Immortal Barrier absorb down to 100 10% faster attack speed on the Colossus
Terran:
Thor AA damage changed to flat and single target Damage altered to 35 (+15 armored) every 2.14 seconds Liberator damage changed to 4 (+3 light) Cyclone cost reduced to 150/100 Cyclone supply cost increased by 1
Zerg:
Swarm Host cost reduced to 150/75 Swarm Host supply cost increased by 1
I actually really really like the protoss changes..just a hood little tone down and tone up, shockingly elegant coming from david.
I have no clue how the Thor changes even work.
Swarm hosts will still be bad I think, the problem is lotv is very fast paced and having a unit with such a long cool down and using so much supply just seems uh....not optimal? Would be happier if they just removed it from the game and buff the infestor, you can really only polish a turd so much.
The liberator nerf is long overdue as is cyclone buff, definitely changes that are justified and simple, very impressed by this balance map, it's like David's finally getting his shit together.
I really love the protoss changes but just can't get behind most of the terran ones. I'd much rather see Liberators lose their AA splash and keep it on the thor. Instead of having the thor be the heavy hitter late game give the cyclone some +X vs massive when locked on buff. I feel like that might do more to help mech exist than putting that role on the thor. That MIGHT break the cyclone though, no idea.
The zerg changes are largely irrelevant. No one will make the swarmhost at its current supply cost, let alone at a higher one
The Terran changes don't really add up. Thors will still be expensive and clunky, and without the AoE they lose some of the only utility they had left. A cyclone just isn't worth 4 supply. Honestly I barely ever make them anymore (even the single one you used to make for early game defense), and I'm seeing more and more pros skip them in every matchup. And 4 supply definitely is a waste for a unit that weak. Even if I made one because it was cheaper, eventually I'd just sack it anyway because it's dead supply. So I might as well spend the gas on something else. The SH change seems like it's the same.
I can see why they nerf liberator AA, it seemed very much overtuned against corruptors. But I'm not sure this was the right change to the unit.
Buffing the colossus is one of the worst ideas they've had. Deemphasizing the colossus was one of the better decisions they've made and given the state of tvp, they absolutely should not buff it for the sake of balance.
I wanted a nerf to the Immortal, but a slighter nerf, not so drastic as this. How about a number around Barrier absorb somewhere around 150 damage? 100 looks too little, and that will kinda screw up the PvZ matchup again,
Really don't like the Barrier change, it just feels so much more like a passive ability. The object is that players get good at triggering it pre fight, or change targets when the Barrier is up. Also really good Protoss players could manually use it at crucial moments. Why not nerf it's vs Armoured, or revert it's range back to 5?
The Colossus change is also really boring, but I guess I didn't complain back when Siege Tanks got +10% attack speed. The unit will do a lot better when caught on it's own now. I would've probably prefered buffing it's AoE slightly and maybe have it not be able to attack units adjacent to it. That way Bio would fair a lot worse and maybe the new Thor anti air would be the tech of choice to keep Bio going vs Protoss in the later stages.
Thor & Liberator anti air change, I've grown to like, they were far too similar beforehand. Hopefully now Viking Anti Air won't be too similar to the new Thor Anti Air.
Not sure how elegant design it is to elaborately have units be less spammable, by increasing supply costs, but increase viability by decreasing resource costs. I'm also not sure it will work out, the Roach historically has been a very spammable unit, because of this. Maybe they don't mind Cyclone spam, as long as the composition does not remain the same through the entire span of the game.
Seems like a pretty big nerf to immortals. To big if you ask me.
I don't like the approach of making stuff easier for lower league players, it will just make it frustrating to play against. They should rather focus on what units are to easy for lower level player to use from the other races and make them harder to use. Which is why I dislike the colossus buff (That might be to ambitious though..). Instead they should try to make the disruptor to be more reliable (as I feel like it is a bit to much "hit or miss" at the moment)
Thor change, it would be fantastic if thors could be an answer to broodlords and tempest and I guess this is step in that direction but I don't think this is enough (I haven't tested so I don't know)
People are talking about how air units should have increased supply and then they increase supply for the Cyclone (anti air unit) instead? The cost reduce thing is good I guess. I wish they switched the tech lab requirement for an armory requirement so you could reactor them. Now that I think about I am not even sure what role the cyclone is to do? Wasn't it intended to counter to ultralisks at first? Do Blizzard even know? I mean It would be so easy to make it a good aa unit.
I don't see any chance of fun game play involving swarm host. They could be plausible if each wave cost some money and locusts couldn't fly but tbh I think they should just remove them.
I really like the P changes as well. They need some tuning of course -maybe the colo buff and the immortal nerf are too much- but I really like the idea. I don't think the colossus is as bad an unit as a lot of people want it to be -swarm host is a lot more unsalvageable if you ask me. No real opinion on the other changes that mostly affect ZvT.
maybe the colo buff and the immortal nerf are too much- but I really like the idea. I don't think the colossus is as bad an unit as a lot of people want it to be
In Legacy they nerfed the damage by 1.25 - 1.55x depending on the level of attack upgrades, returning 10% DPS via attack speed isn't a cataclysmic change.
maybe the colo buff and the immortal nerf are too much- but I really like the idea. I don't think the colossus is as bad an unit as a lot of people want it to be
In Legacy they nerfed the damage by 1.25 - 1.55x depending on the level of attack upgrades, returning 10% DPS via attack speed isn't a cataclysmic change.
yeah should be ok ; a nice push to a now underused unit. The immortal nerf is harsh though, needs a lot of playtesting.
Spending 100 gas on 4 dead supply instead of 150 gas on 3 dead supply isn't going to change the decision making process of building cyclones. They just aren't good units.
maybe the colo buff and the immortal nerf are too much- but I really like the idea. I don't think the colossus is as bad an unit as a lot of people want it to be
In Legacy they nerfed the damage by 1.25 - 1.55x depending on the level of attack upgrades, returning 10% DPS via attack speed isn't a cataclysmic change.
It was nerfed for a good design reason and is one of the reasons the marauder nerf is acceptable at all. The magnitude of the buff is not a good defense of the buff.
I like the Protoss changes, hopefully the Colossus buff will not make it an important unit though.
The Thor AA is probably good for mech but, since mech is not usable i don't know what to think. If it can counter BLs and Liberators then maybe mech has a chance in TvZ and TvT. Tempests are still unaffected with their stupid 15 range unlimited kiting ability against both air and ground.
The Cyclone, eh, still expensive, still weak, still trying to live on a gimmick ability. I think they should first decide what this unit is supposed to do and synergize with before toying with numbers.
- 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.
I remember DK saying that the Thor could be single target since the Factory has AOE anti air in the WM. I think that reasoning is rubbish since WM are RNG; so, maybe give the Cyclone an AOE anti air against light?
On May 11 2016 05:27 RoninKenshin wrote: Does David Kim lose his job if he doesn't change the game every week?
so far he hasn't changed anything for ages. Please remember this is a balance test map, even though some changes have long been tested and are likely to get through nothing is final yet.
Protoss perspective, Immortal is too strong so I like the change, it still going to be viable.
As much as everyone hated Colossus, unfortunately this is a good way to go, due to the fact that Zerg can stay only lingbane until Hive, if Colo will be useful hopefully Zergs will be forced to get hydras, lurker etc. more often.
Swarm Host is a please don't for me, I hate that unit with all my heart.
On May 11 2016 05:27 RoninKenshin wrote: Does David Kim lose his job if he doesn't change the game every week?
No, but it will be the best for the game if David Kim and Dustin Browder never do anything for sc2 anymore. Bring SC:BW game designers and all will be fine.
@OSCEWiNtER - Part of that is due to disruptors not being great against those styles. The disruptor ball is much more effective against slow units and has trouble protecting your army from fast melee because it'll splash onto your own units
I am just going to repeat what I said in last few threads- Thor change is a more of a nerf to thor than anything.
Thor loses utility and gains less bursty single target AA that 1 viking almost does as much with while remaining a clunky ground unit that gets outranged by protoss and zerg capital ships.
Its just flat out bad. The damage lategame is even less because of it losing splash since lategame thors hit more than 3+ units. Its a huge nerf.
I said it here:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/508722-discussion-on-upcoming-thor-change
haha the most useless unit in the game is 4 supply lol. i doubt they would be used if they'd cost 100/50 and 1 supply and now they cost as much supply as a tempest. DK should just remove it when he doesn't want to see it in competitive play just sad the other races got 2 new units and terran only 1
On May 11 2016 05:40 OSCEWiNtER wrote: Protoss perspective, Immortal is too strong so I like the change, it still going to be viable.
As much as everyone hated Colossus, unfortunately this is a good way to go, due to the fact that Zerg can stay only lingbane until Hive, if Colo will be useful hopefully Zergs will be forced to get hydras, lurker etc. more often.
Swarm Host is a please don't for me, I hate that unit with all my heart.
Neutral about the other changes.
Bro +1 to you for playing Protoss and actually seeing reality on the Immortal nerf, I'm literally applauding you.
I didn't even think about that for the Colossus change (which I'm more then fine with for the Immortal nerf) but I will be pleased if that's how it happens, personally I've always felt that Dark's PvZ style will be phased out in the meta sooner rather then later anyways and would love ZvP to go back to the early days of being based around the Lurker and Templars.
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.
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
On May 11 2016 05:52 jinjin5000 wrote: I am just going to repeat what I said in last few threads- Thor change is a more of a nerf to thor than anything.
Thor loses utility and gains less bursty single target AA that 1 viking almost does as much with while remaining a clunky ground unit that gets outranged by protoss and zerg capital ships.
Its just flat out bad. The damage lategame is even less because of it losing splash since lategame thors hit more than 3+ units. Its a huge nerf.
I said it here:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/508722-discussion-on-upcoming-thor-change
Thor is never used and has no utility anyway, so might as well try this. It can't be worse than it is now.
The capital ships are not the issue, you'll still do what you're doing now : counter them with vikings.
On the other hand, corruptors and medivac die much faster from a thor with this change, so maybe this will impact both TvZ (compensating the liberator nerf) and TvT (making mech viable against marine tankivacs)
There has been a lot of comments on the Thor change but very few facts were actually brought into the discussion, we need to stop talking and start testing.
On May 11 2016 05:52 jinjin5000 wrote: I am just going to repeat what I said in last few threads- Thor change is a more of a nerf to thor than anything.
Thor loses utility and gains less bursty single target AA that 1 viking almost does as much with while remaining a clunky ground unit that gets outranged by protoss and zerg capital ships.
Its just flat out bad. The damage lategame is even less because of it losing splash since lategame thors hit more than 3+ units. Its a huge nerf.
I said it here:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/508722-discussion-on-upcoming-thor-change
Thor is never used and has no utility anyway, so might as well try this. It can't be worse than it is now.
The capital ships are not the issue, you'll still do what you're doing now : counter them with vikings.
On the other hand, corruptors and medivac die much faster from a thor with this change, so maybe this will impact both TvZ (compensating the liberator nerf) and TvT (making mech viable against marine tankivacs)
There has been a lot of comments on the Thor change but very few facts were actually brought into the discussion, we need to stop talking and start testing.
thor is sometimes used as anti-muta especially when opening mech. it's only use gets now taken away and replaced with something which probably won't do much.
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?
For swarmhost, I am fine with the tests. Less cost = more swarm hosts = maybe players can divide the waves a bit so technically not as long of a cooldown. In that way, I don't think swarmhost should have increased supply because it interferes with the "'more swarmhost" type thing. Maybe blizzard doesn't want as much supporting units with the SH?
For cyclone, I want a consistant damage dealer on my terran army, not an annoying early game one trick pony that can now come out earlier so it can die earlier as well. And the supply nerf? It won't even be a big impact because nobody's ever gonna build such a crap unit. Take off the lock on and make it more tanky. Give it some beef. It could increase in tech requirement as compensation or something. DK likes compensations right?
On May 11 2016 05:52 jinjin5000 wrote: I am just going to repeat what I said in last few threads- Thor change is a more of a nerf to thor than anything.
Thor loses utility and gains less bursty single target AA that 1 viking almost does as much with while remaining a clunky ground unit that gets outranged by protoss and zerg capital ships.
Its just flat out bad. The damage lategame is even less because of it losing splash since lategame thors hit more than 3+ units. Its a huge nerf.
I said it here:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/508722-discussion-on-upcoming-thor-change
Thor is never used and has no utility anyway, so might as well try this. It can't be worse than it is now.
The capital ships are not the issue, you'll still do what you're doing now : counter them with vikings.
On the other hand, corruptors and medivac die much faster from a thor with this change, so maybe this will impact both TvZ (compensating the liberator nerf) and TvT (making mech viable against marine tankivacs)
There has been a lot of comments on the Thor change but very few facts were actually brought into the discussion, we need to stop talking and start testing.
have you played balance test map for past few weeks? Thor may do well against isolated single target scenarios, but in army fights where this change was intended-to give factory ground AA- it completely fails in that purpose- unless its TvT where it is against sieged liberators-but there exists pdd.
You are saying that things are back to where they are- capital ships and other air to ground units need to be dealt with vikings, not thors. Then what in world is this change supposed to change? The single target thor change is supposed to bring the single target AA onto factory to replace the air interaction to extent. Think about it.
All this change does is remove the anti-muta niche of thors in mech composition for worse lategame combat and better single target combat in isolation.
Its time to start testing YOURSELF and stop talking
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 06:28 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 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.
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
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 06:28 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.
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 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
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.
so, maybe give the Cyclone an AOE anti air against light?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
I am loving this possible patch. Maybe not sure about the Thor overall, and the Collossi "buff" I hope the others canges at least make it live soonish, and Cyclone change the posibilities in the early game for TvP.
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
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.
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
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.
The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game.
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
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.
The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game.
You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit.
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
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.
The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game.
You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit.
Resource cost reductions always make a unit more cost efficient, allowing people more opportunities to find uses for units, even ones not considered viable before.
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
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.
The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game.
You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit.
Resource cost reductions always make a unit more cost efficient, allowing people more opportunities to find uses for units, even ones not considered viable before.
Of course they will, but supply cost increases will always make a unit less supply efficient, which is not something you want to do with two units that are hardly used to begin with. Swarm hosts and cyclones need a buff, not a buff and a nerf simultaneously.
So rescaling the colossus to some mix of useless/overpowered rather than attempting any kind of a redesign . . . yeah I don't like that. It is still good vs practically everything on the ground, it still requires a huge investment (and therefore a huge payoff) and it still has super high range. No real change here, sadly.
Just for the sake of keeping it out there, I'll throw out the reduction in base damage with addition of +light damage to give colossi a strategic dimension without making them overpowered in lategame deathballs.
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
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.
The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game.
You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit.
Resource cost reductions always make a unit more cost efficient, allowing people more opportunities to find uses for units, even ones not considered viable before.
Of course they will, but supply cost increases will always make a unit less supply efficient, which is not something you want to do with two units that are hardly used to begin with. Swarm hosts and cyclones need a buff, not a buff and a nerf simultaneously.
Sorry maybe I misunderstood your earlier post but it seemed like you were saying that no matter the resource cost reduction, those two units were inherently flawed and nothing but changing their stats could fix their usage.
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
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.
The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game.
You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit.
Resource cost reductions always make a unit more cost efficient, allowing people more opportunities to find uses for units, even ones not considered viable before.
Of course they will, but supply cost increases will always make a unit less supply efficient, which is not something you want to do with two units that are hardly used to begin with. Swarm hosts and cyclones need a buff, not a buff and a nerf simultaneously.
Sorry maybe I misunderstood your earlier post but it seemed like you were saying that no matter the resource cost reduction, those two units were inherently flawed and nothing but changing their stats could fix their usage.
No problem. My whole argument is that a resource cost reduction is great, but adding in a supply cost increase defeats the purpose of a resource cost reduction, which is to encourage their usage. They should reduce the resource cost of both the cyclone and the swarm host to improve the viability of these units, but they shouldn't increase the supply cost in conjunction.
Among all of these changes, my biggest concern is about the nerf to immortal's Barrier ability. If this nerf is implemented, it probably won't do any good to improving the effectiveness of mech in TvP matchup; also it will significantly weaken the Protoss when they face the Zerg combination of zergling, baneling, hydralisk and lurker (this combo is a highly effective to deal with most combination of Protoss ground units). I hope David Kim can publicly discuss what exactly motivates him to test this out, and why is the concern significant. For example, what specific part of which matchup does this nerf target? Is the nerf necessary–is personal skill insufficient to compensate whatever disadvantages brought by the assumed "overly powerful" immortal (this assumption has a shaky ground). Every time the team releases a balance statement regarding some issues, they affirm that (at least to some extend) those test/change are based on the voice of the community. This seems dubious, for what is actually certain is the variety of the voice. Of course, we should always welcome the responsive and concerning attitude of the team. However, is it also a balance issue that they take one specific part of the voice into account? How do they balance?
All the Terran changes seem bad. The cyclone costing 50 less gas isn't going to make it worth building more of: the problem with the unit is that it's no good in major army engagements. The Thor change probably makes it even less useful overall: it wasn't being built to handle anything except mutas and occasionally banshees. Not splashing means it's probably still worse against rays, corruptors, and vikings, which would be ideally the avenues that open up - not that Terran players need another answer to any of those. Lastly, the Liberator change is still poorly thought out, since it addresses a late game issue that there are already answers to, while weakening Terrans against harassing drop play of all kinds (which was already a problem). If they want to look at the Liberator they should be reducing the range of the upgrade or reducing its damage against ground.
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
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.
The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game.
You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit.
Resource cost reductions always make a unit more cost efficient, allowing people more opportunities to find uses for units, even ones not considered viable before.
Of course they will, but supply cost increases will always make a unit less supply efficient, which is not something you want to do with two units that are hardly used to begin with. Swarm hosts and cyclones need a buff, not a buff and a nerf simultaneously.
Sorry maybe I misunderstood your earlier post but it seemed like you were saying that no matter the resource cost reduction, those two units were inherently flawed and nothing but changing their stats could fix their usage.
No problem. My whole argument is that a resource cost reduction is great, but adding in a supply cost increase defeats the purpose of a resource cost reduction, which is to encourage their usage. They should reduce the resource cost of both the cyclone and the swarm host to improve the viability of these units, but they shouldn't increase the supply cost in conjunction.
While I agree that the supply cost increase is unnecessary, it's important to note that it only really matters in max supply engagements.
If you maintain 5 or 6 swarm hosts or cyclones in your army, and get value from them by continually taking favorable trades, then the supply cost increase matters much less than the cost reduction.
Both units don't scale well to larger numbers (the cyclone because lock-on means your cyclones have to hang around in the danger zone taking hits waiting for all of them to lock-on, and the swarm host because it's dead supply when on cooldown), so you naturally don't want more than a handful.
So, IMO, the change is a net buff for the (niche) cases where you want them anyway.
The cyclone in particular has some use in TvZ as an anti hive-tech option (it's very efficient against ultralisks, kills corruptors extremely quickly, and can do well against broodlords with hellbat support). If the initial cost investment to get them was lower, they'd definitely see some use.
On May 11 2016 09:15 Alienship wrote: Among all of these changes, my biggest concern is about the nerf to immortal's Barrier ability. If this nerf is implemented, it probably won't do any good to improving the effectiveness of mech in TvP matchup; also it will significantly weaken the Protoss when they face the Zerg combination of zergling, baneling, hydralisk and lurker (this combo is a highly effective to deal with most combination of Protoss ground units). I hope David Kim can publicly discuss what exactly motivates him to test this out, and why is the concern significant. For example, what specific part of which matchup does this nerf target? Is the nerf necessary–is personal skill insufficient to compensate whatever disadvantages brought by the assumed "overly powerful" immortal (this assumption has a shaky ground). Every time the team releases a balance statement regarding some issues, they affirm that (at least to some extend) those test/change are based on the voice of the community. This seems dubious, for what is actually certain is the variety of the voice. Of course, we should always welcome the responsive and concerning attitude of the team. However, is it also a balance issue that they take one specific part of the voice into account? How do they balance?
I really have to ask, where is it "assumed" that the Immortal is OP? The Korean community has been targeting complaints at the Immortal over performing for a long time now, just because the race itself isn't OP doesn't mean that the unit is not. If Protoss win rates suffer drastically I'm 100% positive that buffs will come there way now that the meta is settling down ever so slightly, but for now, you have the highest level of players all pointing their fingers at the same thing, it's OP and OP units get nerfed, the Liberator is getting nerfed because it isn't OP.
On this note, nerfing things like Ultralisk armor would also be appropriate and I'm Zerg, it's OP as hell vs. bio and it's completely a move, I'm honestly surprised is hasn't been nerfed already. Would way rather the Immortal nerf stays and if Protoss suffers in the balance then buff Stalkers vs. light or redesign the Disruptor to not be so unwieldy.
50% balance is hard to achieve though and historically in Starcraft usually a race suffers at least a bit vs. one race at any given moment, in BW Protoss was always hovering around "slightly less then balanced" against Zerg while Zerg was slightly less then balanced against Terran, metagame shifts are real.
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?
All of the changes are a joke =/
I'll try to stay constructive...but...to be real...
Liberator change = end of this game competitively. T will basically end up not being playable, especially versus Zerg past 8-10 minutes. It's already difficult enough vs 8 armor ultras (which are absurd and have been since the game launched).
Cyclone change = terrible. The unit's stats itself are way off. It does less dps than an auto turret, has less health than an auto-turret...something is wrong there.
Also 4 supply makes it more expensive mineral-wise because you'll need more depots for cyclones. Meaning it will be worse if it is patched to be 4 supply...like what dev is coming up with this change? I really don't understand =/
I hate to just repeat the same stuff over again...
Adept shades, invincible nydus, 8 armor hard counter ultra, mass ravager, para bomb...there's a lot of stuff like this that can be changed that affects nothing else in the game and can't screw up the game at all...and it's not changed. How would reverting invincible nydus worm mess with anything at all in SC2?
Sighs.
If anything, the liberator nerf should be 4 supply. There's a gif image of the liberator nerf b4 patch and after patch - if this patch goes through Terran won't have any unit to fight mass air and it'll be pointless to play T vs people that know to turtle to late game.
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?
All of the changes are a joke =/
I'll try to stay constructive...but...to be real...
Liberator change = end of this game competitively. T will basically end up not being playable, especially versus Zerg past 8-10 minutes. It's already difficult enough vs 8 armor ultras (which are absurd and have been since the game launched).
Cyclone change = terrible. The unit's stats itself are way off. It does less dps than an auto turret, has less health than an auto-turret...something is wrong there.
Also 4 supply makes it more expensive mineral-wise because you'll need more depots for cyclones. Meaning it will be worse if it is patched to be 4 supply...like what dev is coming up with this change? I really don't understand =/
I hate to just repeat the same stuff over again...
Adept shades, invincible nydus, 8 armor hard counter ultra, mass ravager, para bomb...there's a lot of stuff like this that can be changed that affects nothing else in the game and can't screw up the game at all...and it's not changed. How would reverting invincible nydus worm mess with anything at all in SC2?
Sighs.
If anything, the liberator nerf should be 4 supply. There's a gif image of the liberator nerf b4 patch and after patch - if this patch goes through Terran won't have any unit to fight mass air and it'll be pointless to play T vs people that know to turtle to late game.
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
Avilo is dead on about the Cyclone change and dead wrong about the Liberator change. I wish they would just nerf the damn ground mode but since they aren't something has to give, it can't do so much damage in both AtG and AtA scenarios.
He's also dead on about the supply cost, I don't understand why they are buffing yet nerfing units that needed just straight up buffs, the Cyclone sucks and the Swarm Host is just so badly designed it's hopeless nor does it really bring anything to the table for the Zerg arsenal that Lurkers and Brood Lords don't do infinitely better.
Since Zerg hardly needs yet another siege type unit but Zerg anti-air is still relatively lack luster until Hive they should have made it strong against anti air so maybe late game Zerg can have a change against Skytoss deathballs, maybe if it was strong vs. air the Liberator nerf wouldn't be justified. I don't know, they are trying so hard to make it viable through number tweaks but it's the design that's screwing this unit.
I think the changes are good, but I'd like to see Thor get an extra armour and cyclone get some extra HP or armour. I don't know if the swarmhost can find a place though in this game. It seems way too hard to balance. Maybe make it energy based and balance the stats of the locusts around that? Or why not give the swarmhost a base attack so it's not useless when the locusts are on cooldown?
How is Terran supossed to play TvZ lategame now? Turtle the libs under marines? Vikings don't deal with corruptors fast enough to make a difference. Lategame TvP was already toss favored, now it's gonna be the same for TvZ. As someone who likes long macro games, Blizz is telling me I should not play Terran. Alright, someone point me to some good zerg guides/streamers. Terran will once again become the ' Don't let them get there :^) ' race.
1. Scrap the Cyclone. 2. Modify Thor AA damage 3. Re-introduce the
Charon Booster
for Thors: + X damage vs armoured and increase range to match Blords 4. 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
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?
Why not test +vs armoured damage for liberators instead of the +light? Mutas are not a problem in zvt, but this change just makes all the corruptor broodlord deathclouds a lot stronger.
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.
I like the directions the changes are going, though. Most of them would improve the game, even if they are not perfect.
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.
i feel the colo change makes it more difficult to micro (and micro against). i'd like to hear more how they expect this change to play out at different levels.
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.
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
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.
^ I agree, the disruptor could use some buff and there are many nice options to look at:
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.
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?
All of the changes are a joke =/
I'll try to stay constructive...but...to be real...
Liberator change = end of this game competitively. T will basically end up not being playable, especially versus Zerg past 8-10 minutes. It's already difficult enough vs 8 armor ultras (which are absurd and have been since the game launched).
Cyclone change = terrible. The unit's stats itself are way off. It does less dps than an auto turret, has less health than an auto-turret...something is wrong there.
Also 4 supply makes it more expensive mineral-wise because you'll need more depots for cyclones. Meaning it will be worse if it is patched to be 4 supply...like what dev is coming up with this change? I really don't understand =/
I hate to just repeat the same stuff over again...
Adept shades, invincible nydus, 8 armor hard counter ultra, mass ravager, para bomb...there's a lot of stuff like this that can be changed that affects nothing else in the game and can't screw up the game at all...and it's not changed. How would reverting invincible nydus worm mess with anything at all in SC2?
Sighs.
If anything, the liberator nerf should be 4 supply. There's a gif image of the liberator nerf b4 patch and after patch - if this patch goes through Terran won't have any unit to fight mass air and it'll be pointless to play T vs people that know to turtle to late game.
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.
@ghost nerf in WoL TvZ - I can't believe that people think it's unfair to terran and zerg/protoss bias to nerf snipe at that time
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.
Here's my idea on how to distribute the responsibilities/ roles of Cyclone, Thor and Liberator:
Cyclone Changes:
scrap G2A attack and lock-on target
change ground-to-ground attack to instant, single target, medium damage point, high attackspeed (much like the Viking's attack once landed)
flag as non-armored, but not light, and give it 1 Armor
reduce cost to say 125/25 mineral/gas
make it reactorable.
Reasoning: If the cyclone is changed this way it'll become a staple, mass-producable unit for mech compositions. This was missing from mech as the hellions and hellbats have a more distinct role due to splash. It's not light and not-armored and as such has no definite hard counter. So, it's always a good choice to build this unit in ground fights. Potentially a very good mech choice against adepts too.
Thor Changes:
Give lock-on for G2A attack (no auto-cast).
High single target damage vs armored air (as in the patch)
Reasoning: This gives the Thor a similar role to the Goliath (with Charon Booster upgrade) when used against Air. The lock-on damage should be very powerful vs armored enemy air units. The damage point should be high enough to force the targeted unit back (which might be very useful vs Brood Lords, Carriers, Tempests or Liberators not such much vs smaller air units however). The air splash role is handed over to the Liberator and will not get lost.
Liberator Changes:
+light on A2A attack (as in patch).
Reasoning: Takes over the A2A splash role of the Thor.
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.
Disruptors are abandoned because of zergling to broodlord invented by dark
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
On May 11 2016 19:50 Turb0Sw4g wrote: Here's my idea on how to distribute the responsibilities/ roles of Cyclone, Thor and Liberator:
Cyclone Changes:
scrap AA and lock-on target
change ground-to-ground attack to instant, single target, medium damage point, high attackspeed (much like the Viking's attack once landed)
flag as non-armored, but not light, and give it 1 Armor
reduce cost to say 125/25 mineral/gas
make it reactorable.
Reasoning: If the cyclone is changed this way it'll become a staple, mass-producable unit for mech compositions. This was missing from mech as the hellions and hellbats have a more distinct role due to splash. It's not light and not-armored and as such has no definite hard counter. So, it's always a good choice to build this unit in ground fights. Potentially a very good mech choice against adepts too.
Thor Changes:
Give lock-on for AA (no auto-cast).
High single target damage vs armored air (as in the patch)
Reasoning: This gives the Thor a similar role to the Goliath (with Charon Booster upgrade) when used against Air. The lock-on damage should be very powerful vs armored enemy air units. The damage point should be high enough to force the targeted unit back (which might be very useful vs Brood Lords, Carriers, Tempests or Liberators not such much vs smaller air units however). The air splash role is handed over to the Liberator and will not get lost.
Liberator Changes:
+light on AA (as in patch).
Reasoning: Takes over the AA splash role of the Thor.
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.
Not sure about how Immortal barrier is mean to work, if it still lasts 2 secs but with a limit of 100 damage seems fine. But if it's a flat 100 damage shield it becomes a unit of 400 hp, can somebody explain it?
Colossus buff will be wellcome but may be not enough, it was so drastically nerfed. It still takes 3 shots to kill a marine, for example.
Same for the Swarm Host, I think that cooldown is too much, it seems like Brood Lord still remains a far better option.
I still don't understand why they went back on the photon cannon vs air bio change, nowadays, PvT forces you to start with a phoenix + immortal composition, it s*cks. I also liked a banshee buff, liberator is a better harrasing unit, besides being multipurpose
The main problem with the swarm host is the dead supply, now it takes even more supply wtf? Just stop pushing your bad design and make it some sort of anti-air
Not sure about how Immortal barrier is mean to work, if it still lasts 2 secs but with a limit of 100 damage seems fine. But if it's a flat 100 damage shield it becomes a unit of 400 hp, can somebody explain it?
Same as before. The shield is triggered by an attack or activated manually but it dissapears early after taking 100 damage rather than 200.
With that you'll probably see more immortal shields being broken by heavy splash damage like lurkers or by focusing damage through it rather than the current live implementation that can leave them seemingly invulnerable for 2 seconds.
Along with these balance changes, they should build base commander voices into the Cyclone and Thor unit voices when they right click on any BL or Tempest:
Right click on BL: "You must spawn more raaaanges..." (zerg voice) Right click on Tempest: "You must build additional ranges !!!!" (protoss voice)
The only way to make the cyclone interesting and balanced is to remove the lock and make it a mech massable footman/damage dealer. This way mech could be, if this retarded tankivac was scraped, a balanced composition of cyclones, tanks, hellions, and SP/thor/WM support. Not a 400 turrets full tanks bullshit.
Immortal change is probably the only change Blizzard has done on a test map which is a change that simply couldn't be predicted. Will the worth of the Immortal change? Will 100 still be virtually invulnerable or will it be too much of a nerf? Not a fan of the collosus buff. I'd rather they would reduce disruptor cooldown by 9.09% (equivalent to +10% attack speed) instead.
On May 12 2016 04:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Immortal change is probably the only change Blizzard has done on a test map which is a change that simply couldn't be predicted. Will the worth of the Immortal change? Will 100 still be virtually invulnerable or will it be too much of a nerf? Not a fan of the collosus buff. I'd rather they would reduce disruptor cooldown by 9.09% (equivalent to +10% attack speed) instead.
Completely agree with this and the dude above w/ making cyclones more massage footman type mech unit, that would be such an improvement on the design, lock on is pure shit.
On May 12 2016 04:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Immortal change is probably the only change Blizzard has done on a test map which is a change that simply couldn't be predicted. Will the worth of the Immortal change? Will 100 still be virtually invulnerable or will it be too much of a nerf?
What?
The immortal was at 100 damage absorbed for the first several weeks of the beta:
On May 12 2016 06:06 Solstice245 wrote: I am really confused with the attack speed specication on the Thor, are the numbers relative to faster or normal game speed?!
1 second is 1 second on competitive speed now. I think it should be real time.
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 theory behind the changes would work better if it wasn't so easy to hit 200/200 in this game.
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 theory behind the changes would work better if it wasn't so easy to hit 200/200 in this game.
Yeah, and it's thought that by higher supply you are deterred from massing that unit to much as it's not an efficient army. But my question then is, if that unit has a role(as it should), then by building it you decrease the size of the rest of the army, if that makes any sense.
So i'm not sold on the idea that supply it's THE thing to limit players from massing units. I'd rather have that limit come from the core function; like you don't want all Marines because they dies to AOE, or all Tanks because they don't shoot up, etc. But i guess when you have a unit like the Cyclone that shoots air and ground, it's fast and has high micro potential, what else are you left with? hmm
Like i said before, the problem with the Cyclone i think is that it doesn't have a clearly defined role and it's just the result of speed & micro thinking and little else (like synergy, composition, role)
On May 12 2016 04:31 PharaphobiaSC wrote: UPDATE: Guy with nickname: Niceusername put down all changes together in gifs for you!
There are updated in the post!
Thank you
Seeing only the gifs, I'd say the liberator nerf against armored air is too big. It's hard to balance though because due to the splash attack either all (or most) of the corruptors die or none (few) at all. Also the longer the corruptors survive, the faster the liberators are cleared. If other damage-dealers are added to the liberators (marines/thors) though, these will be able to clear the corruptors really fast then, so that is a nice interaction. (However, if corruptors are split nicely, libs now do pretty much no damage at all) Let's see this tested in proper battles and maybe also test changing the lib's damage to 5(+2 light), which would encourage splitting the corruptors atleast into two groups and would make for a better balance I think.
Why not let the Thor have 2 modes like it had in HOTS?
The current splash damage mode that can be used against Mutas and the new single damage mode with 35+15 damage that can be used against armoured air? That way Thors can be used against capital ships without being worthless against Mutas.
I see no downside to this since Thors will still have clear weakness like slow to produce, low mobility, easily swarmed by low supply units etc.
Or does this make too much sense so it cant be implemented?
Just redesign the SH unit, pretty please ?... I just hate everything that's in it, be it free units, cooldown, or even supply. Just remove that unit if you can't fucking find a way to make this unit "viable" or not "OP".
On May 11 2016 19:50 Turb0Sw4g wrote: Here's my idea on how to distribute the responsibilities/ roles of Cyclone, Thor and Liberator:
Cyclone Changes:
scrap AA and lock-on target
change ground-to-ground attack to instant, single target, medium damage point, high attackspeed (much like the Viking's attack once landed)
flag as non-armored, but not light, and give it 1 Armor
reduce cost to say 125/25 mineral/gas
make it reactorable.
Reasoning: If the cyclone is changed this way it'll become a staple, mass-producable unit for mech compositions. This was missing from mech as the hellions and hellbats have a more distinct role due to splash. It's not light and not-armored and as such has no definite hard counter. So, it's always a good choice to build this unit in ground fights. Potentially a very good mech choice against adepts too.
Thor Changes:
Give lock-on for AA (no auto-cast).
High single target damage vs armored air (as in the patch)
Reasoning: This gives the Thor a similar role to the Goliath (with Charon Booster upgrade) when used against Air. The lock-on damage should be very powerful vs armored enemy air units. The damage point should be high enough to force the targeted unit back (which might be very useful vs Brood Lords, Carriers, Tempests or Liberators not such much vs smaller air units however). The air splash role is handed over to the Liberator and will not get lost.
Liberator Changes:
+light on AA (as in patch).
Reasoning: Takes over the AA splash role of the Thor.
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.
Thanks, buddy!
On May 12 2016 01:48 JackONeill wrote: The only way to make the cyclone interesting and balanced is to remove the lock and make it a mech massable footman/damage dealer. This way mech could be, if this retarded tankivac was scraped, a balanced composition of cyclones, tanks, hellions, and SP/thor/WM support. Not a 400 turrets full tanks bullshit.
I was thinking the same thing! Check out my suggestion (shamelessly quoted in the spoiler below).
On May 11 2016 19:50 Turb0Sw4g wrote: Here's my idea on how to distribute the responsibilities/ roles of Cyclone, Thor and Liberator:
Cyclone Changes:
scrap G2A attack and lock-on target
change ground-to-ground attack to instant, single target, medium damage point, high attackspeed (much like the Viking's attack once landed)
flag as non-armored, but not light, and give it 1 Armor
reduce cost to say 125/25 mineral/gas
make it reactorable.
Reasoning: If the cyclone is changed this way it'll become a staple, mass-producable unit for mech compositions. This was missing from mech as the hellions and hellbats have a more distinct role due to splash. It's not light and not-armored and as such has no definite hard counter. So, it's always a good choice to build this unit in ground fights. Potentially a very good mech choice against adepts too.
Thor Changes:
Give lock-on for G2A attack (no auto-cast).
High single target damage vs armored air (as in the patch)
Reasoning: This gives the Thor a similar role to the Goliath (with Charon Booster upgrade) when used against Air. The lock-on damage should be very powerful vs armored enemy air units. The damage point should be high enough to force the targeted unit back (which might be very useful vs Brood Lords, Carriers, Tempests or Liberators not such much vs smaller air units however). The air splash role is handed over to the Liberator and will not get lost.
Liberator Changes:
+light on A2A attack (as in patch).
Reasoning: Takes over the A2A splash role of the Thor.
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.
^ The idea of introducing some type of "mech marauder" for the factory was already brought up a couple times during beta I think, probably instead of the "new" cyclone .
Don't want to burst your bubble but, while I do like it, I think it's fair to assume Blizz won't ever consider it because they already stated they want to make as few and small changes as possible. If it's just for the sake of theorycrafting then go ahead, I myself do it quite often too Moving the lock-on to the Thor, I like that as well.
On May 12 2016 22:48 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ The idea of introducing some type of "mech marauder" for the factory was already brought up a couple times during beta I think, probably instead of the "new" cyclone .
Don't want to burst your bubble but, while I do like it, I think it's fair to assume Blizz won't ever consider it because they already stated they want to make as few and small changes as possible. If it's just for the sake of theorycrafting then go ahead, I myself do it quite often too Moving the lock-on to the Thor, I like that as well.
Before release they actually stated they would continue doing major overhauls.
On May 12 2016 22:48 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ The idea of introducing some type of "mech marauder" for the factory was already brought up a couple times during beta I think, probably instead of the "new" cyclone .
Don't want to burst your bubble but, while I do like it, I think it's fair to assume Blizz won't ever consider it because they already stated they want to make as few and small changes as possible. If it's just for the sake of theorycrafting then go ahead, I myself do it quite often too Moving the lock-on to the Thor, I like that as well.
Before release they actually stated they would continue doing major overhauls.
Which was a complete lie. 5 months in, 1 terrible little patch.
On May 12 2016 19:03 MockHamill wrote: Why not let the Thor have 2 modes like it had in HOTS?
The current splash damage mode that can be used against Mutas and the new single damage mode with 35+15 damage that can be used against armoured air? That way Thors can be used against capital ships without being worthless against Mutas.
I see no downside to this since Thors will still have clear weakness like slow to produce, low mobility, easily swarmed by low supply units etc.
Or does this make too much sense so it cant be implemented?
Terran has enough muta solutions, besides Thor is too slow to be one. If Thor need any buff I think it would be better that they would be able to deal with Ultras, which is a real problem in the matchup, not the mutas
The changes on protoss and zerg don't seem to change a lot, but the liberator gets crushed now by corruptors. It feels like they are no option anymore vs. a zerg playing spire.
On May 13 2016 01:55 Zulu23 wrote: The changes on protoss and zerg don't seem to change a lot, but the liberator gets crushed now by corruptors. It feels like they are no option anymore vs. a zerg playing spire.
well, libs are still good against muta. the patch just stops the terran from massing liberators against everything. if the zerg opens up with mutas, its still reasonable to build like 4-5 liberators for AA. if the zerg goes for corruptor as a response, the terran has to go for vikings.. or marines.. or thors.. or etc..
On May 13 2016 01:55 Zulu23 wrote: The changes on protoss and zerg don't seem to change a lot, but the liberator gets crushed now by corruptors. It feels like they are no option anymore vs. a zerg playing spire.
well, libs are still good against muta. the patch just stops the terran from massing liberators against everything. if the zerg opens up with mutas, its still reasonable to build like 4-5 liberators for AA. if the zerg goes for corruptor as a response, the terran has to go for vikings.. or marines.. or thors.. or etc..
Or Ravens? Seeker Missile is still deadly against Corruptor flocks, sure top Koreans know how to have perfect micro against it but everyone definitely isn't them, so tech up Terrans, your late game units aren't as bad as you think!
...Okay we all know Battlecruisers are total shit T__T
TvZ: just open with roach ravager (strong enough for a lot anyway) turtle into mass corruptor lurker and tech to broodlord, ultralisk viper. GG TvZ will be even harder than before..
On May 13 2016 02:15 PinoKotsBeer wrote: TvZ: just open with roach ravager (strong enough for a lot anyway) turtle into mass corruptor lurker and tech to broodlord, ultralisk viper. GG TvZ will be even harder than before..
Anytime I see a Terran player try to turtle against Roach/Ravager and just sit there they get owned.
Anytime I see them start double prong dropping, unless the Zerg has stellar multitasking it usually looks pretty hilarious.
On May 13 2016 01:55 Zulu23 wrote: The changes on protoss and zerg don't seem to change a lot, but the liberator gets crushed now by corruptors. It feels like they are no option anymore vs. a zerg playing spire.
well, libs are still good against muta. the patch just stops the terran from massing liberators against everything. if the zerg opens up with mutas, its still reasonable to build like 4-5 liberators for AA. if the zerg goes for corruptor as a response, the terran has to go for vikings.. or marines.. or thors.. or etc..
Or Ravens? Seeker Missile is still deadly against Corruptor flocks, sure top Koreans know how to have perfect micro against it but everyone definitely isn't them, so tech up Terrans, your late game units aren't as bad as you think!
...Okay we all know Battlecruisers are total shit T__T
The seeker is more of a zoning spell that anything else. It's a way to say "if you enagage right now you're gonna die". So in HOTS it was OP because it was only 75 energy meaning 2,5 missiles per raven. Now it's 125 energy you waste just to deny an engage. You invest 100/200 to deny an engage for 5 seconds.
Parasitic bomb works in a different way (i'm anticipating the comparaison) because you're sure to deal at least 60 dmg.
However, the PDD is still good. And the new turret is pretty decent in some scenarii.
What bothers me the most is that lib nerf means that the ONLY different way for terran to play a matchup is dead. Now you're completely forced to play marine tankivacs TvT, bio tank (or maybe bio mine but it's kind of a gamble) => bio liberators in TvZ, and bio mine liberators in TvP. So much diversity wow it's amazing.
On May 13 2016 01:55 Zulu23 wrote: The changes on protoss and zerg don't seem to change a lot, but the liberator gets crushed now by corruptors. It feels like they are no option anymore vs. a zerg playing spire.
well, libs are still good against muta. the patch just stops the terran from massing liberators against everything. if the zerg opens up with mutas, its still reasonable to build like 4-5 liberators for AA. if the zerg goes for corruptor as a response, the terran has to go for vikings.. or marines.. or thors.. or etc..
Or Ravens? Seeker Missile is still deadly against Corruptor flocks, sure top Koreans know how to have perfect micro against it but everyone definitely isn't them, so tech up Terrans, your late game units aren't as bad as you think!
...Okay we all know Battlecruisers are total shit T__T
The seeker is more of a zoning spell that anything else. It's a way to say "if you enagage right now you're gonna die". So in HOTS it was OP because it was only 75 energy meaning 2,5 missiles per raven. Now it's 125 energy you waste just to deny an engage. You invest 100/200 to deny an engage for 5 seconds.
Parasitic bomb works in a different way (i'm anticipating the comparaison) because you're sure to deal at least 60 dmg.
However, the PDD is still good. And the new turret is pretty decent in some scenarii.
What bothers me the most is that lib nerf means that the ONLY different way for terran to play a matchup is dead. Now you're completely forced to play marine tankivacs TvT, bio tank (or maybe bio mine but it's kind of a gamble) => bio liberators in TvZ, and bio mine liberators in TvP. So much diversity wow it's amazing.
I'm still in favor of making cyclones more general purpose factory footmen so diversity could have a chance T_T
If David Kim worked for my company, I wouldn't just fire him. I'd bring in the lawyers to sue him for utter dereliction of duty over the last 6 months. ie I would be wanting the salary back because he can show absolutely zero output over this period (and, if judged by the consumers of his product would likely be told he'd managed to actually take his goods backwards over the period). Blizzard is ruining the greatest computer game in history and it makes me sick.
I simply cannot understand the majority of these changes. A cyclone is now the same supply as 2 ravens. Don't autoturrets do more damage that the cyclone? Fine to nerf Liberator but it is Terran's only solution to late game P & Z. What, pray, should a Terran build now? Thor nerf just reinforces Terran's inability to deal with air (following Lib nerf). All the changes make Mech even less viable. I agree with those who've commented above about forcing Terran to hit some small timing attack window before late game.
Diversity from a warhound-like unit is lack of a diversity as it will simply out compete everything else. Fast, tough, long range, good against all units types and powerful. Sounds a bit like liberator, and we all know how that turned out. There must be some drawbacks. The only thing I can think of is to make such a unit high tier, or to make it so it only have those characteristics through a series of upgrades or directly synergistic unit same way with marines and their ups and medivacs, only that marines are not good against everything that isn't splash anymore.
On May 13 2016 04:55 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Diversity from a warhound-like unit is lack of a diversity as it will simply out compete everything else. Fast, tough, long range, good against all units types and powerful. Sounds a bit like liberator, and we all know how that turned out. There must be some drawbacks. The only thing I can think of is to make such a unit high tier, or to make it so it only have those characteristics through a series of upgrades or directly synergistic unit same way with marines and their ups and medivacs, only that marines are not good against everything that isn't splash anymore.
Who's talking about a Warhound-like unit? The Warhound was terribly imbalanced. All upside; no downside. Check the stats (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Warhound):
Cost: 175 minerals, 75 gas, 2 supply, 45s build time
HP: 220
Armor: 1
DPS: 13.53 (almost as much as a stimmed marine)
The Cyclone should obviously not fall into the same trap. But, in its current state it simply doesn't have a role. Mech lacks a basic ground damage dealer. So, why not make the Cyclone the unit which fills that role?
On May 12 2016 22:48 Salteador Neo wrote: ^ The idea of introducing some type of "mech marauder" for the factory was already brought up a couple times during beta I think, probably instead of the "new" cyclone .
Don't want to burst your bubble but, while I do like it, I think it's fair to assume Blizz won't ever consider it because they already stated they want to make as few and small changes as possible. If it's just for the sake of theorycrafting then go ahead, I myself do it quite often too Moving the lock-on to the Thor, I like that as well.
Well, I guess we're here to drop some ideas and hope they are getting picked up at some point. At least partially or by spirit. I agree completely that most changes posted here are too fundamental to have a realistic chance of being adopted. I still want to see shield battery on the Nexus but it's probably never gonna happen. :D Still fun coming up with ideas for the game no matter what!
I've tried out the cyclone on the test and even tried it a few times on ladder to get a better gauge vs similar mmr players. I really want to justify it cause it is a pretty cool unit, but the thing is made of glass and just doesn't do anything well. The lock on mechanic is just too clunky and too easy for your opponent to force a break before it does any meaningful damage. I mean... It can kill a mothership core / queen out in the open...
I honestly can't justify it. I welcome the changes, but I still don't think I'll use more than 1 of the unit in TvT if at all. If I want a scout / harass unit, I'd just get a reaper and not delay my starport tech or upgrades.
Imo, just scrap the lock on ability all together, make it a 2-3 supply 125/25 or 125/50 reactor-able unit that can support the siege tank against units the hellion/bat is otherwise not good at.
Lock on could become an ability, a barrage of missiles that deals some area of effect damage? I saw something similar on the raven in starbow, thought it looked pretty cool.
EPT![[image loading]](http://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/blog_header/vv/VVKA6LVZUA0Y1448482273038.jpg)
! 
Moving the lock-on to the Thor, I like that as well.
