| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
Tanks - Will greatly increase frustration levels especially in TvT which will be even more tilted toward mass tanks and vikings. Turtle and contains will be too strong. DT blink - Stalkers have blink, copying it to DTs is lazy. Infestors - Deep tunnel and casting fungal while burrowed is a weird mechanic, and despite having collision they will be difficult to target. The other changes are fine. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 15 2016 16:53 Pandemona wrote: 71 second cooldown for teleport and yamato cooldown seem ermm very long. Obviously there is math behind that but still that is a long time! Energy regeneration takes place at 0.7875 e/s. The average energy cost of tactical jump and yamato cannon is 112.5. So on average you can use one of them every 142.xx seconds. 71 is half of 142, meaning that you can use the abilities twice (four times if you use both) as often as before, which might be the intention. Of course that's not taking into account energy build up and energy caps which complicates the calculation. Obviously this is nonsensical speculation, but I thought it was funny. :p | ||
|
Parcelleus
Australia1662 Posts
haha Best joke I heard all year. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On August 15 2016 17:11 paralleluniverse wrote: The following changes are bad design: Tanks - Will greatly increase frustration levels especially in TvT which will be even more tilted toward mass tanks and vikings. Turtle and contains will be too strong. DT blink - Stalkers have blink, copying it to DTs is lazy. Infestors - Deep tunnel and casting fungal while burrowed is a weird mechanic, and despite having collision they will be difficult to target. The other changes are fine. 1) Stronger tanks MIGHT lead to more turtling. They might also lead to more safe aggressive play since it is easier to defend at home. 2) Copying is indeed lazy, but that doesn't make it bad. 3) Why would they be any more difficult to target than any other cloaked unit? Infestors are biiig. | ||
|
JoeCool
Germany2520 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 15 2016 02:26 Saechiis wrote: Am I the only one who thinks it's funny that they're basically resetting tanks to their beta state? Must say this is a breath of fresh air though Moreover, I consider that siege tanks must be buffed (to echo the phrase) is something that half of the community has been saying since ancient times. Blizzard recently has taken to trying to give the community what they want, so it's not a surprise that given breathing room David Kim will elect to move it in that direction. It used to be the case that they would rarely revert changes or radically rework units, but that was under Dustin Browder's leadership, David Kim has been more willing to. Revert siege tank pick-up, which is a recent yet unpopular innovation, exploit the gradual power creep the game has suffered from and compensate the siege tank by the only means available: a strong damage increase, which coincidentally is in line with community requests. By the way, the WoL beta tank was still quite different. It progressed from 60, to 50, to 35(+15) damage. The new suggestion is for 40(+30) damage. Even if you could theorize that there is more similarity because of a spiritual connection to Brood War it should be kept in mind that Blizzard didn't lower the tank damage because of some conceptual decision to move away from Brood War but because of the environment at the time (rush maps, a general concern with strong area of effect damage, lower playing skill resulting in more camping). The more pressing question is not whether Blizzard should have left the siege tank alone back then in order to force players to adjust, which is somewhat pedantic, but to ask why Blizzard didn't take another look at the siege tank when starting with Heart of the Swarm. By the way, there are more fundamental reasons why even the LotV2.0 siege tank will likely not live up to expectations and that's because of the increased speed and dynamism of the units that lets them easily exploit the immobile siege tank. At the same time, tanks have more potential in SC2 than in BW because of the removal of overkill and the new pathfinding. Powerful tanks will be unstoppable in decent numbers, instantly killing every army that by accident walks into them, unlike Brood War where only the first layer of units would absorb most of the damage. That's not merely a question of balance but also of comfort level for players, it might be that because tanks are beloved units their little problems can be easily forgiven, but it might also lead to annoyance with tanks. It also depends on how easily one can exploit tanks' immobility with tactics, or with spells like blinding cloud. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20319 Posts
The more pressing question is not whether Blizzard should have left the siege tank alone back then in order to force players to adjust, which is somewhat pedantic, but to ask why Blizzard didn't take another look at the siege tank when starting with Heart of the Swarm. They actually did. They adjusted some stuff like removing the research on seige mode, but the widow mine (new child of HOTS) quickly took over through balance changes as being "the thing" to support bio. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
Why not lurker with 13 range +30 vs armor and no upgrade to lurker den required if positionnal play if so good ! Creating a no man's land of 13 range around the unit isn't good for the game. The unit comes way earlier than its counter. And while 70 dmg is already OP they nerf ravager so it will take 70 dmg /shot or decrease broodlords range for no reason. And bio still OP as before with larvas nerf. Sadly a make terran op patch cause they give way more to T than they give to Z/P. | ||
|
Asturas
Finland587 Posts
Secondly, I am not a big fan of OP units. I understand that this kind of design implies that OP units are countered by other OP units, but I simply don't enjoy this kind of solutions. Of course, this is just my initial thought. I hope that I am all wrong and this SC2.5 will be really fun to play  | ||
|
MiCroLiFe
Norway274 Posts
On August 15 2016 17:56 Tyrhanius wrote: 70 dmg tank ? And players say it's good for the game ? Why not lurker with 13 range +30 vs armor and no upgrade to lurker den required if positionnal play if so good ! Creating a no man's land of 13 range around the unit isn't good for the game. The unit comes way earlier than its counter. And while 70 dmg is already OP they nerf ravager so it will take 70 dmg /shot or decrease broodlords range for no reason. And bio still OP as before with larvas nerf. Sadly a make terran op patch cause they give way more to T than they give to Z/P. about time terran got a patch  zerg been 2 stronk in lotv | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
| ||
|
seemsgood
5527 Posts
But new DT is kinda weird tho. | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
I'd rather they do radical changes, find out X and Y are a bit OP and bring them back into line as opposed to never doing changes at all or doing very minor ones. At the very least we could probably learn a lot from such changes since we'll actually get a chance to try out 70 damage tanks. Maybe it IS hugely OP, but how can we really know that for sure without trying it out? As said, I'd rather that they give tanks 70 damage now and then later reduce it to 60 damage if 70 turned out to be OP, rather than giving them a minor change like +5 damage vs armored only and never looking at the tank again afterwards. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On August 15 2016 17:51 Cyro wrote: They actually did. They adjusted some stuff like removing the research on seige mode, but the widow mine (new child of HOTS) quickly took over through balance changes as being "the thing" to support bio. Myeah, but it wasn't really a serious attempt and they had been removing other upgrades around that time. The small attack speed increase was mostly for show too. But it's true that the widow mine seemed a superior alternative better suited to SC2's quick pace and the demands of bio armies. The game is actually full of units that have been overshadowed by their younger, more attractive cousins. It's not at all obvious what should be done with them (send them to a farm upstate?). | ||
|
WhosQuany
Germany257 Posts
The other Terran changes we will have to see. Dont like the fact the Stalkers get rekt by Cyclones...so now we need Immortal to fight cyclones slow ass Immortal? and Imagine if they get the faster banshees with Cyclones and Tanks Cyclone < Stalker (no more AA) Banshee < Protoss army gg`s (oh yeah landed Vikings < Stalkers too) But i still I hope we will see a Terran Mech Army Turteling with mass Siege Tanks, Turrets (and i guess Thors & Cyclones???) slow pushing the map. (Like BW) so you never know if the Terran is going Mech or Bio without scouting Don't like Battlecruiser change no more Feedback or EMP? Strong buff they way i see it Raven change is ok i think The Protoss changes are so lame really just lame TEMPEST CHANGE: PLS Just REMOVE the TEMPEST and make other Stargate units viable again (yes too Carrier change) Tempest are too expensive and now they have to get in a Tanks face? or a Thors face? and now Tempest can`t even Counter LURKER anymore cause they have to get in their face? Disruption Sphere: lol? PSI STORM from a Tempest? no thanks Trash the Tempest even though this could counter LURKER play VOIDRAYS: Give us back our Speed Voids FLUX VANES Upgrade wiki.teamliquid.net Zealot: yeah Zealot speed finally "Hell, its about damn time" Dark Templar: Don't know about giving them "Blink" doesn't feel right How about not having a Dark Shrine for the requirement of Dark Templar Remove Dark Shrine like in BW Dark Templar can be built from Templar Archives this way an you never now if a Protoss is going Storm or getting Dark Templar or both #Zerglife Ravager: Think is ok (due to Hydra Bane buff) Swarm Host: I think this is like the Tempest JUST TRASH IT Hydralisk: kinda like the zealot change: "Hell, its about damn time" Baneling: tbh i never really liked the Baneling - building a unit that self destructs is just not my Style but the Change seems fine Infestor: I Like it having burrowed Spell Caster is awesome! Broodlord: Logical Cant wait to try these things! | ||
|
Gen.Rolly
United States200 Posts
[B] Zerg changes are kind of bleh but I play Zerg and we're getting mostly nerfs or minor changes so whatever. The Hydralisk changes looks totally phenomenal, Hydralisks are total crap against units that they should be strong against, all of the crying Protoss players need only see that almost every unit in the Protoss arsenal shits on Hydralisks and they will realize they are just being race biased. Zealots, Adepts (omg), Archons, Carriers, Phoenix (rofl), Colossus, High Templar, if it wasn't that they turned into Lurkers nobody would even build Hydralisks in ZvP and already nobody builds them in ZvT, the unit needed and deserved a buff. You forgot Immortals, Blink Stalkers, and Disruptors also shit on Hydralisks. | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
I used to the think the Reaper suffered from this vs Zealots but with the Cyclones firing so fast for only 3 damage (6 vs armored), it's going to be interesting times when you get behind or ahead in upgrades. I wonder if rushing to +2 attack on the armory to get fast 5 damage Cyclones could be a thing. | ||
|
Isualin
Germany1903 Posts
On August 15 2016 18:21 WhosQuany wrote: Disruption Sphere: lol? PSI STORM from a Tempest? no thanks Trash the Tempest even though this could counter LURKER play I think this ability could be utilized really well. 13 cast range, 14 dps for 32 seconds and 43 second cooldown(~75% uptime) | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
6 years too late, but it's finally here! Now, if only they'd reduce it to 2 supply. On the other hand, I've played way more Broodwar than SC2 for some reason this year . | ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
On August 15 2016 18:22 Gen.Rolly wrote: You forgot Immortals, Blink Stalkers, and Disruptors also shit on Hydralisks. Stalkers are absolutely destroyed by Hydras for cost. Blink Stalkers can be great if the micro and positioning is spot on and you aren't expecting them. As a core part of an army, they are pretty bad vs Hydras. Immortals also lose to Hydras for cost, so not sure what you are talking about there either . | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
The PondCast
LAN Event
Replay Cast
OSC
LAN Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV Korean Royale
LAN Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
