like make the ball explode and leave a hole in the court every time it's dunked, because that isn't how it became a sport. It became a sport by being a solid game that people love to play, and it does that by having rock-solid fundamentals and a variety of ways to play it.
I honestly wonder what would happen if David Kim couldn't use the word cool, nor any synonym for the word cool. I don't think he'd be able to write another update.
Yeah and that's why Flash playing Broodwar has 75k viewers while premier SC2 tournaments struggle to get as many viewers. SC2 is a good game, but it has been butchered repeatedly by "cool" design decisions.
Do you even believe what your saying or do you like just to make up strawman arguments in order to look "right"?
Honestly if they remove tankivac, TvZ will be neigh unwinnable.. boosting the damage by 5 is pretty much a joke. So I am glad to hear they are looking into it still.
Raw Siege Tank damage (for their cost) has been a bit of an issue against non-armored units from day 1 outside of the original Marine/Tank vs Ling/Bane/Muta. With Bile, Abduct as well as many highly mobile units, the tank just can't zone as effectively as it could in BW. You just don't get enough in return for investing into Siege Tanks and anchoring yourself in place. Adding shield damage would help against Protoss but Bile and Abduct still nullify tanks a lot.
Given that Tanks are literally bolted into the damn ground, why not make it so that Abduct doesn't work on Sieged Tanks? It would still work against Thors, Battlecruisers, unsieged Tanks but Tanks in Siege Mode would not be abductable.
Bile is more tricky vs Tanks since Siege Mode effectively ensures it will hit. The only thing I can think of right now is to let the Siege Tank be the one with range advantage vs Bile. That way a proper Siege Line would be risky for Ravagers to engage because they'll likely have to take some fire if they want use their Bile.
On February 27 2016 04:28 MockHamill wrote: I am very disappointed in this update.
A large majority of the player want to remove the tankivac and increase tank damage. Tankivacs have completely destroyed TvT and made what once was the most beautiful machup completely one dimensional.
Do let a few Korean pro players destroy the game. Blizzard first priority should be that the game is fun and varied to play, not what the pro players think.
League of Legends is popular because the priority is the players and making the game fun and varied, the e-sport scene is consequence of the game being popular, not the other way around. Blizzard should learn from this, there is no shame in copying what works, it is only smart.
I think the whole reason for this games decline is that Blizzard worries too much about e-sport instead of prioritising making the actual game fun and varied, making it is possible to use multiple compositions in every match ups.
Protoss and Zerg have lots of different viable combos. Terran has only marine/tankivac.
I cannot emphasize this line of thinking enough. Blizzard has their approach to SC2 pretty much ass backwards. Even in this update, they justify almost everything with "what we think is cool", because they think that translates directly into an e-sport. It doesn't. You can look at any and every sport in existence, at some point or another every sport got the traction it has by being a fun game to play. Basketball wasn't designed from the ground up to be spectator-friendly, they didn't do stuff like make the ball explode and leave a hole in the court every time it's dunked, because that isn't how it became a sport. It became a sport by being a solid game that people love to play, and it does that by having rock-solid fundamentals and a variety of ways to play it.
I honestly wonder what would happen if David Kim couldn't use the word cool, nor any synonym for the word cool. I don't think he'd be able to write another update.
Yeah and that's why Flash playing Broodwar has 75k viewers while premier SC2 tournaments struggle to get as many viewers. SC2 is a good game, but it has been butchered repeatedly by "cool" design decisions.
Do you even believe what your saying or do you like just to make up strawman arguments in order to look "right"?
I do believe that SC2's design has been held back by the obsession with what seems cool at first glance. That is why there are clunky units like the Thor in the game, instead of Goliaths which make more sense and offer tremendously better gameplay. That is also why warpgate is available so early, instead of being a late game upgrade. And those are only two out of seemingly endless number of examples.
Tankivacs are in this game, because they have this same perverted "coolness factor".
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
The immobility is supposed to be the tradeoff that allows the siege damage to be sufficient to prevent more mobile armies to 1-A one of your bases.
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.[/QUOTE]
There you go. Great design until canons must be nerfed and why not just remove them from the game eventually because nobody will build them unless to drop them.
Depressing to think about it really. What's next remove viking flight mode, because they look badass as robots?
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
This is one of the more insightful community feedbacks!
* PvZ Ravager attacks I think the biggest helper would be to remove building damage from Corrosive Bile. This would make it much easier for Protoss players to expand rapidly and keep up with the pace of Zergs, while not dying to these powerful attacks. Pretty much it's a battle of getting the Pylons down from the Zergs side, since the Protoss production at that point is just not on par yet. This could potentially increase variety in the matchup a ton! no longer would Forge Expands be a no brainer moot strategy, Zergs might try to bust greedy Protosses walls with Banelings again.
The downside to this would be that it will affect other matchups as well. Though in ZvZ I'd argue it's a good change, players can rely on Spine Crawlers a bit more and be able to spend less resources on straigth up engagement army value.
The problem with any change that nerfs Corrosive Bile is that it brings the Ravager closer to a Roach and as such removes some coolness of the unit.
* Cyclone I really like what was said about this unit, as we don't want this to become too spammable. However I think one of it's traits should be that it's versatile that's the feeling I get when I look at the unit. It should be sort of like the Goliath that serves as a pillar to the Factory Tech Tree.
I know it was said in the update that maybe Mech and Bio needn't be seperate styles that are always viable. While I agree with this statement it should also be noted that more variety is always better and pure Mech is, but one of those fantasies. In my opinion what Terran lacks right now is a deeper Tech Tree where you can transition from style to style, Mech->add on Barracks and get Stim, then upgrade both units and then late game go Air, as an example. In Starcraft 2 it's very easy to get to a certain composition and just stay on it, because it's the one that is the most flexible.
Now for a suggestion to the Cyclone. For this unit to be flexible it needs to do a lot more damage to non-Armoured units, if you play with the Cyclone in the unit tester, you will realize that not even 2 Supply Cyclones would ever make it as a staple massable unit in this game, due to it's inability to trade at all with units that are not Armoured. My idea would be to increase the overall damage to that of it's + vs Armoured damage. Then I would change it's Lock-On, so that the range is put on the ground where the Cyclone is, instead of on the Cyclone itself. Meaning the Cyclone can also leave the range and thus ends the spell. This would be a huge nerf to it's ability to chase, while not affecting it's ability to kite by that much, it would be a severe nerf overall to the ability. Then depending on the strength of the new Cyclone I would also tinker with it's toggle range, as it stands it is so low that the unit is really awkward to control.
* Siegevac I'm done arguing for the disposal of this and I just hope we end up with the 3 second set up time as was mentioned in the post. This would be the one where Siege Tanks can get the most love and any nerf to Medivacs synergy with Terran is good. You cannot play Terran without Medivacs, heck even Hell Bats are Bio, since apparently Medivacs is the only cool thing about Terran and is therefore being pushed into every area of Terran compositions.
If there are other balance issues that we should be testing, please get a conversation started this week so that we can decide together what the best move will be for the next balance test map
* Disruptor PvP is definitely the best mirror matchup thanks to this unit. I do think the unit is a bit too strong though, the +55 vs Shields is massive and losing Disruptors to a single shot can be frustrating and it often times boils down to getting the shot off first, since killing the enemy's Disruptor saves your own. I think to tone down the volatility, while still keeping the come back potential that makes PvP so great, would be to meet on the half way. 160 damage is the magic number, if the unit does not kill Stalkers, it is almost meaningless. I wonder if we can have it be 160 damage to everything, since the only real interaction that changes in the other matchups is the ability to one shot Siege Tanks and Swarm Hosts. Since we've now settled with Siegevacs it could create a really cool interaction between the two units, Siege Tanks wanting to be landed to churn out the damage, while the Disruptors try to get the kill on the Tank, before the Terran then lifts it.
* Tempest When it gets to the late game, there comes a point where it just goes into complete turtle mode. This is because Tempests are super expensive, cheap on supply and needs heavy support to a point where you cannot be breached, once this happens all excess resources and supplies goes into Tempests. The more the better and it can take quite a while to get there on the new LotV economy. We haven't seen it much in pro games, but it does happen on the ladder and we should want to avoid another Swarm Host era, where the ladder experience is hampered by this.
So an idea that could combat this would be: Remove + vs Massive Air and lower it's damage to 15, but add on a DoT that does 25 damage over 2.36 seconds (The Tempests attack speed cooldown.) The DoT would not stack. This would make it a lot more attractive to get to Tempests, since it's essentially 10 more damage a shot, unless fighting Brood Lords. Getting mass Tempests is however a lot worse, since it's only 15 more damage pr. Tempest, if they attack the same target. I think it also makes the Tempest a lot more cool as well, it had a DoT ability in the Beta and this makes that ability feel less scrapped
Still no talk about liberator in PvT. A unit that can lock down your mineral line and 2 shots stalkers, basically free win if the pylon is not in range. Kk.
Just want to remind ejozl that BLords received range buff in LotV and blink isn't that powerful as before(not mentioning that certain spell and certain unit shreds stalkers).
I think they should buff the siege tank like proposed and still allow it to be picked up by medivacs but make it unload unsieged. This way players will still be able to do some fancy micro to save the tanks agaisn't ravagers but the doom drops with tankivacs will be a lot harder since it will require more time to siege them back when unloaded.
This change would be the best of both world in my opinion and players wanting to showoff tankivacs micro will at least require some skills to unload and siege and it should give more time for the player defending agaisn't it to react.
On February 28 2016 00:13 ejozl wrote: * Tempest When it gets to the late game, there comes a point where it just goes into complete turtle mode. This is because Tempests are super expensive, cheap on supply and needs heavy support to a point where you cannot be breached, once this happens all excess resources and supplies goes into Tempests. The more the better and it can take quite a while to get there on the new LotV economy. We haven't seen it much in pro games, but it does happen on the ladder and we should want to avoid another Swarm Host era, where the ladder experience is hampered by this.
So an idea that could combat this would be: Remove + vs Massive Air and lower it's damage to 15, but add on a DoT that does 25 damage over 2.36 seconds (The Tempests attack speed cooldown.) The DoT would not stack. This would make it a lot more attractive to get to Tempests, since it's essentially 10 more damage a shot, unless fighting Brood Lords. Getting mass Tempests is however a lot worse, since it's only 15 more damage pr. Tempest, if they attack the same target. I think it also makes the Tempest a lot more cool as well, it had a DoT ability in the Beta and this makes that ability feel less scrapped
That will be all.
i feel like tempests need to be as strong as they are vs broods right now to keep protoss alive until they have a more well rounded air army with how blink stalkers arent really used anymore & brood got the range increase ; a supply change wouldnt really affect this so if anything change this
i think the bigger problem is how absolutely garbage hydras and corruptors are late game vs void rays / storm / etc and parasitic bomb is extremely unreliable because of feedback and because recall removes parasitic bomb from all your units
corruptors are even weaker vs air than they used to be with the removal of corruption; but if zvp lategame gets some attention (its pretty much unwinnable vs tempest+storm) then protoss needs stronger defence early as it heavily favours zerg
really not fun being forced to do random all ins every game
On February 28 2016 00:13 ejozl wrote: * Tempest When it gets to the late game, there comes a point where it just goes into complete turtle mode. This is because Tempests are super expensive, cheap on supply and needs heavy support to a point where you cannot be breached, once this happens all excess resources and supplies goes into Tempests. The more the better and it can take quite a while to get there on the new LotV economy. We haven't seen it much in pro games, but it does happen on the ladder and we should want to avoid another Swarm Host era, where the ladder experience is hampered by this.
So an idea that could combat this would be: Remove + vs Massive Air and lower it's damage to 15, but add on a DoT that does 25 damage over 2.36 seconds (The Tempests attack speed cooldown.) The DoT would not stack. This would make it a lot more attractive to get to Tempests, since it's essentially 10 more damage a shot, unless fighting Brood Lords. Getting mass Tempests is however a lot worse, since it's only 15 more damage pr. Tempest, if they attack the same target. I think it also makes the Tempest a lot more cool as well, it had a DoT ability in the Beta and this makes that ability feel less scrapped
That will be all.
i think the bigger problem is how absolutely garbage hydras and corruptors are late game vs void rays / storm / etc and parasitic bomb is extremely unreliable because of feedback and because recall removes parasitic bomb from all your units
Terrans don't have it easier vs tempest + storm (I'd say they have it even harder but I don't have much experience with zerg) so I think the problem is more with protoss endgame than with hydra + corruptor being weak.
With their current state Tempest should only be able to attack air. This way they would still serve their purpose agaisn't Brood lords/Corruptors and also usable in PvP vs Carriers and Colossus. We would also see more Carriers and Phenix/Oracle mixed in for a fight agaisn't ground instead of pure tempest all the time.
On February 28 2016 00:13 ejozl wrote: * Tempest When it gets to the late game, there comes a point where it just goes into complete turtle mode. This is because Tempests are super expensive, cheap on supply and needs heavy support to a point where you cannot be breached, once this happens all excess resources and supplies goes into Tempests. The more the better and it can take quite a while to get there on the new LotV economy. We haven't seen it much in pro games, but it does happen on the ladder and we should want to avoid another Swarm Host era, where the ladder experience is hampered by this.
So an idea that could combat this would be: Remove + vs Massive Air and lower it's damage to 15, but add on a DoT that does 25 damage over 2.36 seconds (The Tempests attack speed cooldown.) The DoT would not stack. This would make it a lot more attractive to get to Tempests, since it's essentially 10 more damage a shot, unless fighting Brood Lords. Getting mass Tempests is however a lot worse, since it's only 15 more damage pr. Tempest, if they attack the same target. I think it also makes the Tempest a lot more cool as well, it had a DoT ability in the Beta and this makes that ability feel less scrapped
That will be all.
i think the bigger problem is how absolutely garbage hydras and corruptors are late game vs void rays / storm / etc and parasitic bomb is extremely unreliable because of feedback and because recall removes parasitic bomb from all your units
Terrans don't have it easier vs tempest + storm (I'd say they have it even harder but I don't have much experience with zerg) so I think the problem is more with protoss endgame than with hydra + corruptor being weak.
Immense synergy between tempest and high templars, but nerfing any of those kill protoss.
Also, instead of nerfing corrosive bile, they should try putting ravagers armored. This way the tanks and immortals will actually be able to do something agaisn't them...
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
On February 27 2016 14:15 billynasty wrote: Flying tanks. Flying tanks. Flying tanks? do you see whats wrong there? tanks... that fly? cmon man No need to get into stats & numbers & all that jazz, its the design i take issue with. tanks that fly? cmon man
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
flying queens? flying thors? flying collosus? why dont you have a problem with these?
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.
On February 27 2016 22:44 PressureSC2 wrote: [quote]
Because they are not units that have been strategically converted to a static defense structure. You see the problem with spore and spine crawler design if suddenly you could overlord drop them pre-burrowed? It would become the only strategy we would spectate because nothing would hold a candle to it.
Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.
yes, you can dodge the lurker shot. so what? do you want a game with 100% symmetry? why bother having 3 races then? do marine shots need to have a projectile because you can dodge stalker shots? and actually, protoss has the ultimate repositioning tool. recall. do we need to adress that too because you can save all your units with 1 unit and 1 click?
On February 27 2016 22:50 CheddarToss wrote: [quote] Imagine Warp Prisms being able to drop Cannons.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.
yes, you can dodge the lurker shot. so what? do you want a game with 100% symmetry? why bother having 3 races then? do marine shots need to have a projectile because you can dodge stalker shots? and actually, protoss has the ultimate repositioning tool. recall. do we need to adress that too because you can save all your units with 1 unit and 1 click?
I understand you /really/ like how convenient the siege tank pick up is, but you're playing a strategy game. The tank has always been about zone control and slowly pushing towards your opponent. Having that altered by making them a harassment unit on top of its initial role makes the game feel like a beta. Why do Terran players want a bunch of overlapping units that are all equally useful?
Arguing symmetry is a form of bait I won't bite. You don't even have the rod to throw that bait with.
its not like queens move fast off creep they are supposed to be a defensive unit yet you can drop queens. same principle with disruptors, they are supposed to be an immobile unit yet you can pick them up in a warp prism, and i see nobody crying about those designs.
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.
yes, you can dodge the lurker shot. so what? do you want a game with 100% symmetry? why bother having 3 races then? do marine shots need to have a projectile because you can dodge stalker shots? and actually, protoss has the ultimate repositioning tool. recall. do we need to adress that too because you can save all your units with 1 unit and 1 click?
I understand you /really/ like how convenient the siege tank pick up is, but you're playing a strategy game. The tank has always been about zone control and slowly pushing towards your opponent. Having that altered by making them a harassment unit on top of its initial role makes the game feel like a beta. Why do Terran players want a bunch of overlapping units that are all equally useful?
Arguing symmetry is a form of bait I won't bite. You don't even have the rod to throw that bait with.
i actually hate playing with tankivacs, believe it or not. i just think they should stay, because its good for viewership, and its a good way to differentiate bad players from good players. you emphasize its a strategy game, but every decision you make, is a strategy. even tankivacs. Even scv rushing. I still don't understand why people are so obsessed with the so called unit identity. i couldn't care less if its a flying tank or flying cow, as long the core gameplay is appealing.
i argued symmetry because thats the only context i got from your arguments. why otherwise would you compare lurker shots being dodgeable, to tanks or collosus. or medivac boost, to overlords and warp prisms.
On February 27 2016 03:49 BronzeKnee wrote: The problem with Siege Tanks without Medivac pickup is a lack of mobility that allows them to be countered so easily by certain spells. In BW, Tanks worked because the Viper didn't exist.
Changing/removing those spells (Abduct/Blinding Cloud), would go a long way in making Tanks viable again versus Zerg. They need a significant buff to shield damage versus Protoss.
no, but zerg did have defilers, which btw it was easier to absorb mana back then because you could sacrifice zerglings during an attack, so zerg had a more mobile and cheap way of giving defilers mana, rather than having to camp at your base and sacrifice HP on some of your important structures.
On February 28 2016 05:44 Shin_Gouki wrote: [quote]
Yes, the queens are supposed to be defensive, which is the role they fill. They are not a /siege/ unit. They have 5 range to utilize. The disruptor has a cast ability with a 21 second cool down. It is also not a /siege/ unit. The principles of the queen and disruptor are completely different to that of a siege tank. An offensive or defensive unit, depending on how it is used. With a 13 range attack under its siege mode.
Your argument would have been better if you stated: The colossus can be picked up by the warp prism, to which no one is complaining about that.
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.
yes, you can dodge the lurker shot. so what? do you want a game with 100% symmetry? why bother having 3 races then? do marine shots need to have a projectile because you can dodge stalker shots? and actually, protoss has the ultimate repositioning tool. recall. do we need to adress that too because you can save all your units with 1 unit and 1 click?
I understand you /really/ like how convenient the siege tank pick up is, but you're playing a strategy game. The tank has always been about zone control and slowly pushing towards your opponent. Having that altered by making them a harassment unit on top of its initial role makes the game feel like a beta. Why do Terran players want a bunch of overlapping units that are all equally useful?
Arguing symmetry is a form of bait I won't bite. You don't even have the rod to throw that bait with.
i actually hate playing with tankivacs, believe it or not. i just think they should stay, because its good for viewership, and its a good way to differentiate bad players from good players. you emphasize its a strategy game, but every decision you make, is a strategy. even tankivacs. Even scv rushing. I still don't understand why people are so obsessed with the so called unit identity. i couldn't care less if its a flying tank or flying cow, as long the core gameplay is appealing.
i argued symmetry because thats the only context i got from your arguments. why otherwise would you compare lurker shots being dodgeable, to tanks or collosus. or medivac boost, to overlords and warp prisms.
Because Starcraft as a franchise is claimed to be like chess in terms of strategy. If white opens queen's gambit, I'm not forced to open sicilian defense. If I understand the pieces and the board, I can form a strategy to defend or become aggressive myself.
Symmetry aside, BW did a very good job with asymmetry units but still balanced in its own way. All three races had harassment, defensive and offensive opportunities not created equal.
Starcraft 2, especially with this expansion, feels like a puzzle game. If my opponent does x, I will have to respond with y. That is because we've created linear openings and linear timings. Very rarely do strange openers award players who understand the game vs those who don't. Especially with the defensive capabilities and slight micro-ing abilities from one race without the other two having the same opportunities.
A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
On February 28 2016 07:56 Shin_Gouki wrote: A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
You think the issue with tank drops is early game harassment?
On February 28 2016 07:56 Shin_Gouki wrote: A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
You think the issue with tank drops is early game harassment?
Precisely. There is no incentive NOT to go tanks. If you start it as a defensive opening, but your opponent doesn't plan on all-ining; you can now also go behind their mineral line, deny scouting/creep or simply force units out. That in turn, forces the other races to open one way restrictively for consistent wins.
What if you split up Siege mode into 2 different ones.
"quick siege" would be a lower damage - with pickup, faster siege time, maybe lower range.
"strong siege" could use an upgrade (like WOL tanks) that would anchor the tanks into place, giving them a defensive/ offensive bonus, but severely increasing Siege / unsiege times 5-10 seconds. They couldnt be lifted by medivacs
maybe its too complicated, but the idea would fit the tank
well everyone here has different arguments and i wasnt responding to you, but since in your case you have a problem it being a SIEGE unit, explain to me why collosus drop okay for you but siege tank not?
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.
yes, you can dodge the lurker shot. so what? do you want a game with 100% symmetry? why bother having 3 races then? do marine shots need to have a projectile because you can dodge stalker shots? and actually, protoss has the ultimate repositioning tool. recall. do we need to adress that too because you can save all your units with 1 unit and 1 click?
I understand you /really/ like how convenient the siege tank pick up is, but you're playing a strategy game. The tank has always been about zone control and slowly pushing towards your opponent. Having that altered by making them a harassment unit on top of its initial role makes the game feel like a beta. Why do Terran players want a bunch of overlapping units that are all equally useful?
Arguing symmetry is a form of bait I won't bite. You don't even have the rod to throw that bait with.
i actually hate playing with tankivacs, believe it or not. i just think they should stay, because its good for viewership, and its a good way to differentiate bad players from good players. you emphasize its a strategy game, but every decision you make, is a strategy. even tankivacs. Even scv rushing. I still don't understand why people are so obsessed with the so called unit identity. i couldn't care less if its a flying tank or flying cow, as long the core gameplay is appealing.
i argued symmetry because thats the only context i got from your arguments. why otherwise would you compare lurker shots being dodgeable, to tanks or collosus. or medivac boost, to overlords and warp prisms.
Because Starcraft as a franchise is claimed to be like chess in terms of strategy. If white opens queen's gambit, I'm not forced to open sicilian defense. If I understand the pieces and the board, I can form a strategy to defend or become aggressive myself.
Symmetry aside, BW did a very good job with asymmetry units but still balanced in its own way. All three races had harassment, defensive and offensive opportunities not created equal.
Starcraft 2, especially with this expansion, feels like a puzzle game. If my opponent does x, I will have to respond with y. That is because we've created linear openings and linear timings. Very rarely do strange openers award players who understand the game vs those who don't. Especially with the defensive capabilities and slight micro-ing abilities from one race without the other two having the same opportunities.
A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
i dont play chess nor did i play bw multiplayer so i have no idea what you just tried to explain.
tankivac does a better job seperating good players from bads here is why i think so: 1) siege tanks can reposition fairly quick, so it forces you to have constant map awareness and control, intel where their tanks are, compared to immobile tanks where this is way less frequent. without tankivac: oh his tanks are there, i dont have to look at them again for another 30 secs. 2) more opportunities to outmicro 3) thanks to tankivac, TvT's are super chaotic (even called cancer by some). Full on aggression. ALOT more different scenarios. you lost 15 scv early, and half of your production. do you choose to rebuild production so you can keep up with his, or rebuild your economy for the long run? Thats why decision making here is much more important, because you need to decide much faster and they are worth alot more weight. if games becomes passive economic, its just like yeah first 10 min just build 5 rax, 3 fact, starport, get double engi bay. oh this is the time i drop third. you need to improvise instead of playing textbook.
i left hots, but wol was super boring just sitting on 3 base all day chrono'ing +3/3 collosus and then do 1a army push and go kill your opponent.
On February 28 2016 07:56 Shin_Gouki wrote: A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
You think the issue with tank drops is early game harassment?
Precisely. There is no incentive NOT to go tanks. If you start it as a defensive opening, but your opponent doesn't plan on all-ining; you can now also go behind their mineral line, deny scouting/creep or simply force units out. That in turn, forces the other races to open one way restrictively for consistent wins.
I don't know from where you're drawing this conclusion and this isn't a reason for the proposed changes. Fast tankivac harass more or less died with the introduction of the attack delay in beta.
On February 28 2016 06:25 Shin_Gouki wrote: [quote]
I don't have a problem with the tank being inside of a medi-vac for transportation. I do have a problem with it being in siege mode while it's being transported. A lurker being transported will not instantly be re-burrowed. The lurker also only has 9 range when sieging. The colossus with extended thermal lance only utilizes 9 range. A siege tank stays in siege mode, with the most range out of all three of those siege unit choices. On top of that, you have the ability to quickly boost and re-position in comparison to the other two transportation methods. I don't believe that's proper balance design imo.
i dont think the burrow time from lurker and delay on siege tank fire from dropping out of a medivac is much of a difference. and what does this have to do with balance design? its a philosophy on game design, and you didn't explain why you think thats proper game design. so can you aswell argue that warp prism has 6 pick up range. units are unique, surprise.
A lurker takes 3 seconds to burrow and begin attacking. A siege tank from a medivac takes about 1.4 seconds. The difference may not seem significant on paper. I already answered your question on why I think the tank isn't being properly transported compared to the other ground siege units; the other races don't have the ability to re-position in dicey situations in the same way the siege tank does. Well, I guess the colossus technically does, but you can't pick up a burrowed unit into an overlord. The siege tank and medivac pick up also hits the front door of a zerg player earlier than 2 base lair.
The warp prism pick up range is something that most likely will be addressed as the game progresses and isn't relevant to this current argument.
a lurker definetly doesnt take 3 secs to burrow. i just checked it in unit tester, its about the same. almost even seems the lurker fires even first. ill upload the proof in a sec. sure, if tanks siege up as fast as lurkers burrow, i dont mind them having to siege/unsiege before loading/dropping. i dont know if you realize, but the warp prism pick up range IS relevant because you argued that medivac is better at repositioning due to its boots, but you can get warp prism speed, AND the fact that pick up range is 6 means you have to travel less = fast repositioning.
I was wrong by a second. A lurker takes 2 seconds to burrow and a second to unburrow. If you shift the tank to drop and have the lurker burrow at the exact same time the siege tank lands on the floor, it gets the first shot off (as I said, the delay for the tank is 1.4). The siege tank has more utility of use than the siege tank. I think the 3 seconds (for now at least, is fine). And just like brood war, you can dodge the straight line attack of the lurker. The warp prism is a nuisance, but the protoss also doesn't use their siege units in combination with the warp prism. Over time, that will most likely be regressed anyway.
yes, you can dodge the lurker shot. so what? do you want a game with 100% symmetry? why bother having 3 races then? do marine shots need to have a projectile because you can dodge stalker shots? and actually, protoss has the ultimate repositioning tool. recall. do we need to adress that too because you can save all your units with 1 unit and 1 click?
I understand you /really/ like how convenient the siege tank pick up is, but you're playing a strategy game. The tank has always been about zone control and slowly pushing towards your opponent. Having that altered by making them a harassment unit on top of its initial role makes the game feel like a beta. Why do Terran players want a bunch of overlapping units that are all equally useful?
Arguing symmetry is a form of bait I won't bite. You don't even have the rod to throw that bait with.
i actually hate playing with tankivacs, believe it or not. i just think they should stay, because its good for viewership, and its a good way to differentiate bad players from good players. you emphasize its a strategy game, but every decision you make, is a strategy. even tankivacs. Even scv rushing. I still don't understand why people are so obsessed with the so called unit identity. i couldn't care less if its a flying tank or flying cow, as long the core gameplay is appealing.
i argued symmetry because thats the only context i got from your arguments. why otherwise would you compare lurker shots being dodgeable, to tanks or collosus. or medivac boost, to overlords and warp prisms.
Because Starcraft as a franchise is claimed to be like chess in terms of strategy. If white opens queen's gambit, I'm not forced to open sicilian defense. If I understand the pieces and the board, I can form a strategy to defend or become aggressive myself.
Symmetry aside, BW did a very good job with asymmetry units but still balanced in its own way. All three races had harassment, defensive and offensive opportunities not created equal.
Starcraft 2, especially with this expansion, feels like a puzzle game. If my opponent does x, I will have to respond with y. That is because we've created linear openings and linear timings. Very rarely do strange openers award players who understand the game vs those who don't. Especially with the defensive capabilities and slight micro-ing abilities from one race without the other two having the same opportunities.
A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
i dont play chess nor did i play bw multiplayer so i have no idea what you just tried to explain.
tankivac does a better job seperating good players from bads here is why i think so: 1) siege tanks can reposition fairly quick, so it forces you to have constant map awareness and control, intel where their tanks are, compared to immobile tanks where this is way less frequent. without tankivac: oh his tanks are there, i dont have to look at them again for another 30 secs. 2) more opportunities to outmicro 3) thanks to tankivac, TvT's are super chaotic (even called cancer by some). Full on aggression. ALOT more different scenarios. you lost 15 scv early, and half of your production. do you choose to rebuild production so you can keep up with his, or rebuild your economy for the long run? Thats why decision making here is much more important, because you need to decide much faster and they are worth alot more weight. if games becomes passive economic, its just like yeah first 10 min just build 5 rax, 3 fact, starport, get double engi bay. oh this is the time i drop third. you need to improvise instead of playing textbook.
i left hots, but wol was super boring just sitting on 3 base all day chrono'ing +3/3 collosus and then do 1a army push and go kill your opponent.
I was just simply referencing the fact that this is a strategy game. Micro is a small portion to the whole for real time strategy. Siege tanks shouldn't have to /reposition/ quickly. That wasn't how they were designed. If the retarded spell cast ability corrosive bile wasn't in the picture, the concept most likely wouldn't have even showed up. The tank has the ability to do more than the role intended. Tanks weren't a form of full on aggression NOR should they be. WoL was super boring, but TvZ didn't have sitting in your bases till t3 1A during HoTs. That was the complaint of terrans during the reign of BL/Infestor.
On February 28 2016 07:56 Shin_Gouki wrote: A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
You think the issue with tank drops is early game harassment?
Precisely. There is no incentive NOT to go tanks. If you start it as a defensive opening, but your opponent doesn't plan on all-ining; you can now also go behind their mineral line, deny scouting/creep or simply force units out. That in turn, forces the other races to open one way restrictively for consistent wins.
I don't know from where you're drawing this conclusion and this isn't a reason for the proposed changes. Fast tankivac harass more or less died with the introduction of the attack delay in beta.
It is human nature to choose the most appealing option. Tanks are able to have multiple purposes instead of their initial construct. There is a big incentive to go tanks now that they can be picked up and moved around. Burrowing and unburrowing widow mines takes more time than tanks, even with their drilling claws upgrade. I'm not saying that's reason enough to remove the ability, but people have far less reasons to remove easy to dodge abilities and units that were only good in critical mass.
On February 28 2016 07:56 Shin_Gouki wrote: A siege tank micro-ing does not "separate the good players from the bad." The later the game progresses, the more I don't mind and even appreciate microing tanks. Early game tank dropping just forces you to choose an uneconomic opener to combat it.
You think the issue with tank drops is early game harassment?
Precisely. There is no incentive NOT to go tanks. If you start it as a defensive opening, but your opponent doesn't plan on all-ining; you can now also go behind their mineral line, deny scouting/creep or simply force units out. That in turn, forces the other races to open one way restrictively for consistent wins.
I don't know from where you're drawing this conclusion and this isn't a reason for the proposed changes. Fast tankivac harass more or less died with the introduction of the attack delay in beta.
It is human nature to choose the most appealing option. Tanks are able to have multiple purposes instead of their initial construct. There is a big incentive to go tanks now that they can be picked up and moved around. Burrowing and unburrowing widow mines takes more time than tanks, even with their drilling claws upgrade. I'm not saying that's reason enough to remove the ability, but people have far less reasons to remove easy to dodge abilities and units that were only good in critical mass.
I wouldn't say it's so much an incentive as much as 'they aren't complete garbage'. Bio with tank support was not viable in hots, much to the chagrin of the balance team when they nerfed the widow mine in 2013. It's not just ravagers, it's the aggregate of years of design decisions that makes an extremely immobile tank non-viable. The tank damage increase necessary to revert back to an extremely immobile tank would probably result in far worse gameplay.
About tankivacs in their current state the truth is they are already becoming obsolete in TvZ and TvP anyways because they still lack true dps so that is why I'm hoping they buff siege tanks a little more. Only in TvT maybe tankivacs are dominating because their making bio way too mobile and strong but if you look at pro games you will see they are already starting to skip tankivacs after 2-3 tanks and going straight into Liberators instead because it's better value. Therefore we can only hope tanks get a nice buff, maybe tweeking medivacs pick up because it would be too strong and adjust ravagers accordingly...
In short, if Blizzard decides to pull back from what was suggested in the next patch (siege tanks buff, medivacs nerf, ravagers nerf, liberators nerf) Well what we currently have now will pretty much be what we will ever see in sc2 period. Otherwise, if Blizzard keeps going we will continue with a fresh game with constantly evolving newer strategies that will make the game up to date and hopefully attract more players and viewers...
And to be honest, even at the top pro korean level, it still seems right now in experimental stage with players like Innovation, Maru, SoS and Byul not even been able to qualify, it seems like now is the time to modify it properly...
There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
I agree with Cyclone, but the design of the units iself is... I means, if it was strong the game might look pretty ridiculous. As for tempest, I think they are not problematic by themselves, but because revalation of the oracle is just too much strong: range, duration, energy cost, it's just way too good.
Are Nyddus really problematic? Honestly I can't think of a lot of games in which they were broken.
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
Nydus is more counterable then liberators so not sure why you put it there?
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
I agree and i'll add another one to the list.
Oracle Why does the stasis ward not expire? the only spell in the game that last forever.
Viper Why cant we dodge the parasitic bomb and why does it stack.
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
Nydus is more counterable then liberators so not sure why you put it there?
Also SH are way more useless then Thors.
Obvious Terran bias here.
Oh right, forgot Swarm Host. I actually have NEVER seen Swarm Host played in LotV.
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
Nydus is more counterable then liberators so not sure why you put it there?
Also SH are way more useless then Thors.
Obvious Terran bias here.
Oh right, forgot Swarm Host. I actually have NEVER seen Swarm Host played in LotV.
Blizzards greatest act of "balancing" a unit :D :D
I'm really happy that Blizz came to their senses on the Tankivac (thanks pro KR scene).
You can't eliminate a mechanic that is 100% necessary in at least 1 non mirror MU to "fix" a mirror match-up.
Imagine code S TvZ if they patched this lol - would be a complete ravager shit show.
Not to mention TvT would become a ridiculous bore-fest (50 min tvt turtle mech games).
Honestly with TvT I don't think Tankivac is a problem - it makes the game faster and more exciting.
The one thing I'd like to see them look at for TvT is reapers.
2 and 3 rax reaper builds absolutely dominate the ladder at high masters in GM MMR.
It makes it so that you really can't safely reaper expo if you don't want to just GG out vs those builds.
I don't know what the fix would be - but I think you'd get way more positive feedback from KR on something like that vs. changing something that is instrumental in non-mirror matchups for holding all ins.
I saw an idea on Tankivacs that I thought might be interesting:
How about, that when Medivacs pick up Siege Tanks, they lose a bit of their mobility?
We can start with say, Medivacs unable to use their boosters when loaded with a Siege Tank in siege mode.
Or maybe reduce their base speed when loaded with Siege Tank.
I think it makes sense design wise, and it also makes balancing easier, cuz movement speed can be tweaked, whereas removing it altogether is really black and white.
There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
Going back to mech discussion. Imo mech lacks a support unit, which could well be found in the cyclone. Could it be desirable for it to have a slowing effect, like the marauder does, but for AA and AG? Or something like a smoke-screen in order to hide the tank from shots, so it gets hit less (much like the blinding cloud, but different). Or maybe something like a moving EMP/Disabler, such that spells cannot be cast in a certain area around it (makes use of positional play). Just some rudimental ideas to find some synergy with tanks&thors maybe. I'd atleast like to see something like that more than the tankivac.
- swarm host should be either removed or get into a somewhere viable position - liberator anti air damage vs. e.g. mutalisks is at least questionable
- I would try to swap lurkers and ravagers position in game. This should make decision about removing tankivacs easier as well
gl ^^
I don't believe that the ravager meta of Zerg in all matchups can be viable in terms of fun & variety long term. Sure right now it is new and therefore noone complains. But it is gonna get old soon. Therefore the proposed changes.
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
Nydus is more counterable then liberators so not sure why you put it there?
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
Nydus is more counterable then liberators so not sure why you put it there?
Also SH are way more useless then Thors.
Obvious Terran bias here.
And ravens are more useless than SH..
Still think that SH are way more useless than raven Ravens have the auto-turret for harassment. (not saying that either is super strong)
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
I agree and i'll add another one to the list.
Oracle Why does the stasis ward not expire? the only spell in the game that last forever.
Viper Why cant we dodge the parasitic bomb and why does it stack.
So the supply drop should be temporary too? I am totally OK with that!
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
I agree and i'll add another one to the list.
Oracle Why does the stasis ward not expire? the only spell in the game that last forever.
Viper Why cant we dodge the parasitic bomb and why does it stack.
So the supply drop should be temporary too? I am totally OK with that!
The difference is that the supply drop requires depots to have been built in the first place. The oracle is able to shit out free widow mines, imagine if banshees could do that, that'd be something
On February 28 2016 21:45 SiaBBo wrote: There are many units that don't make sense right now.
Cyclone It's just incredibly bad. Nice to see Blizzard is maybe doing something about it.
Tempest Why is it 4 supply? It makes no sense.
Thor So in what scenario it is actually good to build Thors?
Warp Prism Just remove pickup range.
Nydus Worm Why is it still invisible while it's summoning?
I think Blizzard should look more into these units too. Tankivac is problematic since TvT is really frustrating but it makes TvZ pretty cool. I also think that Oracle may be a little too strong right now since it's the only aggression that Protoss really needs to do agains Terran. I'm okay with a slight Liberator nerf since they are quite strong but they can be countered.
I agree and i'll add another one to the list.
Oracle Why does the stasis ward not expire? the only spell in the game that last forever.
Viper Why cant we dodge the parasitic bomb and why does it stack.
So the supply drop should be temporary too? I am totally OK with that!
The difference is that the supply drop requires depots to have been built in the first place. The oracle is able to shit out free widow mines, imagine if banshees could do that, that'd be something
Is it a spell? Yes. Does it expire? No. Technically transfuse never expires either (that would be fun - 10 times transfused Ultralisk imploding after 20 seconds)
And yeah, let's change stasis ward to the stasis thingy that the good ol' Arbiter has. That would be more used than the actual trap(also broken ) They cannot change stasis ward to something else(expiring) and not turning it into utterly broken shit
Here's a list of units/abilities that I think need to at least be looked at, and some possible solutions:
Zerg
Banelings: Reduce gas cost slightly (by 5?). There's less gas on the map to work with, more minerals. Marines are still just as easy to pump out, lings and banes are harder with larva change and less gas overall to work with.
Ravager: Corrosive Bile needs a longer cooldown, possible nerf/realloaction of damage.
Lurker: Damage slightly decreased.
Infestor: Revert/speed up fungal growth cast to make dealing with mass Phoenix/Chargelots/Blink Stalkers easier. When was the last time anyone landed a "money" fungal? It just doesn't happen to fast units. Infestors are nearly useless ATM for anything but in late game situations with Ultras. They provide almost zero utility to help you get there, though.
Nydus: Remove invulnerability while building, replace with heavy armor. Reduce cost of exit Nyduses.
Corruptor: Add + damage to massive to combat Tempests and Carriers. Possibly introduce an upgrade of some kind for Corruptors to make them faster/stronger in some way.
Terran:
Reaper: Decrease damage from 10 to 5 on KD8 Mine. Mass reapers are simply too strong early game TvZ.
Cyclone: Complete overhaul.
Orbital Command: Put a cooldown on OC's for casting mules, or limit the number of mules allowed on each mineral base. Mules continue to overly compensate for bad/damaged economies, for a race that is primarily mineral driven. OC's allow bailing out bad macro with spamming mules, allow instant supply block freeing, and scan anywhere on the map. For free. Zerg Lairs/Hives have no utility abilities.
Tanks: Allow pick up of tank in seige mode, drops in tank mode. Slight damage increase.
Liberators: Defender mode area should be smaller, they zone out too big of an area when massed. Flying attack should be nerfed slightly, and buffed slightly vs armored. Liberator speed should be nerfed slightly.
Banshee: Lower speed upgrade slightly.
Turrets: Lower damage vs. Bio slightly. Between mines, Turrets, and Liberators, Mutalisks are almost incapable of entering a Terran base.
Ghosts: Steady targeting is too strong. Aiming time/energy cost needs to be increased, or damage decreased.
Protoss:
Twilight Council: Charge and Blink seem too accessible early on, and both enable extremely powerful all ins from Toss. Maybe an increase in research time, or build time for the structure.
Disrupter: Purification Nova needs a change. Too much damage. Possibly make the casting time lower to decrease the range? Or increase it to give the opposing player more time to react/split units. .5 seconds would go a long way here in either direction.
High Templar: Reduce storm damage slightly.
Tempest:Reduce range or damage slightly. Increase Supply Cost to 6.
Oracle: Revelation duration needs to be reduced (60 seconds of eyes on your army is a ridiculous amount of time for a free spell cast by one of the fastest units in the game, with 9 range) and energy cost increased.
Pylon overcharge: Slight energy increase, possible duration decrease.
That's my two cents. Feedback/input is appreciated.
As a case example, let's imagine the following unit as something that captures the essence of the tank: a unit which has to stand still and load for three seconds before firing some explosive projectile, if it moves before that the cooldown is reset. (like stringing a bow)
In contrast with the tank it has lost the mode transformations, it has gained in defensive mobility and the interaction with the medivac would feel more natural. In general it would be a streamlined version of the tank.
Can anyone tell me what the downsides to this substitution would be? Would it be less clumsy? What charms of the siege tank would fade? Is there anything particular about the siege tank that one can not easily replicate?
On February 27 2016 21:51 PinoKotsBeer wrote: Cyclone = 3 supply 120 HP Tempest = 4 supply 450 HP
TVP is horrible, first open with mass phoenix adepts than once the tempests + storm are done its gg
Marines have something like 5 times the dps per supply compared to tempests. Is it meaningful to just juxtapose numbers like that?
The tempest is a long range unit, that is its concept and main advantage and the other stats are derived from this. You want the unit to be able go off independently and cause a nuisance (somewhat akin to guardians in brood war whom they resemble). But unlike guardians they can target air units. Therefore they can not have high damage, because range and damage strengthen each other in certain situations to create undesirable effects, because otherwise they would have no direct counter. High health is a compromise to ensure the unit's cost effectiveness in a generic battle. Furthermore, health scales differently than damage to the point that an exceedingly high amount of health on a unit with low damage generally target last is unlikely to cause severe imbalance because if you have enough marines left over they will die regardless. etc.
Would it be crazy to decrease the Liberator anti ground damage so it doesn't one shot a hydra and two shot a stalker? They could give it like slightly faster attack speed to compensate, or a bonus against massive so they still wreck ultras (and archons, collossus, thors).
It would be cool if protoss didn't HAVE to get tempests to counter those things. And Zerg is also forced to get... mass corruptors or ravagers?
Some people in this thread don't remember some crucial changes from WoL - HotS.
E.g. they want nefring Oracles detection. Sure, nerfing the taging seems logical until you realize it is a detection. And, well, once you nerf detection of stargate the only usable detection left is observer again. That was a major issue in WoL and that's why they added a detecting unit from SG
So if you say "nerf the tagging of Oracle!" say #2 too - solve the detection problem for protoss.
Banelings: Reduce gas cost slightly (by 5?). There's less gas on the map to work with, more minerals. Marines are still just as easy to pump out, lings and banes are harder with larva change and less gas overall to work with.
Ravager: Corrosive Bile needs a longer cooldown, possible nerf/realloaction of damage.
Lurker: Damage slightly decreased.
Infestor: Revert/speed up fungal growth cast to make dealing with mass Phoenix/Chargelots/Blink Stalkers easier. When was the last time anyone landed a "money" fungal? It just doesn't happen to fast units. Infestors are nearly useless ATM for anything but in late game situations with Ultras. They provide almost zero utility to help you get there, though.
Nydus: Remove invulnerability while building, replace with heavy armor. Reduce cost of exit Nyduses.
Corruptor: Add + damage to massive to combat Tempests and Carriers. Possibly introduce an upgrade of some kind for Corruptors to make them faster/stronger in some way.
Terran:
Reaper: Decrease damage from 10 to 5 on KD8 Mine. Mass reapers are simply too strong early game TvZ.
Cyclone: Complete overhaul.
Orbital Command: Put a cooldown on OC's for casting mules, or limit the number of mules allowed on each mineral base. Mules continue to overly compensate for bad/damaged economies, for a race that is primarily mineral driven. OC's allow bailing out bad macro with spamming mules, allow instant supply block freeing, and scan anywhere on the map. For free. Zerg Lairs/Hives have no utility abilities.
Tanks: Allow pick up of tank in seige mode, drops in tank mode. Slight damage increase.
Liberators: Defender mode area should be smaller, they zone out too big of an area when massed. Flying attack should be nerfed slightly, and buffed slightly vs armored. Liberator speed should be nerfed slightly.
Banshee: Lower speed upgrade slightly.
Turrets: Lower damage vs. Bio slightly. Between mines, Turrets, and Liberators, Mutalisks are almost incapable of entering a Terran base.
Ghosts: Steady targeting is too strong. Aiming time/energy cost needs to be increased, or damage decreased.
Protoss:
Twilight Council: Charge and Blink seem too accessible early on, and both enable extremely powerful all ins from Toss. Maybe an increase in research time, or build time for the structure.
Disrupter: Purification Nova needs a change. Too much damage. Possibly make the casting time lower to decrease the range? Or increase it to give the opposing player more time to react/split units. .5 seconds would go a long way here in either direction.
High Templar: Reduce storm damage slightly.
Tempest:Reduce range or damage slightly. Increase Supply Cost to 6.
Oracle: Revelation duration needs to be reduced (60 seconds of eyes on your army is a ridiculous amount of time for a free spell cast by one of the fastest units in the game, with 9 range) and energy cost increased.
Pylon overcharge: Slight energy increase, possible duration decrease.
That's my two cents. Feedback/input is appreciated.
Talk about quality post! If its indeed your first post, welcome to TL!
I will point out what i disagree with, since i mostly agree with what you say. Some thing i agree with may not be important, and changing to a position that would make balance worse (and to rebalance, other changes that may not be good design-wise will have to be implemented) is not worth it.
Disclaimer done, here goes:
Banelings: as much as i agree with the idea in spirit, 5 is the minimum and its already too much. Maybe reduce the cost of bane speed?
Infestors: In WoL they used to be frustrating to deal with, but arguably it doesn't matter as much in LotV since there are so many units/abilities with huge impact. Maybe its better to buff infested terrans (eggs?) instead. They are also pretty good with ravagers but its a nitpick.
Corruptor: the real problem is killing the carrier for good (as in they will not be used at all), but a buff against tempest should be a good change. The tempest late game is a bore and shallow strategically, its better if protoss can survive without them but not if they mass them up. The proposed lurker damage reduction should be good to achieve this goal. The proposed tempest change is an alternative.
Liberator: i don't get the reason for the damage change. I think its good that corruptors can shut them down. Its not even a hard counter.
Turrets: Its not a "clean" change and not important either, if liberators are a bit slower, it should be enough. Its good that zerg cannot achieve a critical mass of mutas and snipe command centers and its the line that cannot be crossed.
Twilight concil: with 3 important upgrades i don't think the research time can get any longer.
Disruptor: i agree, but the solution cannot be a decrease in range (to deal with lurkers) and if the damage is nerfed the time to react is good enough. Its a unit with too much impact that can die doing absolutely no damage, maybe they should do less damage and cost a bit less.
HT: With the colossus nerf protoss needs HT to fight masses of zerg and terran. But maybe its an issue in itself. Anyway, too hard to redesign protoss, HT is fine i guess.
Before anyone says anything, its all about design, not race balance.
Corruptor: Add + damage to massive to combat Tempests and Carriers.
Corruptor floods are already pretty good against those units, main reason that they're not amazing IMO is the vulnerability to AOE (archons, storm blankets covering those units). Corruptor Viper is extremely good anti air at the moment and air toss styles are not as strong as ground styles.
Infestor is not used much, but when they are used they do seem to be pretty good. They pair very well with the new LOTV units/abilities - in particular corrosive bile and parasitic bomb. Landing fungals can be devastating, the current projectile is pretty fast but dodgeable if you're at range and that feels much better to play against than the WOL version.
---------
Based on the terran and protoss changes, it looks like you're a zerg player and missing a good overview of balance - you suggest nerfs to council tech, disruptors, templar, oracles and overcharge with zero compensation, even though ZvP is completely in the zergs hands atm. If those changes went through, the matchup could plausibly go from 60/40ish in favor of zerg to 70/30 overnight which is an insane and absolutely unacceptable level of imbalance.
It's understandable if you want general buffs so that all strategies are a bit better or some other stuff buffed so that they can take over as the best way to play, rather than being forced into certain all ins, tempests in some situations vs T/Z etc - you need to provide those, though, rather than just gutting everything that's left out of the race that's weakest in competitive play at the moment just because you don't like the ways that are left over to take wins
Corruptor: Add + damage to massive to combat Tempests and Carriers.
Corruptor floods are already pretty good against those units, main reason that they're not amazing IMO is the vulnerability to AOE (archons, storm blankets covering those units). Corruptor Viper is extremely good anti air at the moment and air toss styles are not as strong as ground styles.
Infestor is not used much, but when they are used they do seem to be pretty good. They pair very well with the new LOTV units/abilities - in particular corrosive bile and parasitic bomb. Landing fungals can be devastating, the current projectile is pretty fast but dodgeable if you're at range and that feels much better to play against than the WOL version.
---------
Based on the terran and protoss changes, it looks like you're a zerg player and missing a good overview of balance - you suggest nerfs to council tech, disruptors, templar, oracles and overcharge with zero compensation, even though ZvP is completely in the zergs hands atm. If those changes went through, the matchup could plausibly go from 60/40ish in favor of zerg to 70/30 overnight which is an insane and absolutely unacceptable level of imbalance.
It's understandable if you want general buffs so that all strategies are a bit better or some other stuff buffed so that they can take over as the best way to play, rather than being forced into certain all ins, tempests in some situations vs T/Z etc - you need to provide those, though, rather than just gutting everything that's left out of the race that's weakest in competitive play at the moment just because you don't like the ways that are left over to take wins
Obviously most of these changes wont even be considered. I was just throwing out ideas. I haven't been following the current top tier win rates, but in my opinion both Terran and Toss are stronger than zerg atm.
I think the damage shouldn't be nerfed but the DPS should be. This would actually give Terrans more time to micro against it since now it's like that if you can hit even a decent storm it pretty much takes 50% off HP anyways. So what I would like to see is that it can still do the same damage but it does it slower so you actually have a little bit more time to adapt to it since now it's pretty much if Terran couldn't split before the storm lands it will do significant amount of damage EVEN if it isn't a "good hit."
And what was even the big problem for Protoss having only one detection unit? Observer is cloaked itself and doesn't cost you pretty much anything. Zerg has only Overseer too and Terran has only scans which is again away from MULEs.
It's just ridicilous that Oracle can detect, scout, harras (and it forces out turrets or keeping your army back at your base) and it even can put some statis wards. And we all know that if Protoss controls it well it will never ever die since it's so fast. And not just it detects but the scouting aspect of it is way too big too. Think about Brood War's Queen's Parasite. You target that to ONE unit that gives you it's vision untill that unit is dead. This was pretty cool since you had a chance to kill that unit yourself but if you targeted that to unit like Siege Tank you would have to kill an expensive, a good unit. Revelation can be cast from far far away and doesn't even have to be targeted to an unit. You can just click somewhere and boom, you have vision and Terran really cannot move out because Protoss knows EXACTLY where Terran's units are. Revelation also lasts a way too long since it's already a detection spell. I mean it could last as long as scan lasts.
I think the damage shouldn't be nerfed but the DPS should be. This would actually give Terrans more time to micro against it since now it's like that if you can hit even a decent storm it pretty much takes 50% off HP anyways. So what I would like to see is that it can still do the same damage but it does it slower so you actually have a little bit more time to adapt to it since now it's pretty much if Terran couldn't split before the storm lands it will do significant amount of damage EVEN if it isn't a "good hit."
And what was even the big problem for Protoss having only one detection unit? Observer is cloaked itself and doesn't cost you pretty much anything. Zerg has only Overseer too and Terran has only scans which is again away from MULEs.
It's just ridicilous that Oracle can detect, scout, harras (and it forces out turrets or keeping your army back at your base) and it even can put some statis wards. And we all know that if Protoss controls it well it will never ever die since it's so fast. And not just it detects but the scouting aspect of it is way too big too. Think about Brood War's Queen's Parasite. You target that to ONE unit that gives you it's vision untill that unit is dead. This was pretty cool since you had a chance to kill that unit yourself but if you targeted that to unit like Siege Tank you would have to kill an expensive, a good unit. Revelation can be cast from far far away and doesn't even have to be targeted to an unit. You can just click somewhere and boom, you have vision and Terran really cannot move out because Protoss knows EXACTLY where Terran's units are. Revelation also lasts a way too long since it's already a detection spell. I mean it could last as long as scan lasts.
1) Templar's storm is right now the only reliable stronger splash damage. As Protoss armies heavily rely on splash damage you simply cannot nerf it without ANY OTHER CHANGES! So if you want to nerf it, how about you give us something else? 2) If you have only 1 detection unit you have to open EVERY FUCKING TIME with robo. Otherwise you just lost. That's it. Also an observer is squishy unit which is easy to kill. Also observer costs you the time of robo. So if the Protoss is left only with observer again, then we need to lower robotics cost so you can be pumping observers and something else(remind you - the economy is much faster). Basically the detection from Oracle lowers volatility of the game(mostly PvP). 3) Yes, Oracle is a ridiculous band aid unit, what a discovery, many Protoss players are talking about band aids from WoL(sentry, MSC, Oracle, tempest...) Though this is not about balance but about bad design.
I don't know why they hcanged the Oracle from its HotS state where it was a crazy band aid unit, but it wasn't LotV crazy(added stasis ward) #BlizzardThings
edit> by the faster economy I mean you cannot go fast robo and pump enough observers in advance because that's no longer a viable option. Every time player kills an observer and goes with cloaked units(ghosts, mines, lurkers) the player IS SURE that Protoss isn't building another immortal/disruptor/warp prism from robo. Robo is the core building right now and you want to get it even more important without any trade offs.
On February 27 2016 03:38 purakushi wrote:We agree with those of you who have pointed out that testing some changes to the Cyclone would be useful. The goal here would be to increase the effectiveness of the Cyclone for early/mid stages of the game while not allowing mass Cyclones to be a viable composition in the later stages of the game. In order to do this, we’re thinking about increasing the effectiveness of Cyclones by either increasing their health or damage, and also increasing the supply cost so that their value diminishes in the late stage of the game when players’ armies start to approach max supply.
I agree that pure Cyclone shouldn't be viable, but right now they're near useless apart from some earlygame usability. Buffing the damage, health or cost would give Mech the ability to play more aggressive and could also solve pure Mech's anti-air issue. It would be fine to raise the supply cost to make mass Cyclone not viable lategame, but to make it more viable early-/midgame, the gas cost should be reduced, because that imho is the biggest factor, why it can't be produced in higher numbers early on.
I think the damage shouldn't be nerfed but the DPS should be. This would actually give Terrans more time to micro against it since now it's like that if you can hit even a decent storm it pretty much takes 50% off HP anyways. So what I would like to see is that it can still do the same damage but it does it slower so you actually have a little bit more time to adapt to it since now it's pretty much if Terran couldn't split before the storm lands it will do significant amount of damage EVEN if it isn't a "good hit."
And what was even the big problem for Protoss having only one detection unit? Observer is cloaked itself and doesn't cost you pretty much anything. Zerg has only Overseer too and Terran has only scans which is again away from MULEs.
It's just ridicilous that Oracle can detect, scout, harras (and it forces out turrets or keeping your army back at your base) and it even can put some statis wards. And we all know that if Protoss controls it well it will never ever die since it's so fast. And not just it detects but the scouting aspect of it is way too big too. Think about Brood War's Queen's Parasite. You target that to ONE unit that gives you it's vision untill that unit is dead. This was pretty cool since you had a chance to kill that unit yourself but if you targeted that to unit like Siege Tank you would have to kill an expensive, a good unit. Revelation can be cast from far far away and doesn't even have to be targeted to an unit. You can just click somewhere and boom, you have vision and Terran really cannot move out because Protoss knows EXACTLY where Terran's units are. Revelation also lasts a way too long since it's already a detection spell. I mean it could last as long as scan lasts.
1) Templar's storm is right now the only reliable stronger splash damage. As Protoss armies heavily rely on splash damage you simply cannot nerf it without ANY OTHER CHANGES! So if you want to nerf it, how about you give us something else? 2) If you have only 1 detection unit you have to open EVERY FUCKING TIME with robo. Otherwise you just lost. That's it. Also an observer is squishy unit which is easy to kill. Also observer costs you the time of robo. So if the Protoss is left only with observer again, then we need to lower robotics cost so you can be pumping observers and something else(remind you - the economy is much faster). Basically the detection from Oracle lowers volatility of the game(mostly PvP). 3) Yes, Oracle is a ridiculous band aid unit, what a discovery, many Protoss players are talking about band aids from WoL(sentry, MSC, Oracle, tempest...) Though this is not about balance but about bad design.
I don't know why they hcanged the Oracle from its HotS state where it was a crazy band aid unit, but it wasn't LotV crazy(added stasis ward) #BlizzardThings
edit> by the faster economy I mean you cannot go fast robo and pump enough observers in advance because that's no longer a viable option. Every time player kills an observer and goes with cloaked units(ghosts, mines, lurkers) the player IS SURE that Protoss isn't building another immortal/disruptor/warp prism from robo. Robo is the core building right now and you want to get it even more important without any trade offs.
1) Yes it may be only reliable stronger splash damage but that doesn't make it any more balanced. Slight nerf should be okay since it actually even rewards microing. And I've seen Protoss armies do pretty well with gateway units + immortals. Sure when the game has been going longer you need to add Templars but they are sooo powerful. Like there is no way to beat Tempest/HT/Immortal + other bullshit. 2)So we can agree that Revelation should be nerfed.
I haven't been following the current top tier win rates, but in my opinion both Terran and Toss are stronger than zerg atm.
Zerg is doing fine atm but it may be T>Z at the absolute highest level of play, korean terrans are doing pretty good.
race distribution is also way off at all levels of play, i can't remember the last time it was this bad and i bought the game on release day. Over 4x as many zvz's as pvp's and Z is extremely popular on EU and NA; there's almost twice as many zerg as protoss in NA diamond. That's not the greatest indicator on its own but combined with other stats it becomes quite alarming
I think the damage shouldn't be nerfed but the DPS should be. This would actually give Terrans more time to micro against it since now it's like that if you can hit even a decent storm it pretty much takes 50% off HP anyways. So what I would like to see is that it can still do the same damage but it does it slower so you actually have a little bit more time to adapt to it since now it's pretty much if Terran couldn't split before the storm lands it will do significant amount of damage EVEN if it isn't a "good hit."
And what was even the big problem for Protoss having only one detection unit? Observer is cloaked itself and doesn't cost you pretty much anything. Zerg has only Overseer too and Terran has only scans which is again away from MULEs.
It's just ridicilous that Oracle can detect, scout, harras (and it forces out turrets or keeping your army back at your base) and it even can put some statis wards. And we all know that if Protoss controls it well it will never ever die since it's so fast. And not just it detects but the scouting aspect of it is way too big too. Think about Brood War's Queen's Parasite. You target that to ONE unit that gives you it's vision untill that unit is dead. This was pretty cool since you had a chance to kill that unit yourself but if you targeted that to unit like Siege Tank you would have to kill an expensive, a good unit. Revelation can be cast from far far away and doesn't even have to be targeted to an unit. You can just click somewhere and boom, you have vision and Terran really cannot move out because Protoss knows EXACTLY where Terran's units are. Revelation also lasts a way too long since it's already a detection spell. I mean it could last as long as scan lasts.
1) Templar's storm is right now the only reliable stronger splash damage. As Protoss armies heavily rely on splash damage you simply cannot nerf it without ANY OTHER CHANGES! So if you want to nerf it, how about you give us something else? 2) If you have only 1 detection unit you have to open EVERY FUCKING TIME with robo. Otherwise you just lost. That's it. Also an observer is squishy unit which is easy to kill. Also observer costs you the time of robo. So if the Protoss is left only with observer again, then we need to lower robotics cost so you can be pumping observers and something else(remind you - the economy is much faster). Basically the detection from Oracle lowers volatility of the game(mostly PvP). 3) Yes, Oracle is a ridiculous band aid unit, what a discovery, many Protoss players are talking about band aids from WoL(sentry, MSC, Oracle, tempest...) Though this is not about balance but about bad design.
I don't know why they hcanged the Oracle from its HotS state where it was a crazy band aid unit, but it wasn't LotV crazy(added stasis ward) #BlizzardThings
edit> by the faster economy I mean you cannot go fast robo and pump enough observers in advance because that's no longer a viable option. Every time player kills an observer and goes with cloaked units(ghosts, mines, lurkers) the player IS SURE that Protoss isn't building another immortal/disruptor/warp prism from robo. Robo is the core building right now and you want to get it even more important without any trade offs.
1) Yes it may be only reliable stronger splash damage but that doesn't make it any more balanced. Slight nerf should be okay since it actually even rewards microing. And I've seen Protoss armies do pretty well with gateway units + immortals. Sure when the game has been going longer you need to add Templars but they are sooo powerful. Like there is no way to beat Tempest/HT/Immortal + other bullshit. 2)So we can agree that Revelation should be nerfed.
1) That's more a problem of tempests which is IMO better unit for removal(or change) 2) Yes and no, the problem is that it's tied to detection.
Overseers and spores are much more accessable than observers. Zerg can (and do) spam both of them - spores to cover til lair is done, a ton of overseers when attacking and a ton of spores when turtling.
Playing into a good zerg with only observers for detection is super painful - you can have 3-5 observers and still not be able to detect adequately because of Z instantly killing them whenever they step out of place and having their own AA+detection everywhere
I haven't been following the current top tier win rates, but in my opinion both Terran and Toss are stronger than zerg atm.
Zerg is doing fine atm but it may be T>Z at the absolute highest level of play, korean terrans are doing pretty good.
race distribution is also way off at all levels of play, i can't remember the last time it was this bad and i bought the game on release day. Over 4x as many zvz's as pvp's and Z is extremely popular on EU and NA; there's almost twice as many zerg as protoss in NA diamond. That's not the greatest indicator on its own but combined with other stats it becomes quite alarming
I'm sorry, are my eyes failing me and that picture does say something other than PvZ 38%? How is this fine?
It's 500 games over 2 weeks, not as big of a problem as if it were thousands of games over 3 months. Still a pain in the ass as both a player and spectator though.
Overseers and spores are much more accessable than observers. Zerg can (and do) spam both of them - spores to cover til lair is done, a ton of overseers when attacking and a ton of spores when turtling.
Playing into a good zerg with only observers for detection is super painful - you can have 3-5 observers and still not be able to detect adequately because of Z instantly killing them whenever they step out of place and having their own AA+detection everywhere, revelation is a lifesaver
If they really want to nerf the Oracle - I suggest giving the observer vision-detection upgrade. Tied for hive-ish timing, either with resources or with some additional building(I can imagine beacon upgrade for 100/100/45). Otherwise we would need to introduce some shield/hp buff to make it last longer and that's a nonsense move in PvT, IMO.
Not sure about the number, but IIRC it has detection/vision range 11, so +2 won't break it too much, IMO. (the old MSC had 14 vision range before nerf IIRC so this would be still less with an expensive upgrade)
This way observers would be harder to snipe. I am kinda resisting to put that upgrade into bay, because that would be huge buff(basically no drops possible). I can see it happening at bay with getting the thrusters first and longer research time.
The obs build time itself is also a consideration, if you're building a squad of them (to scout and defend) from the robo for timings that come when you're at 80-140 supply then you'll have less robo units.
Chronoboost is only +15% speed now when it used to be +50%, this is one of the bigger places where that loss is felt
On March 01 2016 19:51 Cyro wrote: The obs build time itself is also a consideration, if you're building 3-4 of them (to scout and defend) from the robo for timings that come when you're at 80-140 supply then you'll have less immortals
Robo in general is the big problem. The Blizzard idea is/was that you need from robo in LotV this: - observers - warp prisms - disruptors
Ideally at the same time. Robo now reminds me harder version of Zerg's dilemma "when to build drones and when units"
On March 01 2016 19:51 Cyro wrote: The obs build time itself is also a consideration, if you're building 3-4 of them (to scout and defend) from the robo for timings that come when you're at 80-140 supply then you'll have less immortals
Robo in general is the big problem. The Blizzard idea is/was that you need from robo in LotV this: - observers - warp prisms - disruptors
Ideally at the same time. Robo now reminds me harder version of Zerg's dilemma "when to build drones and when units"
In the reality of pro games, robo is used mainly for immortals, then some observers, then one or two prisms. No time for disruptors outside of some PvP or against some roach/ravager allin (and even then you often still see only immortals).
It's sad because I love watching disruptor shots go off against clumped zerg stuff.
On March 01 2016 19:51 Cyro wrote: The obs build time itself is also a consideration, if you're building 3-4 of them (to scout and defend) from the robo for timings that come when you're at 80-140 supply then you'll have less immortals
Robo in general is the big problem. The Blizzard idea is/was that you need from robo in LotV this: - observers - warp prisms - disruptors
Ideally at the same time. Robo now reminds me harder version of Zerg's dilemma "when to build drones and when units"
In the reality of pro games, robo is used mainly for immortals, then some observers, then one or two prisms. No time for disruptors outside of some PvP or against some roach/ravager allin (and even then you often still see only immortals).
It's sad because I love watching disruptor shots go off against clumped zerg stuff.
That's why I wrote that it was Blizzard idea Reality is far away from what they thought. Though with suggested nerf to Oracles the Robotic facility gets more attention again. I remember I was using 2 robos in HotS because I was playing the "pigbaby" style(observers, I need more observers!)
Guys I wanna remind you that siege mode tank pickups should not at all be a balance matter. Balance can be achieved in many ways. Tankivacs are not necessary for that. Balance is no criteria therefore.
The question is only about design and attitude. Do we want games being dominated by flying tanks? Last monday's pro-league games showed me that a roach/ravager zerg cannot catch them at all.
I respect Blizzard and DK for the work they put into SC2. But this issue is another showcase of not existing leadership, non existent ideas and goals. The attitude is like "how can we make all of you happy so that you like us most" shit! Bullshit! There is no right and wrong in this issue. Some ppl might argue from a balance position, others like me from a design position.
What this game is lacking is one guy, one head, that knows how this game should look like, play out and be in the end of the day, a guy with a vision. And that guy ain't you for sure DK, I am sorry to say, with all that back and forth and make everything right for everyone attitude.
What I know is that flash has 30k viewers on his stream right now and that neither me nor any of the people I know find SC2 exactly fun to play these days. And no, tankivacs is nothing that viewers want to see: "look this zerg cannot catch the 2 tanks for 5+ minutes with queens and ravagers, while they deal free damage, lets balance the game around this".
There is no right and wrong in this issue. Some ppl might argue from a balance position, others like me from a design position.
Design is the first consideration. Some people talk 100% about balance, but they're obviously making big design changes in some of these patches.
Balance comes after design (if you balance then redesign, you'll just have to balance again.. if you redesign and then balance, you're done)
For the best example of a recent design (not balance) change, look to the photon overcharge nerf that took protoss from nearly equal winrates against zerg to 38% winrate in the last 2 weeks. That wasn't a "protoss is doing too good against zerg" change - that was a "we don't like how protoss power is allocated so we're changing the design" change, one that the community also backed up.
---
You can balance a siege tank with or without the ability to instantly pick it up and drop it in siege mode w/ boosted medivacs. It's obvious that with the sieged drop design of the unit, there is less of a power budget to assign to things like how much damage it can do, otherwise it would simply be too powerful and break the winrates.
That's the reason why "Siege tank needs pickup in order for TvZ ravager balance to exist" is a bad argument. You can add stats until it works. If there's a game breaking problem with the ravager when tank sieged pickup+drop doesn't exist, that unit can specifically be adjusted - it's not just giving trouble to terran.
4gate, infestor/bl, 1-1-1, mass ghost lategame TvZ, soul train and many more similar things made some of the most exciting games in the history of sc2 - food for thought.
Something to remember is that in Brood War Lurker concaves were very popular against Protoss. Overlords were detectors. Only detector that Protoss had was an Observer. Scourges one shot it and Hydras kill it very fast too. This wasn't a problem in Brood War though so how is it a big problem in SC2? It isn't.
On March 01 2016 21:50 lohdon wrote: I'm so glad I didn't buy LOTV.
you're missing out man. Its a great great game to play!
Yeah, despite the fact that it could be so much better with the right changes, there is no doubt that it is still "the" strategy game to be playing now and hopefully in the future.
On March 01 2016 23:35 SiaBBo wrote: Something to remember is that in Brood War Lurker concaves were very popular against Protoss. Overlords were detectors. Only detector that Protoss had was an Observer. Scourges one shot it and Hydras kill it very fast too. This wasn't a problem in Brood War though so how is it a big problem in SC2? It isn't.
In Brood War the storm had bigger radius and bigger damage. Gimme gimme gimme!
On March 01 2016 22:45 LSN wrote: Guys I wanna remind you that siege mode tank pickups should not at all be a balance matter. Balance can be achieved in many ways. Tankivacs are not necessary for that. Balance is no criteria therefore.
The question is only about design and attitude. Do we want games being dominated by flying tanks? Last monday's pro-league games showed me that a roach/ravager zerg cannot catch them at all.
I respect Blizzard and DK for the work they put into SC2. But this issue is another showcase of not existing leadership, non existent ideas and goals. The attitude is like "how can we make all of you happy so that you like us most" shit! Bullshit! There is no right and wrong in this issue. Some ppl might argue from a balance position, others like me from a design position.
What this game is lacking is one guy, one head, that knows how this game should look like, play out and be in the end of the day, a guy with a vision. And that guy ain't you for sure DK, I am sorry to say, with all that back and forth and make everything right for everyone attitude.
What I know is that flash has 30k viewers on his stream right now and that neither me nor any of the people I know find SC2 exactly fun to play these days. And no, tankivacs is nothing that viewers want to see: "look this zerg cannot catch the 2 tanks for 5+ minutes with queens and ravagers, while they deal free damage, lets balance the game around this".
Sadly, this is the truth. However, I would disagree with one point - being that it is not too late for the current design/balance teams to have a change of heart and begin to pursue the correct path to have this game become great again. It is never too late for anything in life. How long did it take to change Protoss chronoboost, warp-in mechanics, and/or reinstate the macro features - too long but they got it right in the end.
Unfortunately, change and/or great things rarely come from a position of comfort, or of entitlement. Game design must prevail now over any balance considerations in these early months after release of the final expansion. To do otherwise would be very detrimental to the future of the game. We can balance the game this summer, or next year - and everyone will be better off waiting for it.
On March 01 2016 23:49 weikor wrote: I dont understand why the tank had to change from a positional unit, to a 2 part colossus that requires a little more micro.
If theres really need for a long range - mobile unit, isnt that why they implemented the cyclone?
Why dont they change the cyclone to fill the role of the tankivac, and change the flying tank to a proper siege tank
That is how it should be designed. Also, why do it at the precise time (beta) that a new flying siege unit is being introduced to the game !! Why create a Tankivac out of the most positional and core unit that Terran has, when you are also bringing in the Liberator as part of LOTV? It makes absolutely no sense from a design perspective !
On March 01 2016 23:10 Cyro wrote: You can balance a siege tank with or without the ability to instantly pick it up and drop it in siege mode w/ boosted medivacs. It's obvious that with the sieged drop design of the unit, there is less of a power budget to assign to things like how much damage it can do, otherwise it would simply be too powerful and break the winrates.
Ye and ravagers are defenitely too strong. Not too strong as a unit themselves but too strong for the point of time when they come into play. Therefore I'd try to switch ravagers with lurkers, delay liberators by tech lab and remove tankivacs.
I think the design of the old siegetank is problematic because lotv is so fast that you have to reposition yourself very often. If you do not hit a 30 sec timing you have to backoff. If you backoff with tanks you can be overrun so hard. Thats why i like the idea of the tank being able to pick off sieged but then unsiege + maybe a slight damage increas.
but part of the reason that LOTV is fast is because we have units like siege tank which are now hypermobile instead of strong positional units. We have mobility creep because nobody stood up for unit designs like the siege tank.
On March 01 2016 23:10 Cyro wrote: That's the reason why "Siege tank needs pickup in order for TvZ ravager balance to exist" is a bad argument. You can add stats until it works. If there's a game breaking problem with the ravager when tank sieged pickup+drop doesn't exist, that unit can specifically be adjusted - it's not just giving trouble to terran.
You can balance anything, but that doesn't mean gameplay is better. What if you have to increase tank base damage to 45+ in order to do it and they start one shotting marines turning TvT into mech hell? You might have removed tankivacs and maintained balance, but in the process abandoned the actual goal of making TvT different/'better'.
On March 02 2016 01:51 Cyro wrote: but part of the reason that LOTV is fast is because we have units like siege tank which are now hypermobile instead of strong positional units. We have mobility creep because nobody stood up for unit designs like the siege tank.
I don't know if it is good politics to object to a change because it contributes to a harmful trend. I see this on political forum discussions all the time, flame wars about minor issues all because it pits one entire political philosophy against another, and it can completely overshadow the actual issue. Though on the other hand, if this trend continues unabated it might be worthwhile to take a stand against one particularly egregious example simply to draw attention to the issue, to draw a line in the sand.
But I do not think you can stop lotv hypermobility by one change at the time, the game is too far gone for that to happen.
On March 02 2016 01:57 Cyro wrote: You would increase tank health and nerf ravagers before going that far, 100%.
Ravagers aren't the only problem. And as you start going through the list of problems and tweaking other units, you're changing unit relationships all over the game. And you're not guaranteed a better game in the end even if you do it.
On March 01 2016 23:49 weikor wrote: I dont understand why the tank had to change from a positional unit, to a 2 part colossus that requires a little more micro.
If theres really need for a long range - mobile unit, isnt that why they implemented the cyclone?
Why dont they change the cyclone to fill the role of the tankivac, and change the flying tank to a proper siege tank
That is how it should be designed. Also, why do it at the precise time (beta) that a new flying siege unit is being introduced to the game !! Why create a Tankivac out of the most positional and core unit that Terran has, when you are also bringing in the Liberator as part of LOTV? It makes absolutely no sense from a design perspective !
It's pretty obvious that they've gone back to the drawing board with LotV and looked at what made Brood War so cool, so they can implement it. Lurkers, Reaver(Disruptor,) more spread out bases(economy,) BoXeR Tank drops(siegevacs) and plenty others.
On March 02 2016 01:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think the design of the old siegetank is problematic because lotv is so fast that you have to reposition yourself very often. If you do not hit a 30 sec timing you have to backoff. If you backoff with tanks you can be overrun so hard. Thats why i like the idea of the tank being able to pick off sieged but then unsiege + maybe a slight damage increas.
Not entirely true. If 3-4 siege tanks per choke point/base were good support for the 10-20 Cyclones and a planetary fortress that can easily swoop over to repel a zerg advance based on sensor tower information - they might still play a role even if the game is much more mobile and fast compared to HOTS.
The fact that economies, unit costing and Cyclones are not where they should be to achieve balance should not remove the possibility that the tank can still have a role to play in a very fast paced game. Just look at how everyone is concerned about how Siege Tanks could/and do anihilate speedlings... although one is incredibly fast and the other completely immobile.
Now, if you expect to have most of your army in siege mode in the middle of the map and the zerglings can just run completely around you and hit bases - of course you made a bad choice in not having any mobility in your army and you should pay for it.
Regardless of the pace of the game, missile turrets will always be great to help Terran hold bases. However, if you plan to put 30-50% of your resources into missile turrets - you are going to be in trouble at some point in the game. You have to strike a balance between static positional defense and needing mobility. The evidence is how Mech is more powerful than most armies in head-on engagements (and definitely has always been), but how the Mech style was just not played much at the pro level in TvT, or other matchups for that matter. Bio is mostly preferred.
On March 02 2016 01:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think the design of the old siegetank is problematic because lotv is so fast that you have to reposition yourself very often. If you do not hit a 30 sec timing you have to backoff. If you backoff with tanks you can be overrun so hard. Thats why i like the idea of the tank being able to pick off sieged but then unsiege + maybe a slight damage increas.
Not entirely true. If 3-4 siege tanks per choke point/base were good support for the 10-20 Cyclones and a planetary fortress that can easily swoop over to repel a zerg advance based on sensor tower information - they might still play a role even if the game is much more mobile and fast compared to HOTS.
The fact that economies, unit costing and Cyclones are not where they should be to achieve balance should not remove the possibility that the tank can still have a role to play in a very fast paced game. Just look at how everyone is concerned about how Siege Tanks could/and do anihilate speedlings... although one is incredibly fast and the other completely immobile.
Now, if you expect to have most of your army in siege mode in the middle of the map and the zerglings can just run completely around you and hit bases - of course you made a bad choice in not having any mobility in your army and you should pay for it.
Regardless of the pace of the game, missile turrets will always be great to help Terran hold bases. However, if you plan to put 30-50% of your resources into missile turrets - you are going to be in trouble at some point in the game. You have to strike a balance between static positional defense and needing mobility. The evidence is how Mech is more powerful than most armies in head-on engagements (and definitely has always been), but how the Mech style was just not played much at the pro level in TvT, or other matchups for that matter. Bio is mostly preferred.
Sure if you move out mindlessly you should get punished but guess why we did not build tanks the entire HotS time. On your way to the enemies base you get delayed so much that even a new techtree can be ready. And if you increase the damage too much turtling will be an issue again. Another interesting option for the testmap would be to test increasing the siegetank damage, maybe by far, if no other tank is in range and else keep it as it is. But i do not see something like this happening :D
Turrets are great but they have a high efficiency (low cost, no supply) so i wont compare them to a tank.
I still think there is room for a better tank without having a turtle mech concern. I think the old Raven was more to blame for true turtling as was very high minerals per base which created a larger mineral dump to buffer your gas units (walls, turrets, PF, more inconsequential hellbat trading) all across thd map.
Why is Parasitic Bomb even a thing? Zerg's lategame air army was always superstrong anyways. I mean I think it's pretty dumb that Zerg can spam one spell and Terran MUST do amazing splits with air units (which is incredible hard to begin with) or the air army just get demolished. Even if you do spread it does so much damage. I mean zerg already has fungal and in LotV they have Ravager shots and we all know that when you combine those two things it's pretty nasty. Zerg would do just fine even without this dumb spell.
On March 03 2016 05:52 SiaBBo wrote: Why is Parasitic Bomb even a thing? Zerg's lategame air army was always superstrong anyways. I mean I think it's pretty dumb that Zerg can spam one spell and Terran MUST do amazing splits with air units (which is incredible hard to begin with) or the air army just get demolished. Even if you do spread it does so much damage. I mean zerg already has fungal and in LotV they have Ravager shots and we all know that when you combine those two things it's pretty nasty. Zerg would do just fine even without this dumb spell.
Everyone things you say is false lol.
Zerg lategame air mary is the weakest, you only have mass corruptors, and mass corruptors are beaten by massliberator/protossair. Parasitic bomb prevent having game when zerg makes 50 spores, and abduct one by one the air T/P as like he was forced to do on HOTS.
It's super easy to perform a split with Terran air units, as they have a lot of PV, don't naturally climb, you have more time to do it, compare to the other situation players need to split... And the only Terran has to split is just QQ, Zerg has to split a lot too : mutas vs liberator/thor, any units vs WM, vs dirsuptors, zerglings/bane war in ZvZ, mutas vs parasitic bomb in ZvZ etc... Splitting is a basic skill, every race do. T no longer more micro intensive than the other race.
And With range upgrades, liberators outrange ravagers/infestor, and are no longer countered by them.
So here is a list of what I think would make some nice and well needed changes for each race, of course I wouldn't expect all of this in 1 patch:
TERRAN
- Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs - Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed - Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP - Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored (avilo's upgrade ?)
ZERG
- Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile - Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored - Nydus: Remove invincibility - Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Increase their shield cooldown - Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air - Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25 - Disruptors: Remove their damage bonus vs shield
On March 03 2016 08:34 MaxTa wrote: So here is a list of what I think would make some nice and well needed changes for each race:
TERRAN
- Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs - Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed - Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP - Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored
ZERG
- Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile - Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored - Nydus: Remove invincibility - Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Remove autocast on their shield and make it manual with a cooldown - Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air - Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25
Yeah, i guess you're just playing Terran....
Thors don't need better AA vs air armored, they're not supposed to counter them. Lurkers will be just useless with reduced range, they're already not used in ZvT as the tank outranged them.
Nydus : just removing invincibility without cost reducing, is backing to the time nobody use nyndus. Honestly, i don't like the invincibility things for gimmick all-in, prefer reduced cost, and reduced time to morph and you can use nyndus to increase mobility of roach/hydra for example.
Ultra can't be nerfed without nerfing Terran, as TvZ is T favored. Don't get why someone get tempest if they haven't a good range, and 6 supply. Adept cost you propose is just way too high...
On March 03 2016 08:34 MaxTa wrote: So here is a list of what I think would make some nice and well needed changes for each race:
TERRAN
- Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs - Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed - Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP - Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored
ZERG
- Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile - Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored - Nydus: Remove invincibility - Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Remove autocast on their shield and make it manual with a cooldown - Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air - Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25
Yeah, i guess you're just playing Terran....
Thors don't need better AA vs air armored, they're not supposed to counter them. Lurkers will be just useless with reduced range, they're already not used in ZvT as the tank outranged them.
Nydus : just removing invincibility without cost reducing, is backing to the time nobody use nyndus. Honestly, i don't like the invincibility things for gimmick all-in, prefer reduced cost, and reduced time to morph and you can use nyndus to increase mobility of roach/hydra for example.
Ultra can't be nerfed without nerfing Terran, as TvZ is T favored. Don't get why someone get tempest if they haven't a good range, and 6 supply. Adept cost you propose is just way too high...
If you read carefully you will notice I did say "Possibly" boost Thors AA which means it's not like 100% a necessity if they nerf Liberators and boost Cyclones instead. Also "Possibly" reduce ultra's armor, so it's not that of a priority...
For the nydus I'm ok with your idea of reducing cost, as long as they remove invincibilty. As for adepts, please explain me how 25 more minerals is way too much are you serious ?? At least P players would think more about making zealots instead of pure adepts all the time. There is no reason to make zealots at the moment untill mid-late game when u have charge and a shitload of minerals to empty...
On March 03 2016 08:34 MaxTa wrote: So here is a list of what I think would make some nice and well needed changes for each race:
TERRAN
- Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs - Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed - Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP - Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored
ZERG
- Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile - Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored - Nydus: Remove invincibility - Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Remove autocast on their shield and make it manual with a cooldown - Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air - Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25
Yeah, i guess you're just playing Terran....
Thors don't need better AA vs air armored, they're not supposed to counter them. Lurkers will be just useless with reduced range, they're already not used in ZvT as the tank outranged them.
Nydus : just removing invincibility without cost reducing, is backing to the time nobody use nyndus. Honestly, i don't like the invincibility things for gimmick all-in, prefer reduced cost, and reduced time to morph and you can use nyndus to increase mobility of roach/hydra for example.
Ultra can't be nerfed without nerfing Terran, as TvZ is T favored. Don't get why someone get tempest if they haven't a good range, and 6 supply. Adept cost you propose is just way too high...
tvz is not terran favored. where have you been? lol
I find it funny that people are talking about mech, Tankivacs and TvZ, as if those were the glaring issues of this game.
Meanwhile PvZ ist under 45% 5(!) months in a row and currently at 42.7%, but I guess that is not important, since it only concerns Protoss, the despised "dirty imba race"...
On March 03 2016 17:30 CheddarToss wrote: I find it funny that people are talking about mech, Tankivacs and TvZ, as if those were the glaring issues of this game.
Meanwhile PvZ ist under 45% 5(!) months in a row and currently at 42.7%, but I guess that is not important, since it only concerns Protoss, the despised "dirty imba race"...
According to the number of threads mech is generating it is the most important thing in SC2 right now
On March 03 2016 17:30 CheddarToss wrote: I find it funny that people are talking about mech, Tankivacs and TvZ, as if those were the glaring issues of this game.
Meanwhile PvZ ist under 45% 5(!) months in a row and currently at 42.7%, but I guess that is not important, since it only concerns Protoss, the despised "dirty imba race"...
According to the number of threads mech is generating it is the most important thing in SC2 right now
To me the liberator is the most clear and recent example of what is the general consensus that air units are too strong and the ground anti air is generally too weak (stalkers, hydras, cyclones, thors, ravager shots can be dodged by most units...).
It's also the reason that protoss are going stargate pretty much always in early game TvP. A well positioned lib either trades favorably against a few stalkers or just denies mining. With the lategame range upgrade, ground protoss units can't even reach it at all.
On March 03 2016 08:34 MaxTa wrote: So here is a list of what I think would make some nice and well needed changes for each race:
TERRAN
- Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs - Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed - Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP - Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored
ZERG
- Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile - Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored - Nydus: Remove invincibility - Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Remove autocast on their shield and make it manual with a cooldown - Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air - Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25
Yeah, i guess you're just playing Terran....
Thors don't need better AA vs air armored, they're not supposed to counter them. Lurkers will be just useless with reduced range, they're already not used in ZvT as the tank outranged them.
Nydus : just removing invincibility without cost reducing, is backing to the time nobody use nyndus. Honestly, i don't like the invincibility things for gimmick all-in, prefer reduced cost, and reduced time to morph and you can use nyndus to increase mobility of roach/hydra for example.
Ultra can't be nerfed without nerfing Terran, as TvZ is T favored. Don't get why someone get tempest if they haven't a good range, and 6 supply. Adept cost you propose is just way too high...
tvz is not terran favored. where have you been? lol
Looking at korean leagues, yes terran does have a slight edge.
On March 03 2016 18:41 Salteador Neo wrote: To me the liberator is the most clear and recent example of what is the general consensus that air units are too strong and the ground anti air is generally too weak (stalkers, hydras, cyclones, thors, ravager shots can be dodged by most units...).
It's also the reason that protoss are going stargate pretty much always in early game TvP. A well positioned lib either trades favorably against a few stalkers or just denies mining. With the lategame range upgrade, ground protoss units can't even reach it at all.
so is it the range or DPS? Its been suggested to make it tech lab required as another option. I think it needs its range to be a siege unit (map design the other half) so I think DPS could be played with.
On March 03 2016 08:34 MaxTa wrote: So here is a list of what I think would make some nice and well needed changes for each race, of course I wouldn't expect all of this in 1 patch:
TERRAN
- Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs - Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed - Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP - Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored (avilo's upgrade ?)
ZERG
- Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile - Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored - Nydus: Remove invincibility - Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8
PROTOSS
- Immortals: Increase their shield cooldown - Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air - Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25 - Disruptors: Remove their damage bonus vs shield
The lurkers need to do extra damage to armored and not light, it's important to oppose them do the banelings damage. But agree with a nerf, if the immortals shield bullshit is removed. I don't like how that's work. Btw, slow down disruptors speed so multitasking them with warp prism is required.
On March 03 2016 18:41 Salteador Neo wrote: To me the liberator is the most clear and recent example of what is the general consensus that air units are too strong and the ground anti air is generally too weak (stalkers, hydras, cyclones, thors, ravager shots can be dodged by most units...).
It's also the reason that protoss are going stargate pretty much always in early game TvP. A well positioned lib either trades favorably against a few stalkers or just denies mining. With the lategame range upgrade, ground protoss units can't even reach it at all.
so is it the range or DPS? Its been suggested to make it tech lab required as another option. I think it needs its range to be a siege unit (map design the other half) so I think DPS could be played with.
Just check the liquipedia, this unit is a true wall of stats. It kinda reminds me of the warhound lol. Strong at everything.
I think I would just lower the damage to ground from 85 to 75 so the interaction with hydras and stalkers is less one sided (it would take +1 shot to kill them) and see how it goes from there. Simple and easy. If Ultras prove to be a problem then they could get -1 armor as people have been suggesting for a long while.
On February 27 2016 03:54 GGzerG wrote: Sorry but it sounds like they are saying a lot and doing very little.
So like every PR statement every made in the history of man?
Well, that's an important distinction.
People should recognize this actually is PR and not be fooled in to thinking this is actually them giving a damn about how players feel. They have revealed it as PR so many times... but many people still defend them as if these feedback updates are in players best interest...When in reality they aren't even honest with us and just saying what they say to pacify us.
On March 03 2016 18:41 Salteador Neo wrote: To me the liberator is the most clear and recent example of what is the general consensus that air units are too strong and the ground anti air is generally too weak (stalkers, hydras, cyclones, thors, ravager shots can be dodged by most units...).
It's also the reason that protoss are going stargate pretty much always in early game TvP. A well positioned lib either trades favorably against a few stalkers or just denies mining. With the lategame range upgrade, ground protoss units can't even reach it at all.
so is it the range or DPS? Its been suggested to make it tech lab required as another option. I think it needs its range to be a siege unit (map design the other half) so I think DPS could be played with.
Just check the liquipedia, this unit is a true wall of stats. It kinda reminds me of the warhound lol. Strong at everything.
I think I would just lower the damage to ground from 85 to 75 so the interaction with hydras and stalkers is less one sided (it would take +1 shot to kill them) and see how it goes from there. Simple and easy. If Ultras prove to be a problem then they could get -1 armor as people have been suggesting for a long while.
it has mainly the same design philosophy of the WM, except that you can see the circle. Counterplay against it is significantly higher for the opponent. I think a higher rate of fire but lower damage allows for the opponent to move his units out of the circle, i.e. with queens transfuse and or alternate queens, or with stalkers you can blink and alternate.
On March 03 2016 18:41 Salteador Neo wrote: To me the liberator is the most clear and recent example of what is the general consensus that air units are too strong and the ground anti air is generally too weak (stalkers, hydras, cyclones, thors, ravager shots can be dodged by most units...).
It's also the reason that protoss are going stargate pretty much always in early game TvP. A well positioned lib either trades favorably against a few stalkers or just denies mining. With the lategame range upgrade, ground protoss units can't even reach it at all.
so is it the range or DPS? Its been suggested to make it tech lab required as another option. I think it needs its range to be a siege unit (map design the other half) so I think DPS could be played with.
Just check the liquipedia, this unit is a true wall of stats. It kinda reminds me of the warhound lol. Strong at everything.
I think I would just lower the damage to ground from 85 to 75 so the interaction with hydras and stalkers is less one sided (it would take +1 shot to kill them) and see how it goes from there. Simple and easy. If Ultras prove to be a problem then they could get -1 armor as people have been suggesting for a long while.
I still hold that ultras only became not complete garbage in LOTV (still want my charge back) and in today's games at IEM for example "won" the game because the terran was so far behind. They finally allow the zerg to maintain momentum instead of like HOTS where you practically fall behind by making them.
I'm just spit-ballin here but what if the medivac were to move slower when carrying a sieged tank? Not like overlord speed slow, but maybe around a 10% reduction in speed. Boost speed could stay the same though, so it would allow you to still get in/out quick, but the speed reduction would slightly nerf the ability to keep jumping from the main to 3rd to 2nd etc etc. The medivac would take a few more hits from any AA, making the terran not able to continue jumping from bases for so long.
On March 05 2016 13:18 NyxNax wrote: I'm just spit-ballin here but what if the medivac were to move slower when carrying a sieged tank? Not like overlord speed slow, but maybe around a 10% reduction in speed. Boost speed could stay the same though, so it would allow you to still get in/out quick, but the speed reduction would slightly nerf the ability to keep jumping from the main to 3rd to 2nd etc etc. The medivac would take a few more hits from any AA, making the terran not able to continue jumping from bases for so long.
Or we could just increase the delay before firing. Somewhat simpler and it has the effect of making it less efficient to move mass siege tanks around.
On March 05 2016 00:00 coolmiyo wrote: IEM katowice summary:
6 zergs ro8, 3 koreans ro8 in a "foreigner" tournament. gj david, gj blizzard
interesting notes: ravagers, parasitic bomb.
Hmmm, in GSL atm, 2 zergs qualified for ro16, 5 zergs out. Means something ?
Of course it does...
But in SSL zergs are dominating... We can't rely on those statistics to talk about balance
The two zergs that are "dominating" in SSL are still in play in GSL, and we're likely to have at least 4 (or exactly 4 to be honest) at the end of the Ro16. However this GSL shows clearly that if you aren't a top zerg you don't have much of an advantage in Korea, and I'm not sure why we would want to pretend it doesn't just so we can say other results don't matter. Of course they do.
So long as Terran "Gateway tech" remains the strongest tier of Terran (beyond any factory or starport units that shoot) for the 5 best sc2 players on the planet, the game might very well remain messed up for the other Terran players on this planet.
Blizz cannot make Terran playable competitively for you and I or GSL code S would be all TvT. That is, unless they make other units better than Terran tier 1 and 1.5 bio. I think that helps to explain lack of Terran representation at IEM but abundance at GSL (now and historically).
On March 07 2016 03:20 PressureSC2 wrote: So long as Terran "Gateway tech" remains the strongest tier of Terran (beyond any factory or starport units that shoot) for the 5 best sc2 players on the planet, the game might very well remain messed up for the other Terran players on this planet.
Blizz cannot make Terran playable competitively for you and I or GSL code S would be all TvT. That is, unless they make other units better than Terran tier 1 and 1.5 bio. I think that helps to explain lack of Terran representation at IEM but abundance at GSL (now and historically).
Can we please ban people that talk like this for once? At the moment Terran representation is #1 or #2 all across the board in Master and GM Leagues. Diamond the same. Overall Terran is leading in all of those stats. It's hilarious, even at these times when Terran is obviously doing very well across the board we have retards that try to uphold the myth - a myth that origined from a time when Terran was plainly too weak, i.e. BL/Infestor time - that somehow Terran is too hard to play if you are not a Code S championship contender. At this point it's like creationism I guess, stupidity has won and is spreading itself further.
On March 01 2016 19:51 Cyro wrote: The obs build time itself is also a consideration, if you're building 3-4 of them (to scout and defend) from the robo for timings that come when you're at 80-140 supply then you'll have less immortals
Robo in general is the big problem. The Blizzard idea is/was that you need from robo in LotV this: - observers - warp prisms - disruptors
Ideally at the same time. Robo now reminds me harder version of Zerg's dilemma "when to build drones and when units"
Perhaps a good buff for Protoss would be to move the Observer to the Nexus and allow it to be built only when you have a Robo Facility. Similar to the MSC and the Cybercore.
On March 01 2016 19:51 Cyro wrote: The obs build time itself is also a consideration, if you're building 3-4 of them (to scout and defend) from the robo for timings that come when you're at 80-140 supply then you'll have less immortals
Robo in general is the big problem. The Blizzard idea is/was that you need from robo in LotV this: - observers - warp prisms - disruptors
Ideally at the same time. Robo now reminds me harder version of Zerg's dilemma "when to build drones and when units"
Perhaps a good buff for Protoss would be to move the Observer to the Nexus and allow it to be built only when you have a Robo Facility. Similar to the MSC and the Cybercore.
Quite an interesting thought. That might help quite a bit in PvZ, as I think robo production with the nerfed chronoboost is one of the main problems for P. The other ones being the ravager and lurker
Can we please ban people that talk like this for once? At the moment Terran representation is #1 or #2 all across the board in Master and GM Leagues. Diamond the same. Overall Terran is leading in all of those stats. It's hilarious, even at these times when Terran is obviously doing very well across the board we have retards that try to uphold the myth - a myth that origined from a time when Terran was plainly too weak, i.e. BL/Infestor time - that somehow Terran is too hard to play if you are not a Code S championship contender.
At this point it's like creationism I guess, stupidity has won and is spreading itself further.
A few things to consider:
- Most everyone acknowledges that the Liberator is too strong;
- The tankivac will probably be nerfed in some way; and
- Bio multitask and micro has generally been considered by most as one of the hardest things to master in the game. A lot of the success of Terran right now with the Liberator removed would be due to this type of play, when you consider the very highest level.
What I am suggesting is that if foreigners are to have the same chance with Terran as with Protoss/Zerg at the highest level of (foreigner) play, it's going to be difficult with the current cyclone/tank/thor and a nerfed liberator. Basically, they are going to have to execute what Polt did this weekend and try to crush their opponents with bio control/multi-task. When was the last time that a Terran foreigner took any tournament from Polt/Taeja-esque MMM control?
Sorry, I cannot recall. I remember some foreigner tournament wins by Snute, Stephano, Naniwa, Lilbow - but can't quite remember any Terran winning from MMM. If we could see it happen today, I would bet that it would be through some nasty liberator action combined with MMM - but that will not survive the next patch.
If Terran factory/starport units (other than liberator) are not adjusted to be as strong as their Zerg/Protoss equivalents in the mid/late game, Terran may be considered a balanced race in Code S, but for most that play the game it may remain a more challenging race to hit as high a ladder rating, etc.
No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong.
Can we please ban people that talk like this for once? At the moment Terran representation is #1 or #2 all across the board in Master and GM Leagues. Diamond the same. Overall Terran is leading in all of those stats. It's hilarious, even at these times when Terran is obviously doing very well across the board we have retards that try to uphold the myth - a myth that origined from a time when Terran was plainly too weak, i.e. BL/Infestor time - that somehow Terran is too hard to play if you are not a Code S championship contender.
At this point it's like creationism I guess, stupidity has won and is spreading itself further.
A few things to consider:
- Most everyone acknowledges that the Liberator is too strong;
- The tankivac will probably be nerfed in some way; and
- Bio multitask and micro has generally been considered by most as one of the hardest things to master in the game. A lot of the success of Terran right now with the Liberator removed would be due to this type of play, when you consider the very highest level.
What I am suggesting is that if foreigners are to have the same chance with Terran as with Protoss/Zerg at the highest level of (foreigner) play, it's going to be difficult with the current cyclone/tank/thor and a nerfed liberator. Basically, they are going to have to execute what Polt did this weekend and try to crush their opponents with bio control/multi-task. When was the last time that a Terran foreigner took any tournament from Polt/Taeja-esque MMM control?
Sorry, I cannot recall. I remember some foreigner tournament wins by Snute, Stephano, Naniwa, Lilbow - but can't quite remember any Terran winning from MMM. If we could see it happen today, I would bet that it would be through some nasty liberator action combined with MMM - but that will not survive the next patch.
If Terran factory/starport units (other than liberator) are not adjusted to be as strong as their Zerg/Protoss equivalents in the mid/late game, Terran may be considered a balanced race in Code S, but for most that play the game it may remain a more challenging race to hit as high a ladder rating, etc.
Sorry, but this is exactly the bullshit i'm talking about. "Most everyone acknowledges" who? where are the stats supporting that?
Liberators have been nerfed in the beta to a level so that now they are fine. If you still think liberators are too strong just because Terran doesn't just roll over at the 12 min mark against Protoss, maybe get out of your HotS mindset. Lots of units are much stronger than other units in the game, unless they clearly break the game, I don't see how you can put the blame on liberators for anything at the moment. I have no clue about tank drops being nerfed or not. The last message on it sounded rather like they want to keep the concept, possibly nerf the shot-delay further but additionally buff tanks anyways.
If you think that bio is so hard, maybe look up some 2010-2011 gameplay. Everyone was playing bio and Terran was broken as fuck. The people regurgitating this on the forums are nearly all Terrans. Stephano, Snute and Naniwa won all the way back in WoL which makes me wonder how you can remember them but "can't remember" e.g. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012_DreamHack_Open/Stockholm 10 days after Stephano's last Premier win over a Korean. + Show Spoiler +
he only won one more Premier, the WCS EU 2012 at the height of BL/Infestor - if you think BL/Infestor was because bio was soooo hard, I don't even know what to tell you
In HotS we had a grand total of 2 foreigners winning Premiers, Sen and Lilbow, and in LotV one so far, PtitDrogo. The next best foreigner win in HotS - which for some reason wasn't classified as a Premier despite the price money, the line up and being played offline - went to... a bio Terran: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Gfinity_G3
You can look all across the 2015-16 WCS tournaments, Terran representation in the foreign scene was pretty much at the same level as Protoss representation, behind Zerg though. Bunny made two semi-finals in 2015, only being stopped by the WCS-winners of those seasons (Polt and Lilbow). MarineLord had some strong showings as the last standing foreigner in tournaments at the end of 2015 and the Korean stomp in NationWars recently.
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote: No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong.
I see much bias here... It is true that mmm is and was always strong. But it is NOT t1. You need techlabs, factory, starport, reactors and 3 upgrades that is definetly at least t2.
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote: No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong.
I see much bias here... It is true that mmm is and was always strong. But it is NOT t1. You need techlabs, factory, starport, reactors and 3 upgrades that is definetly at least t2.
Well, I didn't say that it was T1, but it is not T3 either. Getting the infrastructure and those upgrades is most certainly easier and less costly than getting P/Z T3 to combat Bio.
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote: No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio.
Is this not what I am saying? So long as MMM is too strong in the right hands, Terran's tier 2/3 units can never be allowed to go head to head (without MMM) against any Protoss/Zerg higher tier army because the game as a whole would become unbalanced when you add support to bio.
Time will tell. If the Liberator gets a significant nerf - I am wondering exactly what Terran has obtained in LOTV that allows the race to win those mid/end game battles. Marauders get reduced effectiveness, Broods/Ultras get improvements.
Also, other than the Liberator, it doesn't seem that we can produce anything without MMM out of both the factory and the starport that can play the late game in Code A or Code S. I am not seeing any 200/200 Terran armies based on any significant BC or Banshee play with new LOTV fusion core play/units.
If Protoss had been changed in LOTV to nullify Robotics and Stargate in the late game (other than Warp Prism), and require Zealot/Stalker and Warp Prism mainly in your 200/200 Protoss Army (but only with the right hands) to win anything at GSL level - I figure you would have a lot of upset Protoss players asking why these changes were deemed to be in the best interest of SC2 especially for its last expansion.
Immortals, Archons, Pheonix, Tempest, Colossus were also interesting to spectate in HOTS GSL, as the Cyclone, Thor, BC, Banshee, Raven could be in those 200/200 LOTV end-game exchanges. But according to the logic of some, they should never be because MMM is too strong.
It's not that big of a deal for me because I do enjoy playing the three races. However, I think that it is kind of sad for the game as a whole considering that this is the last expansion. Many other design issues were acknowledged and changed to some degree (pylon warp-ins, chrono boost, rarely seeing Nydus in higher level play, Carriers being completely irrelevant in pro play). Terran fusion core gets some potential reasons to see it built in LOTV, but we may almost never see it built in pro play to access the stronger BC/Banshee.
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote: The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
It used to happen frequently, but now? I don't remember the last time I saw someone on the highest level beat even T2 Protoss without liberators (or at the very least siege tanks), and just bio/medivac beating a T3 Zerg army is out of the question.
Time will tell. If the Liberator gets a significant nerf - I am wondering exactly what Terran has obtained in LOTV that allows the race to win those mid/end game battles. Marauders get reduced effectiveness, Broods/Ultras get improvements.
Also, other than the Liberator, it doesn't seem that we can produce anything without MMM out of both the factory and the starport that can play the late game in Code A or Code S. I am not seeing any 200/200 Terran armies based on any significant BC or Banshee play with new LOTV fusion core play/units.
TvZ is very changed as a whole at the moment. Ling based playstyles as they were prevalent in WoL and HotS don't look nearly as potent, which cuts into zerg gas and mobility. Units like Tanks can shine much more and 10+ tanks (see e.g. Polt vs Firecake or Polt vs Snute) are much more potent in bio-playstyles than HotS bio/mine. Liberators and ghosts have seen quite some play and seem to be somewhat potent in the lategame.
Besides those obvious changes, the larva nerf and the 12 worker start both help bio in the midgame in my opinion, which is the reason why zerg also relies on more potent units (ravagers and ultras) and less of an economic advantage (in HotS you'd rush 75-80 drones on 4 bases very fast; in LotV you probably die to everything when you try) than in previous game version. Which also means that once lategame hits, zerg doesn't just overwhelm you with 3-4 mining bases to 2, but chances are good that both races are struggling to keep a 2-3 base economy.
Though I don't think that bio is able to easily take it to the lategame still. There is only so much a balanced game can allow an aggressive playstyle to get away with. But that doesn't say anything about balance or "difficulty" (which in principle just a certain balance aspect).
Immortals, Archons, Pheonix, Tempest, Colossus were also interesting to spectate in HOTS GSL, as the Cyclone, Thor, BC, Banshee, Raven could be in those 200/200 LOTV end-game exchanges. But according to the logic of some, they should never be because MMM is too strong.
You are just cherrypicking units that get played in the lategame vs units that don't get played. Let's replace that Protoss list with Phoenix, Oracle, Carrier, Voidray, Mothership. That's your equivalent to Cyclone, Thor, BC, Banshee, Raven at the Protoss side. Cyclone and Banshee both see as many appearances as oracles or phoenixes by the way, just not in the lategame. Sure the other races play more of their higher tier units usually, though that is already skipping the fact that medivacs are rather high tech units too, the only unit with higher tech requirements on the Terran side is the BC.
I don't know what exactly you are arguing for by the way. Any race builds up certain production during the game, to solve problems that can happen at any given time. Lategame is obviously dictated by your previous production choices. In the Terran case, if you want to be allowed to play an aggressive playstyle that relies mostly on barracks, that means your lategame will be mostly barracks units. That doesn't mean you don't play the other units and in particular reactored starports or the slow addition of extra factories are currently wide-spread, but yes, with 7 barracks the bulk of your army will be the the 2-3 useful bio units, while a Protoss on Gateways will have ~6 different units as the bulk of his army. That is the basic drawback of bio and why a lot of people say bio would be broken if it could easily mix in tons of other units. You have a playstyle that commits heavily to barracks production and aggression and may win in the midgame by attacking, while the opponent often can only survive till later and makes many investments that do not directly pay off, but then you want to get an equivalent army later as well. That's kind of imbalanced in my opinion. For any attacking playstyle, there is always going to be the drawback that it isn't as potent later on if the opponent defends it well if the winchances overall should be equal.
Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport (for Medivacs most of the time, as support for MM) to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here.
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote: No PressureSC2, quite the opposite. Terran higher tech units are not too weak, MMM is too strong in the right hands. P and Z need T3 units like Collosi/Distuptors/Ultras just to deal with Bio. Bio is stronger than P and Z units of equivalent tech and cost level. Ever seen a Zerg win with nothing but Speedling/Roach vs MMMM+Tank and/or Liberator? Probably only as an all-in, but never in a macro game. The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
Edit: Since WoL release Bio has been able to punch way above its weight. That's why Mech has to remain shit, otherwise Bio+Tank would be crazy strong.
In the unit tester, most of gateway based armies beat pure MMM in direct fights with same upgrades and same cost for army quite handily.
On March 08 2016 00:39 Big J wrote: Cyclone and Banshee both see as many appearances as oracles or phoenixes by the way
For the record, is that statement based on actual data? Because I have a hard time believing that, considering the cyclone and the banshee each have a matchup where they're not used at all, without being all too common in the other ones. Would be really strange if they ended appearing as often.
On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote: Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here.
Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is.
But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement. The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long.
On March 08 2016 00:39 Big J wrote: Cyclone and Banshee both see as many appearances as oracles or phoenixes by the way
For the record, is that statement based on actual data? Because I have a hard time believing that, considering the cyclone and the banshee each have a matchup where they're not used at all, without being all too common in the other ones. Would be really strange if they ended appearing as often.
No, no data. But phoenixes aren't all too common in PvP either as much as I understand and oracles seem to be a bit on and off in PvP and PvZ. But yeah, you are right, they probably appear a little more often. I guess my point is rather that you can play banshees and cyclones in two matchups basically at will. If you don't see them there, it's by choice, not because they are useless.
On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote: Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here.
Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is.
But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement. The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long.
In the end the problem is that there is hard to find an upgrade to mech that won't boost defensive mech. And we all know that some players are passive(Rain) and some are aggressive(Maru - and even Maru played one of the biggest turtlefests of the last season!).
On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote: Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here.
Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is.
But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement. The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long.
In the end the problem is that there is hard to find an upgrade to mech that won't boost defensive mech. And we all know that some players are passive(Rain) and some are aggressive(Maru - and even Maru played one of the biggest turtlefests of the last season!).
I have to disagree with this somewhat. I think in the history of SC2 the real turtlestyles have always been styles that could rely on a nearly unbeatable army with incredibly supplyefficiency. (historically: old Infestor, Broodlords pre-Tempest/void ray buff, Swarm Hosts, Tempests to some degree, old ghosts, old (?) ravens, BCs to a small degree, templar to some degree)
I think if you are really willing to put a Mech playstyle into the game you can do so by working with low-midtier units (hellion, hellbat, tank, cyclone, banshee) and possibly - just possibly if required, and that can be awaited - nerfing the supply of the very few lategame units that possibly reward you for maxing out and then still not moving out but keeping on replacing worse with better units.
Like, the implications of making a spellcaster 3 supply instead of two is actually not that big for a style that is active anyhow because you don't really build up your composition as much and you often just stay under max. But if you had like 200/200 Mech and Ravens and Ghosts and both have taken a supply nerf, and if the buffs to make the playstyle viable are all on the units that you would usually want to get rid of in the lategame - hellbats, hellions, cyclones, banshees - then you obviously do not profit as much from just sitting around anymore. Alternatively the buffs could be on the infrastructure, e.g. buff build times, drop costs of armories slightly. + Show Spoiler +
Also the same can be done to other races' units, e.g. the Tempest or the Broodlord would be prime examples of units that could possibly be adjusted in supplies if necessary for such a playstyle.
Obviously though, you may have to nerf units that are not problematic in bio-play and many aren't even played anyways, which is what blizzard does not want to do I think. But I think those nerfs are or could be insignificant for the normal Terran playstyle. It's really about experimenting a bit and then just trying something as blizzard in my opinion. As we say in German, from nothing comes nothing.
On March 08 2016 00:39 PressureSC2 wrote: Many have stated that the discussion right now needs to revolve more around gameplay and design than around balance. Reason being that balance could very well be fundamentally altered with the Ravager, Liberator and Tankivac changes, and it may need some major changes simply as a result of continued game design. Does this not make complete sense given that the game has been out for 2-3 months?
Why are statistics on balance, representation, etc. all that important right now? Is 5-9 Rax with one factory and 1-2 starport to remain the only way to play terran at the pro level? There is a limited opportunity for some gameplay design change here.
Well, if you are talking about making some fundamentally different playstyles viable I'm all ears. But I don't think we should change bio play too much just in favor of that at the moment. I think a lot of players are enjoying it and it makes for good games as it is.
But yeah, surely the factory based lower tier units hellions and hellbats could use quite some tweaks, the cyclone discussion blizzard tried to start, i.e. more supply, more costefficiency, is interesting if you try to play something that doesn't have access to mass marines/marauders for that job. Tank drop changes and tank buffs are still lingering, but have to be done carefully so they don't mess up the current bio-play. Thor anti-air changes may be worth considering again, though I think that both, the original blizzard suggestion and in particular the avilo-suggestion go way overboard and have as much potential for hardcore turtling as they have for "aggressive Mech play" in TvZ. Banshee speed may be interesting to see changed, possibly to a lower tier requirement. The list of things that can be done without altering bio is quite long.
In the end the problem is that there is hard to find an upgrade to mech that won't boost defensive mech. And we all know that some players are passive(Rain) and some are aggressive(Maru - and even Maru played one of the biggest turtlefests of the last season!).
I have to disagree with this somewhat. I think in the history of SC2 the real turtlestyles have always been styles that could rely on a nearly unbeatable army with incredibly supplyefficiency. (historically: old Infestor, Broodlords pre-Tempest/void ray buff, Swarm Hosts, Tempests to some degree, old ghosts, old (?) ravens, BCs to a small degree, templar to some degree)
I think if you are really willing to put a Mech playstyle into the game you can do so by working with low-midtier units (hellion, hellbat, tank, cyclone, banshee) and possibly - just possibly if required, and that can be awaited - nerfing the supply of the very few lategame units that possibly reward you for maxing out and then still not moving out but keeping on replacing worse with better units.
Like, the implications of making a spellcaster 3 supply instead of two is actually not that big for a style that is active anyhow because you don't really build up your composition as much and you often just stay under max. But if you had like 200/200 Mech and Ravens and Ghosts and both have taken a supply nerf, and if the buffs to make the playstyle viable are all on the units that you would usually want to get rid of in the lategame - hellbats, hellions, cyclones, banshees - then you obviously do not profit as much from just sitting around anymore. + Show Spoiler +
Also the same can be done to other races' units, e.g. the Tempest or the Broodlord would be prime examples of units that could possibly be adjusted in supplies if necessary for such a playstyle.
Obviously though, you may have to nerf units that are not problematic in bio-play and many aren't even played anyways, which is what blizzard does not want to do I think. But I think those nerfs are or could be insignificant for the normal Terran playstyle. It's really about experimenting a bit and then just trying something as blizzard in my opinion. As we say in German, from nothing comes nothing.
Ravens were nerfed pretty big specially for turtle scenarios, turrets and PDDs lasted so long back then that they even lasted more time than what it took a raven to have enough energy for PDD (wich basically meant infinite PDDs) now they last so little they are barely there for a fight. Ghost, are weird they are strong and they are aren't both at the same time, the mechanic work in a way now thay you can either take an entire zerg army without losing almost noting or lose all your units without killing anything. BCs are shit, they may be a bit better now, but they're still shit. Liberators are probably the strongest thing there is for that, they are way too good at way to many things at once. However if theres anything that could be problematic that can be addressed later.
But I agree, just looking at the make games historically you can see the diference, the games that where turtle fest (like reality vs soulkey) included massive amounts of vikings and ravens, the games that where amazing and agressive (like Life vs ForGG) used banshees, hellbats, tanks, thors and vikings.
All you have to do is look at the good games and see what they had that was different from the bad games.
On March 07 2016 22:31 CheddarToss wrote: The opposite happens a lot, where Terran just takes the Zerg/Protoss on T3 apart, with nothing but Bio.
It used to happen frequently, but now? I don't remember the last time I saw someone on the highest level beat even T2 Protoss without liberators (or at the very least siege tanks), and just bio/medivac beating a T3 Zerg army is out of the question.
You simply don't see Protoss tier 3 that often now. The only lategame units worth getting are HTs/archons/tempests, the rest are just too bad to build against terran or in general (disruptors, collo, carriers).
Meanwhile tier one got quite better thanks to the adept. So games end often without protoss getting tier 3 (either winning or losing on tier 2).
Onto another topic: IMO the huge numbers of zergs compared to protoss in masters league doesn't only talk about balance. The big number of important activated abilities on the protoss units makes army control rather difficult (adept shade, stalker blink, disruptor shots, HT storms, sentry FF/shield, MSC spells). For me Zerg has replaced Protoss as the easiest race to play.
I am not suggesting that bio should go out of style. In fact, I would hope that it remains as good a strategy as anything else at any pro level and it should probably remain the very best style for Terran at the highest level.
However, it would also be interesting if jaws would not drop every time a Terran player builds more than two factories or two starports, or goes double armory instead of double engineering bay at the pro level. Maybe it could be less frequent or less desirable the majority of the time, but hopefully not jaw dropping to see a few Korean Terrans to play other than bio for a few games in every large tournament.
On March 08 2016 00:39 Big J wrote: Cyclone and Banshee both see as many appearances as oracles or phoenixes by the way
For the record, is that statement based on actual data? Because I have a hard time believing that, considering the cyclone and the banshee each have a matchup where they're not used at all, without being all too common in the other ones. Would be really strange if they ended appearing as often.
No, no data. But phoenixes aren't all too common in PvP either as much as I understand and oracles seem to be a bit on and off in PvP and PvZ. But yeah, you are right, they probably appear a little more often. I guess my point is rather that you can play banshees and cyclones in two matchups basically at will. If you don't see them there, it's by choice, not because they are useless.
Perhaps you can play A cyclone. I doubt you will see Cyclones more then once a blue moon....
No, no data. But phoenixes aren't all too common in PvP either as much as I understand and oracles seem to be a bit on and off in PvP and PvZ. But yeah, you are right, they probably appear a little more often. I guess my point is rather that you can play banshees and cyclones in two matchups basically at will. If you don't see them there, it's by choice, not because they are useless.
In what series in LOTV have you seen any pro build more than 2-3 cyclones/banshees with a favorable outcome, beyond the early game opener(s)? I would really like to review those replays/series.
Terran is fine in the early games (except for perhaps Ravagers right now). It is in the mid/end game with higher levels of tech on the map that we lack options. It's MMM with full upgrades or die at the pro levels it seems (except for liberator support which may change depending on this balance map's outcome).
No, no data. But phoenixes aren't all too common in PvP either as much as I understand and oracles seem to be a bit on and off in PvP and PvZ. But yeah, you are right, they probably appear a little more often. I guess my point is rather that you can play banshees and cyclones in two matchups basically at will. If you don't see them there, it's by choice, not because they are useless.
In what series in LOTV have you seen any pro build more than 2-3 cyclones/banshees with a favorable outcome, beyond the early game opener(s)? I would really like to review those replays/series.
Terran is fine in the early games (except for perhaps Ravagers right now). It is in the mid/end game with higher levels of tech on the map that we lack options. It's MMM with full upgrades or die at the pro levels it seems (except for liberator support which may change depending on this balance map's outcome).
I Did not say that they build 2-3 of them. 1 Cyclone is very common in TvT and TvP and sometimes you see a second one, banshees are quite viable in TvT and TvZ. That's all I implied.
I dunno, but I think I have covered the "in the lategame we lack options part" rather extensively in a previous post. You gotta be more precise if you want to respond to that. Do you mean you lack options in the lategame when going bio, do you mean you lack options to set up differently or do you plainly think that Terran should be able to transition away from bio-centric play in the lategame?
To put it quite simply... Terran currently needs more than three barracks to survive on anything more than one base in all match-ups. It would be interesting if instead of building a fourth barracks to expand and hold 2-3+ bases, you could either choose to have the majority of your resources building from 3+ factories, or 3+ starports, in all matchups. I am talking at the pro level.
Do we call this factory mech, or starport mech? I am not sure - but something other than MM as units that actually attack/fire. I am excluding support units built out of 1-2 buildings to add to MM. You can mention MMM or Liberators as styles other than bio, but it's still going to end up being 3-3 EB with 9+ barracks pumping bio all game long. Most people would call this going Bio with starport support.
I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect that bio play (EB x 2 upgrades going, and barracks x 3+) could transition into what I describe above at the pro level. Too many resources invested at that point. That is just the nature of Terran - at some point you need to commit to get your engineering bay upgrades, or instead go the way of the armory(ies) upgrades.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rRMkWRZ.png)
