|
Canada8989 Posts
On May 11 2016 06:28 Charoisaur wrote:
I just don't understand why cyclones have to be buffed and nerfed at the same time. they are such garbage currently why can't he just straight up buff them without a compensation nerf?
The fear of mass cyclone,the unit have the potential to create terrible game if they are not careful, it is nice in small doses, to defend or to put in some offensive build but 20 cyclone is realy boring.
|
|
|
On May 11 2016 06:33 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 06:28 Charoisaur wrote:
I just don't understand why cyclones have to be buffed and nerfed at the same time. they are such garbage currently why can't he just straight up buff them without a compensation nerf? The fear of mass cyclone,the unit have the potential to create terrible game if they are not careful, it is nice in small doses, to defend or to put in some offensive build but 20 cyclone is realy boring.
If they're unwilling to change it to make it useful, they should remove it from the game instead of playing around with cost.
|
On May 11 2016 06:20 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 06:16 Xamo wrote:On May 11 2016 05:28 Loccstana wrote:
Cyclone: A 4 supply unit with 120hp and 0 armor
Tempest: A 4 supply unit with 450hp and 2 armor
Is this Blizzard's idea of a joke? Cyclone: DPS 25.4 min 150 gas 100 Tempest: DPS 12.7 min 300 gas 200 So cyclone has 2x DPS and 1/2 cost, so DPS/cost is 4x better than tempest. Tempest has x4 HP in compensation. Having the same supply is not imbalanced under this point of view. except cyclones die immediately when coming into range of other units and can so only shoot a few times while a tempest can almost infinitely shoot at an army with their 15 range + being able to kite. if both units had 15 range your comparison would be accurate
Once locked-on, Cyclone range is also 15. Its upgrade gives it even more DPS.
Cyclone dies against mass-anything, but massing at early stages of the game is not so easy.
The tempest also requires a lot of pre-investment... stats still look balanced to me, let's give it a try.
|
United States33487 Posts
The Thor is so iffy in its current state. This is just shifting the anti-air overlap with liberators to overlap with vikings instead. I think it's OKAY for units to have redundant roles, but I'd prefer they not. Unfortunately I have no good solutions to offer ATM :D
|
United States1971 Posts
Most of these changes do not address the problems that these units have right now, especially the Terran ones. It seems like Blizzard is trying to differentiate the anti air between the Thor and the Liberator, because right now the Liberator is a much better unit. It's faster, easier to mass produce, more flexible, and requires more skill than the Thor. I think removing/limiting its splash damage instead of nerfing its damage output would be a better idea. As for the Thor, maybe they should give its AA something like Concussive Shells instead of making it single fire and stronger vs armored. This would make it good in small numbers and it would complement Vikings and Liberators against air instead of competing with them. Its damage output may need to be decreased though since Concussive Shells against air units with splash sounds incredibly powerful.
The Swarm Host is still unplayable, no one cares about its supply or cost. It needs a complete redesign. Games are no longer grindy like they were in HotS, they are fast and brutal. The long cooldown and range of the Locusts needs to change. I think the only way this unit will see play is if it becomes a ground based Zerg Carrier or Reaver or something.
Here's an idea:
-Remove the Spawn Infested Terran ability from the Infestor and replace it with a new ability, possibly Infest or whatever ability it was that Blizzard tested but then removed. I think it increased damage or attack rate or something.
-Add Spawn Infested Terran to the Swarm Host, but change how it works. Spawn Infested Terran will cost 15 minerals, have the same build time as Infested Terrans hatching, and will grow an egg on the Swarm Host. Max of 8 eggs. The Swarm Host can then shoot out these eggs which will hatch almost immediately since the build time is for when you initially grow the egg. This would make the Swarm Host essentially a weaker Carrier for Zerg, the biggest difference being that the Infested Terrans will eventually die once spawned and are very slow, as compared to Interceptors which fly, are faster, and can return to the Carrier once used. The cost, build time and range can be messed around with a bit to balance the unit. The Swarm Host can now be used defensively and can still be used as a siege weapon by shooting out Infested Terrans at your opponent's structures or units and then running away.
Or make it Locusts instead of Infested Terrans, whatever. I honestly don't get why Zerg needs so many different types of minion units like Infested Terrans, Broodlings and Locusts. This is just my opinion, and I bet most would disagree with me.
|
On May 11 2016 06:40 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 06:33 Nakajin wrote:On May 11 2016 06:28 Charoisaur wrote:
I just don't understand why cyclones have to be buffed and nerfed at the same time. they are such garbage currently why can't he just straight up buff them without a compensation nerf? The fear of mass cyclone,the unit have the potential to create terrible game if they are not careful, it is nice in small doses, to defend or to put in some offensive build but 20 cyclone is realy boring. If they're unwilling to change it to make it useful, they should remove it from the game instead of playing around with cost.
or maybe redesign it so it can give mech cheaper/more versatile AA vs light.With the thor attack change it could give mech enough AA options to be viable.
You could even raise the minerals cost for it so it cant be massed along with bio.
idk it this is all an avilo pipe dream or if it makes sense tbh... but god is the cyclone an awful unit atm.
|
The swarm host would be fine if the locusts moved faster. By the time they take off, fly at overlord speed to wherever they are going, and land, they have about 25% remaining on their spawn life. Fix this and they would be viable.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On May 11 2016 06:40 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 06:33 Nakajin wrote:On May 11 2016 06:28 Charoisaur wrote:
I just don't understand why cyclones have to be buffed and nerfed at the same time. they are such garbage currently why can't he just straight up buff them without a compensation nerf? The fear of mass cyclone,the unit have the potential to create terrible game if they are not careful, it is nice in small doses, to defend or to put in some offensive build but 20 cyclone is realy boring. If they're unwilling to change it to make it useful, they should remove it from the game instead of playing around with cost.
Well they are trying to make it useful but it doesn't have to be useful in every situation, reaper are a cool unit but they are absolute trash after the early game because having an army of reaper is lame, same with raven that are only good in some specific situation.
Having those kind of unit make it so you can be creative and find a way to incorporate them in your build, to do a specific task instead of just building unit without realy thinking why just because they are the best in most situation.
I don't say their change is going to make the cyclone good enough to be useful in a bit more situation, in fact I have no clue at all on the results of those change but I like the idea.
|
On May 11 2016 05:19 JackONeill wrote:
All those changes are fucking terrible.
- Thor's AA is more of a nerf, doing the viking's job, but less efficently.
- Immortal barrier is a terribly designed ability, nerfing it is good because the immortal is overwhelming, but it doesn't solve the fact it's bad design
- colossus attack speed is kinda meh
- liberator's AG is the problem, not its AA. Right now the only consequence of this change will be to kill skyterran strats in TvZ : EVEN LESS DIVERSITY, YAAAAY.
- cyclone's lockon design is terrible. Changing the stats of the unit won't make it less BS. Cyclone is now the supply of a tempest? Rofl.
- swarm host : now you're just being hilarious.
lib AG should either have an attack speed reduction or add 1 shot required for stalkers/queens. Make it flat 70 spell no upgrades.
immo change is too much, 150 maybe
colo needs more than 10% to be remotely worth it. I like to included range upgrade. Add +2 for upgrades and it should be fine again, sort of a ground tempest thats glass on its own.
disruptor needs to be fixed still. Would prefer lower dmg, higher attack speed and drop the ff.
|
Not keen on the immortal change as the unit doesn't feel overpowered in comparison to the threats it needs to deal with (thinking specifically of lurkers). I think that a longer cooldown on barrier could be a better option as it would reward the player for pinging the barriers and backing off while not changing immortals so much when breaking a lurker setup.
|
On May 11 2016 07:14 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 06:40 TheWinks wrote:On May 11 2016 06:33 Nakajin wrote:On May 11 2016 06:28 Charoisaur wrote:
I just don't understand why cyclones have to be buffed and nerfed at the same time. they are such garbage currently why can't he just straight up buff them without a compensation nerf? The fear of mass cyclone,the unit have the potential to create terrible game if they are not careful, it is nice in small doses, to defend or to put in some offensive build but 20 cyclone is realy boring. If they're unwilling to change it to make it useful, they should remove it from the game instead of playing around with cost. Well they are trying to make it useful but it doesn't have to be useful in every situation, reaper are a cool unit but they are absolute trash after the early game because having an army of reaper is lame, same with raven that are only good in some specific situation.
Changing the cost like this doesn't make it useful though, that's the point and problem. It's 4 dead supply instead of 3 at a slightly reduced gas cost.
|
Thor AA - good change, except I am not sure wheter the magnitude is sufficient - the biggest problem the mech has and why is it not played is AA in late game. Against light units, there is already liberator as a good option. Against heavy units, vikings cant clearly do the job alone and thats why nobody plays pure mech. Therefore, this change is good way.
Immortal barrier - seems inevitable, but would prefer to see something like 150 instead of 100. Change like this might lead to OP lurker play in PvZ as already having insufficient immortal count is problem against lurker based compositions.
Colossus - this suck hard - they should alter colossus to be more micro intensive unit or change its purpose, as units like colossus (nobrainer noskill powerful ground aoe) lead to either to 200/200 deathballs or being completely unused (depending on how much you nerf/buff them)
Liberator AA - not sure about that, although I agree with the idea to some degree. My problem is, that top level players already learned to split corruptors and started using parasitic bomb and fungal, so its not as crushing as it was against zerg heavy air before. Personally, I would wait with this change, meta is still evolving quite fast.
Cyclone - lol - they rather should redesign the unit. Not much to say.
Swarm host - never played zerg, but maybe our zerg players would rather like to see SH play different role, so probably redesign should be considered as well
I am a Protoss/Terran user btw.
|
LOL, nerf on Immortal and a little bit "buff" on Colossus? I dont think people will choose colossus more, because i think no-colossus army composition is good enough even immortal is nerfed.
|
On May 11 2016 05:33 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2016 05:27 RoninKenshin wrote:
Does David Kim lose his job if he doesn't change the game every week? We've had like one set of balance changes in the last half year. That was two protoss nerfs (PO, Adept dmg) and parasitic bomb damage nerf Terran already quite clearly has the best anti-light AA in the early-midgame
My thought was on potential mech play and Mutas. There only Libs seem like a solution and i think countering air with mainly air does not make for the best of games. But maybe a combination of libs, thors and mines might work, i don't know.
|
United Kingdom20321 Posts
To be honest i think the "we don't want to make marines in the early-midgame" styles are a bit nitpicky when there are other matchups forced into more specific styles.
Lib is one of the best anti-light-air units in the game and also partially fits the role of a siege tank, it fits into mech quite well compositionally especially if somebody is going to play phoenix or muta into you. Widow mine is respectable, cyclone.. exists, missile turrets are a top-tier AA because they only shoot up and can be repaired
|
It's completely pointless to make the cyclone and swarm host have a reduction of mineral/gas cost if their supply is increased by 1. It makes the changes redundant because they cancel each other out since the point of the mineral/gas reduction is to encourage the usage of cyclones and swarm hosts and the supply increase dissuades the usage of them. The rest of the changes are acceptable though, but I would of preferred bringing back HIP guns to the thor rather than redesigning its AA.
|
As a protoss, I'm fine with an immortal nerf. But doing it this way, there is almost no incentive to turn the shield on manually anymore. Adding 100 shields at a perfect time is not worth the apm, except in the extreme early game, and therefore the micro potential of the unit goes way down.
|
United Kingdom20321 Posts
and the supply increase dissuades the usage of them.
Supply is of little relevance until the point where you're going to hit 200/200 with those units on the field. There's a technical cost of like 30 minerals per supply up until then and a few hiccups if you're building high supply units really early but it doesn't otherwise actually matter until you're maxing with them.
Increasing power but increasing supply cost seems like a reasonable way to make a unit better in the early-midgame but worse in the lategame as far as i can tell
|
On May 11 2016 08:27 Cyro wrote:Supply is of little relevance until the point where you're going to hit 200/200 with those units on the field. There's a technical cost of like 30 minerals per supply up until then and a few hiccups if you're building high supply units really early but it doesn't otherwise actually matter until you're maxing with them. Increasing power but increasing supply cost seems like a reasonable way to make a unit better in the early-midgame but worse in the lategame as far as i can tell
What's the point of making a unit worse in the late game when it was never used in the late game to begin with? This applies to swarm hosts and cyclones, which aren't used in any stage of the game for the most part so buffing it in the early/mid game and nerfing it in the late game makes little sense. Just buff it in the early/mid game and that is all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
