On March 12 2016 23:15 ejozl wrote: Okay so here's a thought regarding the Overlord that I think would be super interesting.
Overlord drop should become a unit in itself like the Overseer, it shouldn't be just another Overlord that can drop. Give it a cool name. Then remove the Mineral Costs of both Overseer and Droplord morphs, but make it so neither of them provides Supply. This makes the effective costs of the units 100/25 and 100/50 respectively. They are easier to get to, which means less dying to DT's, Cloak Banshee's that caught you off guard, but the strats would still be viable and every Overseer you force, is a bigger investment for the Zerg. The Droplord, would be a bigger investment as well and makes it so you cannot just force reactions from Protoss, while macroing up in your own base and getting super far ahead, as we see currently. However, once you've morphed a Droplord that also means that should the unit die, it's a smaller investment, as you save the 25 Minerals. We'll see less dropping, but you can be more aggressive with them. It would also be possible to give Droplords 1 armour, just like the Overseer, since it wouldn't break the early game. This would be a small buff to the mass Bane bombs and similar cool tactics. The Overseer could also receive a small speed buff, pre-Overlord Speed.
If they give no supply they are actually more expensive. Also, seems like a silly and annoying quirk in design when you can destroy your own supply...
Yes they are bigger investments, untill the unit dies.
Which makes it a bigger investment, given time value of resources
On March 12 2016 20:26 Salteador Neo wrote: Liberator & Banshee I'd -1 the base range and switch the range upgrade for something else (like an upgrade that gives it bonus damage against massive).
A buff against massive affects like 1 unit per race and seems like a complete waste of resources on a unit with the DPS of the liberator. Not to mention removing all range upgrades and locking it at 4 removes so much utility as a zoning tool, which is really needed especially against Protoss.
Could also remove the AOE from the anti-air attack (has proven problematic in lategame TvZ) but buff the damage to compensate.
That just makes vikings even worse.
What you could also do is keep the base range as it is now (maybe up it to 6) and lower the radius of defender mode, then have the upgrade be one that increases the radius.
All fair points. I thought about reducing the circle of freedom radius a while ago too, but for some reason didn't post it. I agree with you that it would probably be a better solution than removing the range upgrade, overall it's just better than my earlier suggestion.
It might still need the -1 the base AG range tho, atm it just limits mapmaking too much.
But one of the cool things about decreasing the radius would be that it fixes some of those limitations by proxy even if you don't reduce the actual range. At least for liberator harass. Imagine: as it is now, many times liberators go to the edge of the base to just about cover a few mineral patches. If the radius is sufficiently lower, to cover the same area, the liberator will have to have slightly more aggressive positioning. Which in turn makes it easier to pick off. Additionally, lower radius also allows clunkier units (stalkers, queens) to get a bit closer to harassment liberators without bullying each other into the defender mode zone immediately.
Basically, I think with radius based changes to the liberator, you can make it a more "fragile" (as in you can lose it easier) unit, while also making sure that the zoning functions against ground units (specifically vs Protoss) remain largely intact. I think with this you could put the unit into a state where Terran players won't feel like the unit was gibbed while Zerg and Protoss players will still have an easier time dealing with it.
Also, I can very much agree with changing the liberator's AA functionality. I think it way overperforms on that front. I believe somebody once proposed changing the AA weapons of liberators and thors around (rate of fire, splash radius, etc.), maybe that could be looked into.
how about mixing the mine upgrade with the siege tank siege/unsiege time needed to replace the tankivacalong with the damage buff, would still requires micro and it would respect the ideology of the unit.
Siege mode has been there since the release of sc1 it should be adjusted to the pace of sc2.
On March 13 2016 04:00 ShuriKn wrote: how about mixing the mine upgrade with the siege tank siege/unsiege time needed to replace the tankivacalong with the damage buff, would still requires micro and it would respect the ideology of the unit.
Siege mode has been there since the release of sc1 it should be adjusted to the pace of sc2.
Well that was an old idea of mine was several years ago, but tbh, tankivacs micro is more fun. It's just transportation thats the main issue.
Is there any reason why Blizz hasn't addressed burrowed Lurkers who are picked up from Phoenixes being dropped back in burrowed state? Isn't this a bug?
I like the idea of buffing Banshees and nerfing Liberators.
The Factory clearly needs better AA so it's great they are thinking about it.
I wonder how much HP are they thinking about giving the Cyclone to be worth 4 supply.
I see nothing on the Tank. So what was said last update still stands or have they abandoned the idea of a dmg buff?
If they are only now looking and thinking about the Factory units and their design, makes me wonder what the BETA was about and what have they done all this time. It sounds like if there are going to be significant changes to mech and its viability, they are a long, long way away. So BRB in 6 months
I would be concerned that if the thor became the general AA that it would still be too slow and may cause turtle mech out of fear of counter-attacks that are just too penalizing.
That is why the cyclone as a general AA unit seems to make more sense if we want Mech that can risk earlier engagements and force actual battles with fair trades.
Late game Terran army has been underpowered since always (being Bio drops as the most effective option to win) This match shows how some things should be redesigned: (almost unbeatable Protoss late game combo)
Banshee speed with no upgrade required and that Liberator nerf range for the early stage seems ok, but Thor really needs a full redesign because mines have splash damage but they're even worse than Thors at mobility. (yep, Cyclone need some change too)
Mech should be viable alone without Bio. Starcraft 2 needs all kind of gameplay, mixing types of armies or not at all. The only thing not viable should be massing just one unit but massing one path (or even type for some situations) feels nice.
The reason why many korean user is approve of droplord nerfing is that protoss is not free to choose build and forced to choose build by zerg because of droplord. of caurse, ravager is one of the reasons. But it is not big reason. Because if protoss know ravager push, they can defend this push and knowing ravager push is not difficult. but protoss is hard to know droplord push and to depend this push. Because droplord push is very early time! Especially queen drop in early game is notorious in korean protoss users. so many korean user vote droplord nerfing more than ravager nerfing now. well, I just came to explain in more detail about the reason why many korean user is approve of droplord nerfing.
On March 12 2016 09:20 MiCroLiFe wrote: yes terran is doin so good at the moment. link to any foreginer terran winning anyone good?
WCS winter world: TvZ: 19-16 (54.3%)
Code S: TvZ: 15-9 (62.5%)
Ting open: TvZ: 28-29 (49.1%)
Dreamhack: TvZ: 16-14 (53.3%)
KR masters is 42% terran.
as i said, link any foreginer terran that win anyone good.
I don't know if Polt has stayed long enough in America for the community to recognizes him as a Korean or a foreigner, so let's skip him. HeRoMaRinE, Kelazhur and Major are doing ok in their local tournaments. Also MarineLord trashing Korea in NationWars in all matchups. Now can you please go whine somewhere else?
Zerg: - no idea why they think that both Overlord drop and Ravagers cannot be nerfed at the same time but ok I guess? Overlord drop looks to me like the most pressing issue if I had to choose indeed, Protoss BOs are ridiculously skewed because of this eventuality.
Terran: - I don't think lowering Banshee speed tech is a good idea. I'd rather try inverting tech lab requirement between Liberator and Banshee. I've always thought that being able to produce Liberators 2 by 2 makes any other air options kinda bad. What is the point of Vikings and Banshees if Liberators on top of its own role is kinda decent at doing almost the same job as them? - Cyclone change looks uncalled for but hell, why not.
Protoss: - Mana and some other players suggested the return of Shield Battery to make Protoss defense less reliant on Photon Overcharge. Building is already in campaign. Having recharge as manually cast spell a la BW would be worth a try IMO.
On March 13 2016 23:15 PPN wrote: Protoss: - Mana and some other players suggested the return of Shield Battery to make Protoss defense less reliant on Photon Overcharge. Building is already in campaign. Having recharge as manually cast spell a la BW would be worth a try IMO.
Protoss was so much fun with powerful Overcharge, it was silly how strong it was, but I really think the game would benefit greatly, if each race just received some defensive structure to prevent people from randomly dying.
No, for example ZvP : if P defends early drop, then he has agressive options (oracle/dt/warprism/adept), and Zerg defends.
But if zerg has not these agressive options, zerg defends, then defends, then defends, then defends, etc...
Z has more effective tools to end games early-mid right now. If you feel that's too defensive, imagine how other players are feeling
I think he means zerg should have early game options for aggression, I agree that zerg should have early options like every other race. There should be diversity in strategy, otherwise both t and p will know without scout, "oh zerg is defending and expanding, cause what else can zerg do?" Plus, defending all the time is really boring, makes for not a fun game. Does anybody else think if they nerf overlord drop back to lair again, nobody will use it AGAIN, just like we already know nobody used it before?
I think he means zerg should have early game options for aggression, I agree that zerg should have early options like every other race. There should be diversity in strategy, otherwise both t and p will know without scout, "oh zerg is defending and expanding, cause what else can zerg do?" Plus, defending all the time is really boring, makes for not a fun game.
Does anybody else think if they nerf overlord drop back to lair again, nobody will use it AGAIN, just like we already know nobody used it before?
In korea, many zerg user often use overlord drop in lair tech. Because it is useful for distributed gaze in middle game enough. So i think that this think is unfounded. also, zerg can attack at early game without droplord, such as ravager push and nydus worm, zergling push in pvz.
No, for example ZvP : if P defends early drop, then he has agressive options (oracle/dt/warprism/adept), and Zerg defends.
But if zerg has not these agressive options, zerg defends, then defends, then defends, then defends, etc...
Z has more effective tools to end games early-mid right now. If you feel that's too defensive, imagine how other players are feeling
I think he means zerg should have early game options for aggression, I agree that zerg should have early options like every other race. There should be diversity in strategy, otherwise both t and p will know without scout, "oh zerg is defending and expanding, cause what else can zerg do?" Plus, defending all the time is really boring, makes for not a fun game. Does anybody else think if they nerf overlord drop back to lair again, nobody will use it AGAIN, just like we already know nobody used it before?
I don't think overlords wouldn't be used, but they might fall out of popularity for some time. They are still good and cheap for counterattacking in the midgame, it's just a lot of APM and at the moment the game isn't so well-figured out that the difference between killing 5 workers and delaying a push or not in the midgame makes that much of a difference.
I have absolutely no clue how Protoss would objectively say they don't have enough options early. Their standards to do any sort of bullshit unpunished has just been held way too high during HotS times. It makes for good gameplay if a race can be punished for teching high, or delaying a steady production build up for a 6 gateway explosion, but some players only ever think that making a lot of bases and workers should be punishable. Well, that's not how spending money works, if you spend it on something that cannot fight now and you get attacked then obviously you could have made a better choice, it doesn't matter whether it is a 2 base, mass gas dark shrine build or a 3rd base with 60 drones.
On March 12 2016 09:20 MiCroLiFe wrote: yes terran is doin so good at the moment. link to any foreginer terran winning anyone good?
WCS winter world: TvZ: 19-16 (54.3%)
Code S: TvZ: 15-9 (62.5%)
Ting open: TvZ: 28-29 (49.1%)
Dreamhack: TvZ: 16-14 (53.3%)
KR masters is 42% terran.
as i said, link any foreginer terran that win anyone good.
If terran is the strongest race at the highest level of play, it doesn't make sense to buff them further because weaker players are having trouble.
With a huge drop off in ability and/or represenation at lower levels, you might be able to consider changes like the zerg inject change (that allows you to cast it 3 times on the same hatchery without having to time it each time as the duration expires) which basically exist to make the race easier, but not directly stronger.
Does anybody else think if they nerf overlord drop back to lair again, nobody will use it AGAIN, just like we already know nobody used it before?
So how do you want to strengthen PvZ early game while keeping drop and nerfed photon overcharge?
EPT
?
