EPTOn August 15 2016 03:12 Solar424 wrote:
Nothing satisfies this man
Nothing satisfies this man
So I guess he's choosing to ignore the impact, of the Cyclone and Siege Tank changes, on how good Ultralisks are.
LotV Design Changes announced - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
So I guess he's choosing to ignore the impact, of the Cyclone and Siege Tank changes, on how good Ultralisks are. | ||
|
Athenau
571 Posts
On August 15 2016 03:05 jinjin5000 wrote: 1.it provides map control but at an expensive cost. It's still gonna be 150/100 with low range missile attack that does 40dps+40dps (same as lock on). It has increased range but loses its ability to hold against air (160 damage vs 14 second isn't that great) or deny early air 2.Thor does hit air units now but it's not great vs anything not named "less than ~10 broodlords". It does not trade at all vs carriers if you ever played mech vs skytoss 3.it's more of map control thing but not that great tbh. 1. Old lock-on was 57 dps with a cooldown. New auto-attack is 71 dps all the time against armored units with 1 base armor (pretty much all of them). HP is now 180 instead of 120. Supply is now 3 vs 4. Can be reactored. I'm not sure what you're expecting, these stats are extremely strong vs for cost and supply, and if anything I expect the HP to get nerfed back down to 120 by release along with re-adding the tech lab requirement. 2. Carriers lost release interceptors. I'm not at all convinced that carriers will be an intractable problem, and in any case, we shouldn't balance the game around one, most likely rare interaction. 3. See point #1. It's baffling to me that you're complaining about the factory receiving what's essentially a super-marauder, but ok. | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5531 Posts
| ||
|
Lakoria
8 Posts
cyclone build on TvP will most probably become standard play just sniping pylons like melted cheese which will make protoss players to be more strategic in placing pylons instead of placing it in the middle of nowhere.. Have speed banshee upgrade to armory since early game harrass with early banshees are going to be ridiculous... make it a high risk high reward in the early game and making skyterran viable with easier transitioning late game.. Reducing auto-turrets on ravens a tiny bit since they can just 2 shot workers Battlecruisers nowhere to be found... | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
With the cost reduced to 5, it'll just be 20 more minerals to fill up the Carrier right after being built and 40 for the full complement of 8 interceptors. That should ease the resource drain. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On August 15 2016 03:12 Solar424 wrote: Nothing satisfies this man Not shocked. I am glad that he's not a balance designer.. If he was, Terran would be the most OP race ever and if he ever lost, he would fix it lmao. | ||
|
SNSeigifried
United States1640 Posts
TLO also agrees that protoss is pretty fucked with their current planned design layout :D | ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
| ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1495 Posts
On August 15 2016 03:22 Athenau wrote: 1. Old lock-on was 57 dps with a cooldown. New auto-attack is 71 dps all the time against armored units with 1 base armor (pretty much all of them). HP is now 180 instead of 120. Supply is now 3 vs 4. Can be reactored. I'm not sure what you're expecting, these stats are extremely strong vs for cost and supply, and if anything I expect the HP to get nerfed back down to 120 by release along with re-adding the tech lab requirement. 2. Carriers lost release interceptors. I'm not at all convinced that carriers will be an intractable problem, and in any case, we shouldn't balance the game around one, most likely rare interaction. 3. See point #1. It's baffling to me that you're complaining about the factory receiving what's essentially a super-marauder, but ok. oh yea that was my bad on my part on the 57dps. You are correct on that one. But main issue remains- mech has plenty of anti-armor on ground, and is missing heck a lot of anti air in return. My belief was that cyclone should have anti air role instead of the current anti ground role- Saying vultures covered anti ground isn't really true since it didn't do that much vs medium/large units. Comparable to hellion really. It took hella long time to kill a building or larger units | ||
|
Skyro
United States1823 Posts
| ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
On August 15 2016 03:32 SNSeigifried wrote: Beastyqt seems to agree that terran will be OP. TLO also agrees that protoss is pretty fucked with their current planned design layout :D https://twitter.com/Beastycutie/status/764885488507445248 https://twitter.com/LiquidTLO/status/764863575689138176 TBF, these are more design directions rather then exact numbers. Time for TLO to go back to the light and return to Terran. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
On August 15 2016 03:36 Thouhastmail wrote: Yup. Toss has no counter against BC; Tempest now costs 6 supplies and Void cannot hold Yamato. Yeah a 400/300 capital ship won't be completely worthless now. Truly broken. | ||
|
xyzz
567 Posts
Yet, Ultralisks and Vipers are untouched despite having obvious balance problems. Protoss is just completely shafted by these changes. They need the old Immortal shield to counter balance the new retard power tanks. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16062 Posts
On August 15 2016 03:38 jinjin5000 wrote: oh yea that was my bad on my part on the 57dps. You are correct on that one. But main issue remains- mech has plenty of anti-armor on ground, and is missing heck a lot of anti air in return. My belief was that cyclone should have anti air role instead of the current anti ground role- Saying vultures covered anti ground isn't really true since it didn't do that much vs medium/large units. Comparable to hellion really. It took hella long time to kill a building or larger units yeah I don't really see the point in the new cyclone. seems like warhound 3.0. | ||
|
nichan
United States158 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
However, I question how they plan to differentiate Liberators and Siege Tanks. Seems like both units will do the exact same thing. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
Elentos
55570 Posts
On August 15 2016 03:48 Hider wrote: It's very good they are adressing ground anti-air vs air units. However, I question how they plan to differentiate Liberators and Siege Tanks. Seems like both units will do the exact same thing. Tanks have splash on the ground, that's probably the biggest deal. | ||
|
jahnesta
France62 Posts
| ||
| ||
