|
On March 14 2016 02:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 01:08 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 12 2016 21:08 Cyro wrote: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, build dark shrine build or a 3rd base with 60 drones.
Don't play on words, don't go the easy troll way. When Protoss players say they don't have enough options, they mean early game before they choose their tech path. Forge expand is out of trend also because of Overlord drop and Ravagers. Wtf do you expect us to do against an Overlord drop that can happen right as we are in the middle of researching warpgate & defending with 1 unit besides gateway/gaz 19 -> nexus -> core? Because of how fast the game starts, we don't even have an hallucination ready to scout evo chamber. Basically we are forced to play blind with that risk in mind and/or make an adept and pray evo chamber is not built too deep in so that we may find it.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
Forge expand is out of trend also because of Overlord drop and Ravagers
Not just those, but also because of the maps. Back in the days of forge expand a 9-square natural entrance was standard. Some of the current ladder maps are 20 squares across. Even if we were playing WOL on those maps, they would be hell for forge expands or dropping a forge soon after a gate expand - you just can't sufficiently wall or cover ground properly with cannons.
Take a look at the natural on Cloud Kingdom, one of my favourite PvZ maps:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aR5WXMS.jpg)
100% wallable with forge-gateway-gateway, forge-gateway-core or forge-gateway-pylon-zealot and one cannon could cover the entire wall, two could cover basically the entire wall with a huge zone of overlap.
zerg still managed a 52% winrate there over 1356 international games
|
On March 14 2016 02:29 PPN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 02:04 Big J wrote:On March 14 2016 01:08 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 12 2016 21:08 Cyro wrote: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, build dark shrine build or a 3rd base with 60 drones. Don't play on words, don't go the easy troll way. When Protoss players say they don't have enough options, they mean early game before they choose their tech path. Forge expand is out of trend also because of Overlord drop and Ravagers. Wtf do you expect us to do against an Overlord drop that can happen right as we are in the middle of researching warpgate & defending with 1 unit besides gateway/gaz 19 -> nexus -> core? Because of how fast the game starts, we don't even have an hallucination ready to scout evo chamber. Basically we are forced to play blind with that risk in mind and/or make an adept and pray evo chamber is not built too deep in so that we may find it.
Wait, that is the argument? FFE? Lol, yeah. Make it viable in PvP first if you actually think that FFE makes for truely different and better gameplay and don't steal lifetime of non-Protoss players with that sleepinfusing, unstrategical and uninteractive build order.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
There's a lot of depth in forge-nexus or nexus-forge openings at any high level of play
|
On March 14 2016 03:34 Cyro wrote:
There's a lot of depth in forge-nexus or nexus-forge openings at any high level of play
There's a lot of depth in anything in high level of play. The game is just fundamentally good enough.
|
Id love to see the thor just straight up redesigned. Make it HALF the size, cheaper and move faster. Adjust its attacks. Done. Goliath 2.0
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
On March 14 2016 03:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:34 Cyro wrote:
There's a lot of depth in forge-nexus or nexus-forge openings at any high level of play There's a lot of depth in anything in high level of play. The game is just fundamentally good enough.
You called it sleepinfusing, unstrategical and uninteractive a couple posts ago.
So it has a ton of depth and interaction with what your opponent is doing + allows completely different styles of play that are completely unique to the matchup but isn't worthy of mention? FFE was one of the best things to happen to broodwar and WOL PvZ IMO.
|
On March 14 2016 05:11 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 03:54 Big J wrote:On March 14 2016 03:34 Cyro wrote:
There's a lot of depth in forge-nexus or nexus-forge openings at any high level of play There's a lot of depth in anything in high level of play. The game is just fundamentally good enough. You called it a couple posts ago.
So? Just because players are very good doesn't mean the strategies they play play a big role in that. I can show you games so incredibly good (for their time at least) to justify any viable strategy that ever existed in SC2. Broodlord/Infestor made for some of the best gameplay ever on Korean level, so time to bring it back? Of course not. It's not the specific strategy that made the games incredible, but the incredible players in an overall very good game.
|
Thor with a Rocketlauncher plox! Just like the Goliath... But with a Big Fat Gun to deal the big flat damage! Oh yiss...
|
I don't understand sure why so many are advocating for Goliath 2.0 when Vikings basically are Goliath 2.0. The only real difference is separate weapon upgrades, so why not advocate for that and give Thor a different role?
|
On March 14 2016 04:08 NyxNax wrote:
Id love to see the thor just straight up redesigned. Make it HALF the size, cheaper and move faster. Adjust its attacks. Done. Goliath 2.0
This could also work instead of cyclone redesign.
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On March 14 2016 05:55 Skyro wrote:
I don't understand sure why so many are advocating for Goliath 2.0 when Vikings basically are Goliath 2.0. The only real difference is separate weapon upgrades, so why not advocate for that and give Thor a different role?
Well, there's the difference that the viking isn't built from the factory (which is where people would want a decent AA unit to be from what I gather) and also the cumbersome switching between ground and air mode.
|
On March 14 2016 06:01 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 05:55 Skyro wrote:
I don't understand sure why so many are advocating for Goliath 2.0 when Vikings basically are Goliath 2.0. The only real difference is separate weapon upgrades, so why not advocate for that and give Thor a different role? Well, there's the difference that the viking isn't built from the factory (which is where people would want a decent AA unit to be from what I gather) and also the cumbersome switching between ground and air mode.
Being built from a different structure is a good thing from a unit diversity standpoint.
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On March 14 2016 06:05 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 06:01 Elentos wrote:On March 14 2016 05:55 Skyro wrote:
I don't understand sure why so many are advocating for Goliath 2.0 when Vikings basically are Goliath 2.0. The only real difference is separate weapon upgrades, so why not advocate for that and give Thor a different role? Well, there's the difference that the viking isn't built from the factory (which is where people would want a decent AA unit to be from what I gather) and also the cumbersome switching between ground and air mode. Being built from a different structure is a good thing from a unit diversity standpoint.
It's still an air unit which the goliath wasn't. I'm pretty sure people got bothered by the fact that only air armies can beat air armies a while ago already.
|
On March 14 2016 05:55 Skyro wrote:
I don't understand sure why so many are advocating for Goliath 2.0 when Vikings basically are Goliath 2.0. The only real difference is separate weapon upgrades, so why not advocate for that and give Thor a different role?
Vikings in ground mode should just benefit from Vehicle ground weapons and get 1 base armor.
Also i don´t see any role for the Thor anymore. It´s role is occupied by other Units. Battle Hellions as Meatshields and Anti-air splash by Liberators. Even it´s ground burst damage is terrible and Tanks are just better at that because of the horrible Attack delay.
Some quick thoughts about this Update regarding Mech:
- Widow Mines are unreliable. They should be Anti-flanking tools not Anti-Air.
- It would be very sad if they scrapped the Siege tank damage buff they proposed. It would be great if they do it with the Numbers they wanted.
- Cyclone change is not good. It should cost 2 supply with lower costs but also the Lock on should be adjusted with that. Right now it´s a Wall of Text in the tooltip which makes it really difficult to calculate the actual damage it does. The only other Unit that has this horrible damage chart is the Void Ray. Cyclones should be the main/all purpose Anti-Air Unit of Mech/Factory Units. I think the speed of this Unit is okay it should at least catch up with most Air Units unlike the Thor.
- As said above I don´t know where the Thor could fit in and i guess the balance team is in the same situation.
- Liberators and Banshees. Hmm difficult. I think the Liberator anti-ground mode overlaps a bit with Banshees. While Banshhes are more of a Harass Unit, Liberators are used for that too. Maybe they can push the Units more in their specific roles so that Liberators aren´t used for harass at all.
All in all I think splitting between Mech and Bio would be better to adjust than just a mix of those two playstyles. Against the common thought of Bio and Mech would be hard to balance if they were split or even a complete rework of the game to make it work, I think this would be more the case when these were split.
EDIT: One thought about maps. I think what SC 2 needs is a Starcraft equivalent of Dust2 in Counter Strike. 1 or 2 of this kind of map that´s balanced, fun to play etc would greatly help. Sure some people would get sick of it too but I still think 1 or 2 balanced maps that can be played over years would make it much better. There is a reason Dust2 has made it into several versions of CS.
|
On March 14 2016 02:04 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 01:08 ShambhalaWar wrote:On March 12 2016 21:08 Cyro wrote: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.
As transports overlords are horrendous, when compared to their counterparts in other races.
1) They are slow, too slow to run away from almost anything in the game (even with the speed upgrade) 2) They cannot heal units 3) The don't have boosters 4) You cannot warp in or create a ton of units at their location.
They have maybe 10% of he utility of any other transport in the game, which is way drop harass mid game is almost non-existent. By mid-game most overlords near someone's base have already been sniped or sac'd for a scout. Maybe if one was converted as a transport early game, and for some reason wasn't hunted down after first use, I've seen people return to using it.
What's the point if you can just make a nydus.
I've seen Scarlett use bane drops recently in direct engagements zvp, and some use for harass of mineral lines, but I think such strats are only good early game. Subverting forcefield through drops is a good utility, but that fell out a long time ago. I think the only reason it is back is because of the stage at which it is available in the game.
We used to have drop at lair tech, take a trip back in time to that moment... and you see a tech that nobody used. If you told people back then that, "We are going to buff drops by taking away ventral sacs and allowing you to convert one at a time for a net higher gas cost," people would have considered this a nerf instead of a buff.
And people still wouldn't have used drops.
|
There's a few builds that use drops I like... You would be eliminating an entire build with this move and for what reason I do not know, I would like to hear specifically why you feel this is necessary, the builds are not incredibly imbalanced. Protoss typically dont even play that well against drops, a single scout can stop whatever it may be. Protoss can work on their defense, and if they have problems than buff the MSC. You probably overnerfed the MSC honestly. Focus on that, don't take away the fun from the game.
|
On March 14 2016 06:01 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2016 05:55 Skyro wrote:
I don't understand sure why so many are advocating for Goliath 2.0 when Vikings basically are Goliath 2.0. The only real difference is separate weapon upgrades, so why not advocate for that and give Thor a different role? Well, there's the difference that the viking isn't built from the factory (which is where people would want a decent AA unit to be from what I gather) and also the cumbersome switching between ground and air mode.
And also that fighting air with air makes for less interesting unit dynamics. That's why it's more interesting watching marines chasing Mutas, Goliaths chasing Carriers, Hidras Phoenixes, etc.
|
The debate about mech pollutes everything is high-jacking the main issue of Terrans : TvT is at its lamest since sc2 release, and it's 100% because of tankivacs.
I don't see how buffing thors will solve this (unless you make thors ridiculously OP in all match ups) .
And thinking the solution necessarily has to come from a buff of a factory unit is equally senseless.
It's not about a bio vs mech issue (anyway, since when medivacs and tanks are bio units?) it's about a design that is showing its limits more and more every day.
This is the #1 ermegency for Terrans, who gives a flying f to thors and banshees when you can have 10 sieged tanks in medivacs, supported by 50 stimed marines, and can drop them anywhere you want?
|
Elentos
55594 Posts
On March 14 2016 21:30 Gwavajuice wrote:
The debate about mech pollutes everything is high-jacking the main issue of Terrans : TvT is at its lamest since sc2 release, and it's 100% because of tankivacs.
I don't see how buffing thors will solve this (unless you make thors ridiculously OP in all match ups) .
And thinking the solution necessarily has to come from a buff of a factory unit is equally senseless.
It's not about a bio vs mech issue (anyway, since when medivacs and tanks are bio units?) it's about a design that is showing its limits more and more every day.
This is the #1 ermegency for Terrans, who gives a flying f to thors and banshees when you can have 10 sieged tanks in medivacs, supported by 50 stimed marines, and can drop them anywhere you want?
You must have missed that part of HotS where, if you didn't die in the battle of gas first build orders, you died to a doom drop with unsieged tanks at some point. That was atrocious as hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
