| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Saturator
5 Posts
2. Modify Thor AA damage 3. Re-introduce the Charon Booster for Thors: + X damage vs armoured and increase range to match Blords4. Change locusts to move faster while flying (or move on the ground again), less dps AND cost minerals to spawn 5. Increase Tempest and Colo supply cost to 6 6. Merge the Colo's new attack rate boost with range upgrade | ||
|
Paulfirelordmu
10 Posts
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? Because Cyclone is in standard format and Tempest is in wild format.#BlizzLogic | ||
|
SwiftCrane
26 Posts
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? Joke? Bro the tempest is a Protoss unit it's supposed to be better in every way. T.T But on a more serious note, upping supply cost of SH and cyclone makes them even worse even with the cost reduction. Cyclones cannot trade, and swarm hosts can't do nearly enough damage fast enough to justify spending so much money and supply of your army on them. Next, let's trace Blizzard's liberator change thought train. Liberator can't fight lategame air => Terran's lategame is very dependent on massing liberators => Terran no longer has answer to unkillable ultra/parasitic bomb + mass air/mass tempest/mass immortals => Terran can no longer play the lategame in any matchup (marine tankevac every TvT ends before then) => Terran must win before lategame => Terran has to be aggressive to get damage done fast to prevent macro lategame => bio is the only viable mobile option Terran can harass heavily with => Terran must do bio allins on a timer EVERY SINGLE GAME to "not let the opponent get there" => ??? What?! Sure the mass liberator is very stupid design, but it's that way to combat the other stupidly designed units that blizzard so kindly forgot to balance out the nerf on. Collossus needs redesign, it's either back as a deathbally cancerous unit or completely useless. Maybe if you can find a magic stat/cost number you can make them something that can be useful and engage-able at the same time but I'm doubtful. Thor: So wait? Now you take away mech's anti-air and force liberator production against muta (which will rape thors otherwise) right after making liberators really bad vs corruptors (it's spire tech also blizzard  ). Corruptors are pretty good now that you can't make ravens/mass raven viking air. So why not just have multiple modes like you did before? The reason it wasn't used was because it's stats were trash. Just return the ability and give it way more range on the single target AA mode as well as more damage vs armor. Also, what happened to actually patching the game? Do you realize how hard it is to judge balance off of a map you can play in custom game only, that only a small percentage of the community tries out even once, and when you are so incompetent at listening to the community? | ||
|
Nazara
United Kingdom235 Posts
| ||
|
CyanApple
48 Posts
This makes it more interesting to use, as low level players will probably keep attacking it, so the rest of the damage-dealing army survives longer, while better players' micro is rewarded by first avoiding the immortals, so the rest of the army can be cleared and the immortal alone doesnt deal too much damage. This would also balance the engagement with lurkers (immortals can be sent in first to lure lurkers attacks away from the main army(?), which would make lurker micro more desirable) Colossus: As a protoss you choose between the disruptor and the colossus. They already have different purposes to make each choice viable. Colossus has reliable DPS, while disruptor is bursty. Currently the disruptor seems to be the better options. To make this more balanced, I would rather like to see the burst damage of the disruptor slightly reduced (so its less threatening and encourages straight up fights more than avoiding battles) than colossus' damage increased (I think it's already strong enough). Other stuff needs to be tested. My main question is: does Thor change help out BIO-Terran for late game? Because that's actually quite bad lategame aswell. I think the cyclone would fit this purpose better with its lock on ability - it can better be used with bio and mech then. I like the directions the changes are going, though. Most of them would improve the game, even if they are not perfect. | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
| ||
|
CyanApple
48 Posts
| ||
|
TW
Poland255 Posts
Balance seems to be preety good right now, why to change anything, just wait a bit longer. | ||
|
Sc2KaiN
10 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
| ||
Teoita
Italy12246 Posts
 | ||
|
RedAlice
51 Posts
| ||
|
y0su
Finland7871 Posts
On May 11 2016 17:33 Salteador Neo wrote: I'm actually ok with the idea of decreasing cost and increasing supply. I don't get why all the hate for it, other than hate for any change being the routine. the idea is fine but i think in these two cases both units needed flat out buffs. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:32 Zedd wrote: Is it 30? It should be even less, something like 100/8=12.5 + some lost mining times - so rather 15-20. Your point is, however, correct. Yeah i did 100/4 for no reason, oops 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 You can give both a stronger place in the game without worrying about people dedicating 100 supply to them that way, which was one of the biggest problems with the old swarm host and the old cyclone ------------------ On May 11 2016 16:18 CyanApple wrote: Immortal: I'd rather like to see its barrier remain the same and its damage output to be reduced, to nerf it overall but to keep its main use - to absorb damage. This makes it more interesting to use, as low level players will probably keep attacking it, so the rest of the damage-dealing army survives longer, while better players' micro is rewarded by first avoiding the immortals, so the rest of the army can be cleared and the immortal alone doesnt deal too much damage. This would also balance the engagement with lurkers (immortals can be sent in first to lure lurkers attacks away from the main army(?), which would make lurker micro more desirable) Colossus: As a protoss you choose between the disruptor and the colossus. They already have different purposes to make each choice viable. Colossus has reliable DPS, while disruptor is bursty. Currently the disruptor seems to be the better options. To make this more balanced, I would rather like to see the burst damage of the disruptor slightly reduced (so its less threatening and encourages straight up fights more than avoiding battles) than colossus' damage increased (I think it's already strong enough). Other stuff needs to be tested. My main question is: does Thor change help out BIO-Terran for late game? Because that's actually quite bad lategame aswell. I think the cyclone would fit this purpose better with its lock on ability - it can better be used with bio and mech then. Other than that I like the directions the changes are going Wouldn't like dmg nerf on immortal, it has always been a unit defined by it's strong anti-armor attack that fires without a projectile (so no overkill). On the "immotals can be sent in first to lure lurker attacks away from the main army" comment - may work fine vs 4-5 lurkers but with more they just blanket the whole area. They attack everything between the lurker and a point that's 9 range away Colossus has been nerfed by about 1.25 - 1.55x damage vs WOL/HOTS numbers (depending on the level of upgrades) and still costs as much, chronoboost has been nerfed as well. There's still more focus on lower tech units than rushing to t3.5 to do anything Disruptors are used some but they're not used a lot right now, people choose other styles against terran and against Z because they're stronger and more reliable - nerfing further would take away a unit to partially replace the nerfed immortal with and leave robo tech pretty gutted. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
1. An HP buff. Considering the nova vanishes when killed, people just focus it down and the unit does nothing. 2. Purification nova cooldown decrease. Instead of a flat out unit buff, it could be achieved with an upgrade at robo bay. 3. Allow the player to detonate the nova before the timer runs out. This adds another layer of micro to showoff on an already micro intensive unit. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On May 11 2016 10:47 Mojzii1 wrote: Same story with ghost nerf in wol. i think in blizzard opinion Terran should auto lose in late game. It fells like balance designers play protoss It's the asymmetric balance BS. Terran is balanced to always have to attack and harass and do dmg if it's to be competitive past midgame. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
especially since people learned to use rapid-fire afterwards, it was pretty silly. Ghost being the strongest counter vs every high tier zerg unit (and obviously lower tier zerg units not doing well in maxed fights and split map scenarios) - you're complaining about terran not being able to fight past the midgame when the situation was reversed and probably even worse at the time. | ||
|
Turb0Sw4g
74 Posts
I was also thinking about removing the transformation from the Viking and giving it to the Liberator (thus removing the Liberation zone and making the Viking AA only) accompanied with a cost reduction on the viking. But this seemed excessively design driven.  Any thoughts and/ or opinions are welcome! | ||
|
RedAlice
51 Posts
And there are people doing with sentinel / stalker / disruptor but vulnerable to zergling drops Hey I mean people on this forum r u mad? You want to wipe out all protoss players? I know you all hate protoss (as Rotterdam said) but it's a bit too much | ||
|
PinoKotsBeer
Netherlands1385 Posts
On May 11 2016 19:50 Turb0Sw4g wrote: Here's my idea on how to distribute the responsibilities/ roles of Cyclone, Thor and Liberator:
I was also thinking about removing the transformation from the Viking and giving it to the Liberator (thus removing the Liberation zone and making the Viking AA only) accompanied with a cost reduction on the viking. But this seemed excessively design driven. Any thoughts and/ or opinions are welcome! Sounds interesting to me, especially the thor change. The Cyclone lock on to thor would be a nice change. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|
|
EPT
