StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void brought with it the most significant overhaul to Multiplayer we’ve seen in StarCraft II’s history. With this overhaul came many improvements; additional depth for those looking to master the game, and games now play out in incredibly unique ways regardless of what may happen in the first few minutes.
Nevertheless, we believe we can make StarCraft II an even more enjoyable and competitive game experience and would like to explore a series of major changes to bring about these improvements. We intend for these changes to receive significantly more testing than the ‘Test Maps’ which we’ve done in the past, both because of the significance of the changes themselves, and also due to improvements we are making which we will discuss in greater detail below.
In order to provide ample time for a comprehensive period of testing, feedback, and revision, we would like to release these changes at the conclusion of this year’s tournament season in November. In the sections below, we’ve outlined the changes we are excited to explore in detail and provided the motivating factors behind them.
For Terran, our primary focus is on improving the viability of Factory unit armies—popularly known as ‘Mech’ compositions. While the resource changes in Legacy of the Void have been working great overall, they did have a unique effect on the effectiveness of Mech play. Outside of very specific maps (such as Dusk Towers) it has been challenging for players to go Mech due to the difficulty in securing additional expansions. Because the resource changes have had such positive effects outside of Mech play, we wanted to make some changes to Mech to improve it across the different types of StarCraft II maps.
The Cyclone
We are planning to explore a complete redesign of the Cyclone to make it a core unit with a powerful anti-armored attack against ground units. The unit will remain fragile for its cost, but will have a fast movement speed. This way, the Cyclone can combo well with the Hellion early-on in order to defend additional bases or to keep the opponent contained while playing a more aggressive style.
Design Changes:
Anti-ground weapon heavily changed. Damage changed to 3 (+3 vs armored) damage, attacks once per .07 seconds, range increased from 5 to 6. Weapon upgrade amount changed from 2 to 1 to account for the new damage value. Changed weapon name to Tornado Blaster. No Anti-air weapon. Movement speed decreased from 4.72 to 4.13 Lock On can now target air units only. Range is unchanged, and the ability now deals 160 damage over 14 seconds. Removed auto-cast for the Lock On ability. Supply cost decreased from 4 to 3. Increased health from 120 to 180. No longer requires a tech lab to build. The Cyclone can now be built with a reactor. The Cyclone auto-attack missile art is now smaller to avoid causing visual clutter. The missiles fired from the Lock-on ability are unchanged. Removed the Cyclone Lock On Damage upgrade from the Factory Tech Lab. Before and After:
The Siege Tank
This iconic unit is a critical part of the Mech composition. After numerous discussions with players, a key understanding has surfaced: the added mobility granted by Medivac pickup in Legacy of the Void also brought about the loss of one of the Siege Tank’s most enjoyable aspects: incredibly effective area control. Yet, constructing Medivacs (a unit which heals only biological units) is often not the right choice for Mech players, and so these players are not able to take full advantage of the Siege Tank’s strengths.
However, if we decrease the mobility of Siege Tanks by removing Medivac pickup, we can justify a large increase to its damage and reinvigorate the Siege Tank’s ability to assert dominance over specific areas of the map. Doing so will also decrease the unit’s overlap with the Widow Mine, which serves as a more mobile burst damage option (similar to the current Siege Tank with Medivac pickup).
Siege Tank Changes:
Sieged Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (+15 vs armored) to 40 (+30 vs armored). Sieged Siege Tanks can no longer be picked up by Medivacs. 35 (+15 vs armored) damage versus 40 (+30 vs armored) damage:
The Liberator and the Thor
Since it’s addition to the game, the Liberator has seen much use. We hear and agree with the feedback stating that they are currently too strong “all-around.” Therefore, we wanted to remove the +light damage on their Anti-air attack so that they still serve as the early game anti-ground harassment option as well as late game zone control option, but they will require a greater commitment to be effective against large numbers of smaller air units.
To compensate for this change, we would like to focus on amplifying the Anti-air capabilities of the Thor. We’d like to explore increasing the splash radius on their splash damage Javelin Missiles, and we’re also experimenting with changes to the Tempest and Brood Lord to make the Thor a more capable counter to these units.
Liberator Change:
Remove the +light damage for the Anti-air attack. Thor Change:
Anti-air splash for the Javelin Missile Launchers radius increased from 0.5 to 0.6. Thor High Impact Payload Mode: The Anti-air weapon, 250mm Punisher Cannons, will now be prioritized before the Anti-ground weapon, Thor's Hammer. Before and After:
0.5 Splash Radius vs 0.6 Splash Radius:
The Banshee
Banshees are a unit we’d like to bring into the spotlight. To do this, we’d like to first test having no requirement for the Banshee speed upgrade. We know that Banshees may end up being too strong with this change, and if that happens we can lower the amount of speed the upgrade grants. Our goal is to give just the right amount of speed buff so that Banshees are used more often than now, and to make their relationship with their counters less one-sided.
Banshee Change:
Removed the Fusion Core requirement for the Hyperflight Rotors upgrade. The Viking
We want to make the Viking’s ability to transform a situationally useful thing, but we definitely don’t want players to build Vikings for the ground mode when there are no air threats in the game. This change should help achieve that.
Viking Change:
Ground mode auto-attack now deals +8 mechanical damage. No Bonus vs (+8 vs Mechanical) Bonus:
The Battlecruiser
Changing the Battlecruiser’s abilities to be on separate cooldowns rather than relying on energy opens up the Battlecruiser for more strategic plays. Using these abilities at the right times will make all the difference between playing better or worse with the unit and we hope that it brings the Battlecruiser more into favor.
Battlecruiser Changes:
Energy bar removed. Yamato Cannon and Tactical Jump no longer require energy to cast. Instead, each has a separate cooldown. Yamato Cannon cooldown is 71 seconds. Tactiucal Jump Cooldown is 71 seconds. Removed the Behemoth Reactor upgrade (energy upgrade). The Raven
We’d like to bring the Raven more into favor while not enabling the unit to cause stalemate games again. Since Terran has so many worker harassment options already, we wanted to increase the strength of the Raven in battles. Due to the short duration, low health, and immobility of auto-turrets, an increase to their damage should give Ravens a bit more firepower in combat, while not adding too much to their ability to harass worker lines.
Raven Change:
Auto Turret damage increased from 16 to 24. 16 Damage vs 24 damage Auto Turrets:
Protoss has seen significant changes and improvements in Legacy of the Void, and with this update we have a few things we want to improve even further. For one, we’re aiming to make the race’s interactions with Terran Mech more interesting. We’d also like to increase the power of the Zealot in certain areas compared to Adepts or Stalkers, and also make some generally cool unit improvements.
The Tempest
In Legacy of the Void, we made changes to the Immortal and other units to make Mech a more viable route for Terrans facing off versus Protoss players. However, it quickly became apparent that late-game Terran Mech really struggled versus Tempests. Due to the Tempest’s incredible siege range against ground and air units, and the unit’s efficient supply to cost ratio, massing Tempests was an easy answer against Terran Mech.
In response, we’d like to increase the supply of the unit to better match the cost and effectiveness of the unit, as well as reduce the range of its anti-ground attack. These two nerfs are counterbalanced by a new ability which aims to create interesting interactions against Siege Tank lines.
Due to the drastically increased effectiveness of the Siege Tank, we’ve added a new ability for the Tempest called ‘Disruption Sphere’. This ability launches a ball at the ground that acts a zoning tool, forcing units (especially Siege Tanks) in that location to pack up and move elsewhere. We hope to see some diverse gameplay around this interaction based on the positioning and the composition of each side’s armies.
Tempest Changes:
Increase supply count from 4 to 6. Anti-ground damage increased from 30 to 35, but no change to Anti-air damage. Anti-ground weapon range from 15 to 6. New ability: Disruption Sphere Immediately launches ball of energy and fires at target ground. Damages ground units and buildings in that location Deals 450 damage over a 32 second duration. 43 second cooldown. Area of Effect radius set to 1.95. 13 cast range. No friendly fire damage. Before and After:
Control the Battlefield with 'Disruption Sphere':
The Zealot
In Legacy of the Void, Adepts and Stalkers have become the favored core gateway units. We’d like to increase Zealot movement speed with the Charge upgrade researched. This would aim to significantly improve its performance versus kiting units, such as Terran bio or the new Hydralisks on Creep. This change could allow the Zealot to sometimes be a core option, whereas in certain situations, such as when Lurkers are involved, the relationship can change back to favoring Adepts or Stalkers. Also for warp-in harassment cases, this change could often make it situationally appropriate to warp in Zealots over Adepts.
Zealot Change:
The "Research Charge" upgrade will now increase the Zealot's movement speed from 3.85 to 4.13. The Carrier
For the Carrier, we believe the addition of the “Release Interceptors” ability had a negative effect on the game. In most cases, this ability became a test of simply clicking the ability before the Carrier dies. Therefore, we would like to go in a different direction by making Interceptors cheaper, thereby making the role of the Carrier clearer while also giving the unit a significant buff.
If Interceptors are cheaper, players will need to focus more on targeting down the Carriers than they do currently. This change, in combination with changes we previously made to Carrier/Interceptor controls (to behave more like they did in Brood War), should enable advanced Carrier micro and allow for the unit to perform in a way that reflects the skill of the controlling player.
Carrier Changes:
Remove the Release Interceptor ability. Interceptor cost reduced from 25 minerals to 5 minerals, and autobuild is enabled from the start. The Dark Templar
We first want to mention that this is a highly experimental change, and we admittedly have a low degree of confidence of it making it into the live game. We also want to point out that we clearly don’t want to buff Dark Templars at the stage which they first enter the game, so we’re introducing an upgrade that will come into play after a Dark Templar Shrine has been completed for some time.
With that said, we’d like to add an ability with the goal of seeing if player skill using Dark Templars can be emphasized, even after the point when detection becomes more widely available.
Dark Templar Change:
New Ability: Shadow Stride
Allows the Dark Templar to teleport a short distance. Research from Dark Shrine. 150/150 cost. 121 research time. Cooldown of 21 seconds. Creates a visible smoke-effect upon being cast. Shadow Stride in Action:
Zerg has had numerous new strategies since the launch of Legacy of the Void, yet there are definitely areas of potential improvement available. We want to take this opportunity to experiment with a heavy rebalance of the Swarm Host, a redesign on the Infestor and its abilities, and a rebalancing of the strength of different Zerg tech paths. This means there are changes to units in different tech options, as well as an adjustment to the Ravager that feels necessary, especially given the changes that we intend to make to the Siege Tank.
The Swarm Host
The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this. The next few months give us an opportunity to test whether the role is indeed good, so we would like to significantly reduce the cost of the unit so that players are incentivized to use it. Depending on the results of this test, we can determine how to best make further moves accordingly.
Swarm Host Change:
Swarm Host cost reduced from 150/100 to 100/75. Increased Locust Swoop range from 4 to 6. The Ravager
With the addition of the Ravager in Legacy of the Void, Roach-Ravager compositions became used quite heavily across multiple matchups. To achieve better diversity, we want to take a pass at three units: the Ravager, Hydralisk, and Baneling. For the Ravager, we want to add an armored flag to the unit. While this change is a response to the Siege Tank changes, it will also have a massive effect in Zerg versus Protoss. In order to compensate, we’d like to add additional tech options by making a couple changes to the Hydralisk.
Ravager Change:
Add +Armored flag. Non-Armored vs Armored Ravagers:
The Hydralisk
We have two changes in mind for the Hydralisk, and both are aimed at making the Hydralisk a core unit in the Zerg arsenal. First, we’d like to change how the speed upgrade works so that Hydralisks behave the same way as other Zerg units on and off Creep. This change would be accompanied by enabling Evolve Muscular Augments to buff the overall movement speed of Hydralisks (instead of just their speed off Creep).
A second area of change to the Hydralisk is a bit more of an experiment, but we wonder if Hydralisks could be more of a core unit if their range is increased by 1. We’ll watch these changes carefully however, as the first change alone might already make Hydralisks a core option (especially if Zerg players spread Creep well), so we’ll need to test these changes thoroughly to ensure we make the best decision for this unit.
Hydralisk Changes:
Hydralisk attack range increased from 5 to 6. The "Evolve Muscular Augments" will continue to give +1 range to the Hydralisk, as well as a base movement speed bonus of 25%. Changed the Hydralisk movement speed to be affected the same as other units while on Creep. Muscular Augments now gives a 25% speed boost both on and off of Creep. Before and After:
The Baneling
The Baneling is the third core unit we want to address. In order to incentivize players to opt for this tech option, we want to make Banelings stronger without seriously impacting how players should micro when splitting against them. Increasing the health of the unit felt like a solid option that hits both of our goals.
Baneling Change
Health increased from 30 to 40. 30HP vs 40HP Banelings:
The Infestor
The Infestor deserves some love, and we’ve seen this sentiment echoed by our players. With that in mind, we have some more experimental changes to test on this front (similar to the Dark Templar ‘Shadow Stride’ changes). These changes certainly push the boundaries, but we’re curious to see if something more extreme would be cool for the Infestor.
We’d like to explore adding a new ability, ‘Deep Tunnel,’ that allows Infestors to tunnel to anywhere which they have vision for an energy cost. Second, we’d like to allow Infestors to cast all spells while burrowed. To make the unit easier to find and target, we’ve also added a small collision radius to the Infestor that exists even while its burrowed so that players can more easily target the unit with attacks or spells (like Feedback).
Infestor Changes
Has a collision radius while burrowed (but smaller than normal). Can cast all abilities while burrowed. New Ability: Deep Tunnel 50 mana cost. Can cast anywhere on the map with vision. Provides an audible warning to the enemy when Deep Tunnel begins. The Brood Lord
With the changes to Terran, we want to ensure that the Thor has the potential to help counter the Brood Lords. Therefore, we’ve reduced the Brood Lord’s range to match the Thor's Anti-air attack range.
Range reduced from to 11 to 10. Remember, this is an early preview and things may look considerably different once the changes go live following the November tournament season. That being said, we’re very excited about the potential these changes have for improving the StarCraft II Multiplayer experience. Look forward to the first balance test map being released this week, and please let us know what you think in the comments below!
During the WCS Summer Circuit Championship in Montreal, David Kim teased several major balance changes we had been testing earlier. These changes are now live and ready to be tested. Check out the full changes below and after you've had some time to test them, let us know what you think. For an in-depth look into the reasoning behind these changes, check out our comprehenvisve blog.
Cyclone Anti-ground weapon heavily changed. Damage changed to 3 (+3 vs armored) damage, attacks once per .07 seconds, range increased from 5 to 6. Weapon upgrade amount changed from 2 to 1 to account for the new damage value. Changed weapon name to Tornado Blaster. No Anti-air weapon. Movement speed decreased from 4.72 to 4.13 Lock On can now target air units only. Range is unchanged, and the ability now deals 160 damage over 14 seconds. Removed auto-cast for the Lock On ability. Supply cost decreased from 4 to 3. Increased health from 120 to 180. No longer requires a tech lab to build. The Cyclone can now be built with a reactor. The Cyclone auto-attack missile art is now smaller to avoid causing visual clutter. The missiles fired from the Lock-on ability are unchanged. Removed the Cyclone Lock On Damage upgrade from the Factory Tech Lab. Siege Tank Sieged Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (+15 vs armored) to 40 (+30 vs armored). Sieged Siege Tanks can no longer be picked up by Medivacs. Liberator Remove the +light damage for the Anti-air attack. Thor Anti-air splash for the Javelin Missile Launchers radius increased from 0.5 to 0.6. Thor High Impact Payload Mode: The Anti-air weapon, 250mm Punisher Cannons, will now be prioritized before the Anti-ground weapon, Thor's Hammer. Banshee Removed the Fusion Core requirement for the Hyperflight Rotors upgrade. Viking Ground mode auto-attack now deals +8 mechanical damage. Battlecruiser Energy bar removed. Yamato Cannon and Tactical Jump no longer require energy to cast. Instead, each has a separate cooldown. Yamato Cannon cooldown is 71 seconds. Tactical Jump Cooldown is 71 seconds. Removed the Behemoth Reactor upgrade (energy upgrade). Raven Auto Turret damage increased from 16 to 24.
Tempest Increase supply count from 4 to 6. Anti-ground damage increased from 30 to 35, but no change to Anti-air damage. Anti-ground weapon range from 15 to 6. New ability: Disruption Sphere Immediately launches ball of energy and fires at target ground. Damages ground units and buildings in that location Deals 450 damage over a 32 second duration. 43 second cooldown. Area of Effect radius set to 1.95. 13 cast range. No friendly fire damage. Zealot The "Research Charge" upgrade will now increase the Zealot's movement speed from 3.85 to 4.13. Carrier Remove the Release Interceptor ability. Interceptor cost reduced from 25 minerals to 5 minerals, and autobuild is enabled from the start. Dark Templar New Ability: Shadow Stride Allows the Dark Templar to teleport a short distance. Cooldown of 21 seconds. Creates a visible smoke-effect upon being cast. Research from Dark Shrine. 150/150 cost. 121 research time.
Swarm Host Swarm Host cost reduced from 150/100 to 100/75. Increased Locust Swoop range from 4 to 6. Ravager Add +Armored flag. Hydralisk Hydralisk attack range increased from 5 to 6. The "Evolve Muscular Augments" will continue to give +1 range to the Hydralisk, as well as a base movement speed bonus of 25%. Changed the Hydralisk movement speed to be affected the same as other units while on Creep. Muscular Augments now gives a 25% speed boost both on and off of Creep. Baneling Health increased from 30 to 40. Infestor Has a collision radius while burrowed (but smaller than normal). Can cast all abilities while burrowed. New Ability: Deep Tunnel 50 mana cost. Can cast anywhere on the map with vision. Provides an audible warning to the enemy when Deep Tunnel begins. Brood Lord Range reduced from to 11 to 10. We encourage you to head on into the Balance Test Map to test these changes out! If you already have StarCraft II installed and updated, you can launch it here.
Otherwise, enter the Multiplayer section and navigate to Custom. The Balance Test Map will be at the top of the list under ‘Top Played.’ We’ve also updated the Extension Mod for balance testing, so you can play around with these changes on a variety of maps. Those of you interested in trying out the Extension Mod can do the following to get started: Navigate to Browse Maps on the Custom Games menu Select a map and click the Create with Mod button in the lower right corner Choose to sort by Blizzard Mods from the dropdown list at the top of the screen Select the “Balance Test Mod” Extension from the list and then hit Create Game We’d like to remind you that feedback based on playtesting is the most helpful information you can share with us at this time. We kindly ask that you spend some time playing games on the test map before offering your thoughts on the changes listed above. We look forward to hearing your feedback and please remember that none of these changes are final.
So Warp Prism, Adept and Oracle are fine as they are? Also I find it pretty funny that David Kim thinks that Tanks are going to help against Adepts. I mean, did he forget Adept's ability?
should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
I don't even care if none of these changes get put in: the fact that they are even being considered shows that David Kim has no idea what he is doing. How he has not been replaced yet is one of the great mysteries of the universe.
I just want to say blink dt's are not nearly as bad as they sound because you have to get the dark shrine, THEN research blink for 2 minutes on the dark shrine(not twilight council) in an upgrade separate from stalkers. On top of that, you can see where the dt's blink because of the smoke effect so they're not impossible to follow.
But the idea of "blink dts'" is really funny, heheh.
Changes for terran are superb. Changes for protoss are meh. Changes for zerg are terrible.
Every single change to terran makes sense and is good. Protoss changes are derpy, DT blink is plain dumb, tempest spell will be stupid (i can assure it), zealots changes are kinda ok, carriers too. Zerg changes are horrible. Straight hydra buff will probably break ZvP. SH change is just stupid. Infestor change too, deeptunnel is interesting but should be for another unit. BL change and bane change are kinda good though.
On August 15 2016 01:47 Ej_ wrote: on 1 hand I'm very happy that every whiner will shut up now and play his 100 eapm mech
on the other hand, I am not excited about mech cancer being back in full force
Mech was only cancer because it was so bad. Tanks were so awful you had no choice but to group the only tanks you had at one base, because you sure as hell didn't have the power to push.
Cannot really comment on these changes yet, have to think about it a little bit more. Glad that they want to change things, upset that it's nothing about fundamental game mechanics like pathing, high ground, economy, etc.
On August 15 2016 01:47 Ej_ wrote: on 1 hand I'm very happy that every whiner will shut up now and play his 100 eapm mech
on the other hand, I am not excited about mech cancer being back in full force
Mech was only cancer because it was so bad. Tanks were so awful you had no choice but to group the only tanks you had at one base, because you sure as hell didn't have the power to push.
so what changes now, aside of tanks being even stronger in their deathball?
just because you can play in a less efficient way, doesn't mean you should
Wow that's a lot of changes. I'm pretty sure there's going to be several things that will end up being broken along the way, but as long as they can be resolved in the off-season... The things that worries me the most is that with the new changes the Tempest becomes a lot worse with dealing with ranged liberators.
edit: oh nvm. Only anti-ground range being changed.
Really really interesting changes, I like how it's mostly buffs and not nerfs (aside from the Liberator). Interesting cyclone redesign, I always thought that in its current state it would always either be broken or useless. (atm it's a very niche unit so it's leaning towards useless ) Also super happy about Tankivac removal, never liked them from the start. I still don't like adepts though, I hope they won't be a core unit anymore
On August 15 2016 01:58 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Wow that's a lot of changes. I'm pretty sure there's going to be several things that will end up being broken along the way, but as long as they can be resolved in the off-season... The things that worries me the most is that with the new changes the Tempest becomes a lot worse with dealing with ranged liberators.
First off this is the kind of patches that need to come out to keep this game alive, radical sweeping things that tackle multiple issues at a time and brings underused units into the lime light.
Terran changes are phenomenal, the new Cyclone and Tank are going to be awesome as well as Mutalisks being viable in the match up again is going to make ZvT great again. The Banshee change was already tested and it's OP as hell so I don't know why they keep bringing it back from the dead. Vikings getting a well deserved buff as well, Terran changes are 9/10
Protoss changes seem decent, definitely not bad or anything. The Tempest change looks really good, the ground range is hilarious so I'm glad to see the little Corsair merge thing they got going on it will make the unit more tactical. DT blink is completely absurd, they are already strong in the current meta I see zero reason to buff them at all. I would have preferred Charge to be reworked to Zealot speed but I'm glad the Protoss Gateway army will be more mobile. I give Protoss changes 8/10.
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.
Infestor changes look terrible besides the size and collision, just buff IT's back and make Fungal Growth hit harder, it's not that difficult to make the spell casters good, the Raven changes kind of sucked as well, David still looks lost on balancing spell casters.
Oh, and remove the motherfucking Swarm Host, it's not a good unit David I'm sorry, the community has spoken, it's trash, rework it to be good against mass air (literally any unit that discourages mass turtle air in SC2 is a good idea imo) or just scrap it and be done with it, you're pretty much making the unit free so people will use it lol.
Raping F5 of Avilo's stream/twitter. For the 1st time in history of SC2, he's gonna be satisfied with the patch changes, and rightfully so. This is going to be awesome!
Not all of it is making it to the game and some of it is kind of generic, so commenting on any of that is a bit random. I did like the mention of the "incredible range" of the tempest. Using the term incredible to describe something that is here because you decided it would be here made me chuckle.
On August 15 2016 02:06 Everlong wrote: Raping F5 of Avilo's stream/twitter. For the 1st time in history of SC2, he's gonna be satisfied with the patch changes, and rightfully so. This is going to be awesome!
That's a misunderstanding of Avilo if I've ever seen one.
Nice changes, dont like burrowed infestors casting fungal though. Guess I have to play some random again to learn all those changes Blink DTs will also be very interesting^^
On August 15 2016 02:09 Cricketer12 wrote: Adept nerf plz?
I don't think Adepts are going to need to be nerfed, it's better to buff other races options to fight OP units then to just keep nerfing the shit out of everything. I think the new Hydralisk and Tank will perform much better against this unit.
Reading these proposed changes makes me feel like Blizzard has no fucking clue what they are doing... "We want to make every build viable for every stage of the game for every skill level of player while maintaining a strong professional scene..." Starcraft is truly fucked boys
On August 15 2016 02:11 FalconHoof wrote: Reading these proposed changes makes me feel like Blizzard has no fucking clue what they are doing... "We want to make every build viable for every stage of the game for every skill level of player while maintaining a strong professional scene..." Starcraft is truly fucked boys
On August 15 2016 02:11 FalconHoof wrote: Reading these proposed changes makes me feel like Blizzard has no fucking clue what they are doing... "We want to make every build viable for every stage of the game for every skill level of player while maintaining a strong professional scene..." Starcraft is truly fucked boys
Really not a fan on the big mech buff, I can understand those who are happy of it and I hope they'll be pleased by it, but playing against it is really not the game I want to play. Nonetheless it would have been a very nice 5 years of playing, can't complain about it !
It's good they're making changes. To be honest, I didn't expect them to. My faith is almost restored. The new Cyclone looks really good but I'm a bit sceptical on the other changes, especially blink DTs and global teleport infestors.
A bit shocked to be honest that there has been no nerf to the Ultralisk armor. But I suppose there is some merit here in the sense that Terran cant just go full bio and hope for the best. They will need those high-powered Siege Tanks which is great.
On August 15 2016 02:18 blade55555 wrote: Wow. Some of these changes are cool, some are way out there (DT with blink better not make it ).
Wish they would have made hydras cheaper/hatch tech with obvious stats change. But cool to see them finally making some huge changes.
I also can't believe they aren't touching the adept at all, at least the shade ability.
I responded to someone else who said this, I think the new Hydralisks will perform much better against them and Warp Prisms with the range increase. Remember the Roach range increase? Transformed it from a shit unit to a staple unit in almost all match ups.
On August 15 2016 02:18 blade55555 wrote: Wow. Some of these changes are cool, some are way out there (DT with blink better not make it ).
Wish they would have made hydras cheaper/hatch tech with obvious stats change. But cool to see them finally making some huge changes.
I also can't believe they aren't touching the adept at all, at least the shade ability.
think mech in sc2 is ever going to create the same feeling and "coolness" of bw mech? cus to me i always just picture it going back to semi-turtly mech with far too strong air-to-ground, where the only real mechanical requirement to play it is how many creative ways you can kill the opponents mineral line while being as impenetrable as possible
I've been thinking, is the liberator nerf enough to push bio to be the preferred comp in TvZ? Bio is much better at dealing with early mutas than mech.
On August 15 2016 02:24 Elentos wrote: I've been thinking, is the liberator nerf enough to push bio to be the preferred comp in TvZ? Bio is much better at dealing with early mutas than mech.
Yeah, but bio is gonna be a lot harder to play multitasking wise than mech probably, so in that respect it might still be "easier" to play mech
On August 15 2016 02:18 blade55555 wrote: Wow. Some of these changes are cool, some are way out there (DT with blink better not make it ).
Wish they would have made hydras cheaper/hatch tech with obvious stats change. But cool to see them finally making some huge changes.
I also can't believe they aren't touching the adept at all, at least the shade ability.
think mech in sc2 is ever going to create the same feeling and "coolness" of bw mech? cus to me i always just picture it going back to semi-turtly mech with far too strong air-to-ground, where the only real mechanical requirement to play it is how many creative ways you can kill the opponents mineral line while being as impenetrable as possible
I have always been anti-mech and I would rather it not be viable. But I am for a siege tank buff and removing flying tanks. I hope that if they go through these changes and Mech is viable, but the best way to play it is to turtle I hope it gets nerfed then.
On August 15 2016 02:24 Elentos wrote: I've been thinking, is the liberator nerf enough to push bio to be the preferred comp in TvZ? Bio is much better at dealing with early mutas than mech.
Yeah, but bio is gonna be a lot harder to play multitasking wise than mech probably, so in that respect it might still be "easier" to play mech
On August 15 2016 02:18 blade55555 wrote: Wow. Some of these changes are cool, some are way out there (DT with blink better not make it ).
Wish they would have made hydras cheaper/hatch tech with obvious stats change. But cool to see them finally making some huge changes.
I also can't believe they aren't touching the adept at all, at least the shade ability.
think mech in sc2 is ever going to create the same feeling and "coolness" of bw mech? cus to me i always just picture it going back to semi-turtly mech with far too strong air-to-ground, where the only real mechanical requirement to play it is how many creative ways you can kill the opponents mineral line while being as impenetrable as possible
I have always been anti-mech and I would rather it not be viable. But I am for a siege tank buff and removing flying tanks. I hope that if they go through these changes and Mech is viable, but the best way to play it is to turtle I hope it gets nerfed then.
If Turtle Mech becomes a thing I will be so sad.
New economy already nerfs turtle mech pretty hard.
On August 15 2016 02:18 blade55555 wrote: Wow. Some of these changes are cool, some are way out there (DT with blink better not make it ).
Wish they would have made hydras cheaper/hatch tech with obvious stats change. But cool to see them finally making some huge changes.
I also can't believe they aren't touching the adept at all, at least the shade ability.
think mech in sc2 is ever going to create the same feeling and "coolness" of bw mech? cus to me i always just picture it going back to semi-turtly mech with far too strong air-to-ground, where the only real mechanical requirement to play it is how many creative ways you can kill the opponents mineral line while being as impenetrable as possible
I have always been anti-mech and I would rather it not be viable. But I am for a siege tank buff and removing flying tanks. I hope that if they go through these changes and Mech is viable, but the best way to play it is to turtle I hope it gets nerfed then.
If Turtle Mech becomes a thing I will be so sad.
I fail to see why we won't have turtle mech all over to be honest.
The thing with turtling in sc2 is that you cannot really counter it with better economy (unless you build more workers) and this always was a problem with "unbeatable armies". You get your three bases at once and build your perfect army. It's a bit better in LOTV because you have to expand faster to keep the three base economy but still...
On August 15 2016 02:18 blade55555 wrote: Wow. Some of these changes are cool, some are way out there (DT with blink better not make it ).
Wish they would have made hydras cheaper/hatch tech with obvious stats change. But cool to see them finally making some huge changes.
I also can't believe they aren't touching the adept at all, at least the shade ability.
think mech in sc2 is ever going to create the same feeling and "coolness" of bw mech? cus to me i always just picture it going back to semi-turtly mech with far too strong air-to-ground, where the only real mechanical requirement to play it is how many creative ways you can kill the opponents mineral line while being as impenetrable as possible
I have always been anti-mech and I would rather it not be viable. But I am for a siege tank buff and removing flying tanks. I hope that if they go through these changes and Mech is viable, but the best way to play it is to turtle I hope it gets nerfed then.
If Turtle Mech becomes a thing I will be so sad.
I fail to see why we won't have turtle mech all over to be honest.
The deep tunnel on infestors is peculiar, and I don't see it being used much until late late game. Because it costs 50 energy, if you use it too quickly with infestors they'll be pretty neutered by it. So you have to wait for a long time with them before it can be really useful. But spending all that gas on them in the mid game only to wait for a long time and not use them can really cripple you. The cast-while-burrowed is a tremendous buff, though. It will probably shut down a lot of air play, or stop major bio pushes.
Mostly good changes especially tankivac removal and tempest nerf/redesign are long overdue. DT and infestor buffs are crazy though. Also I still hope for the -1 ultra armor nerf..
1.Tank buff seems incredibly strong-excited for it but I wonder if it will put more importance on air control even more. Lack of ground anti air for factory means air will be contested more than ever. This is relevant for my next thought-
2.Can't help but to think that they swapped the anti air and anti ground attack for cyclone around.. it's lock on for air is very bad (160 dmg over 14 sec) and mech already had good amount of anti armor ground options in tank thor hellbat ect. A lot of mech issue stems from lack of anti-air and while broodlord range revert helps, not gonna do much vs protoss... Cyclone also absolutely shreds worker line (1 worker per second) with this change but not great vs other units so I am not too excited for the repurpose.
I really think cyclone should have its niche in anti air but that's my opinion. It's role overlaps with helliom and offers not much to overall mech play all that much. Does offer (expensive) base sniping capabilities though. I don't see much use aside from that
3. Think hydra could have used little bit more love in supply reduction or hp buff or something with ravager change and tank change. While speed buff and range buff will do a lot, tank change means 2 shot hydra and weakened roach in viper roach hydra comps. Maybe we will see ling hydra instead. Idk. 7 range hydra will be very strong vs unpositioned mech but the lack of health is bit alarming
4. Not too worried about turtle mech due to eco but we could see big rise in aggressive tank timings with hellbat in mediacs being dropped to take advantage of tank damage before air superiority kicks in
On August 15 2016 02:04 Topdoller wrote: Holy shit, time to switch to Terran if those changes happen
I was just thinking of playing again and deciding on Zerg or Protoss, as the current Terran feels and plays so poorly to me; now i'm super excited to play proper Terran again. These changes can't come soon enough.
On August 15 2016 02:33 The_Red_Viper wrote: The thing with turtling in sc2 is that you cannot really counter it with better economy (unless you build more workers) and this always was a problem with "unbeatable armies". You get your three bases at once and build your perfect army. It's a bit better in LOTV because you have to expand faster to keep the three base economy but still...
Maps.
yeah we're gonna need to see some pretty big changes in map design to prevent those games i think
Also, controlling more bases is a lot easier with strong air-to-ground, so as long as there are so many ways of killing mineral lines, moving out to decisively hit one spot in the terran defense is gonna be really risky. hellion runbyes, banshees on crack, libs, drops etc
On August 15 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: Also I still hope for the -1 ultra armor nerf..
Keep in mind the Tank does 70 dmg against them, 85 with +3; so good Tank positioning might become the Ultra counter, BW style.
Ultras still got up to 8 armor, so the tank damage is realistically 62 to 77 against a fully upgraded Ultra, but that's still better than 42 to 57 damage.
Seems like Avilo's lobby to make mech great again worked. Blizzard caved into Avilo and his mindless minions of mech maniacs.
These are some drastic changes, so it will be interesting to see what goes live and what dies. Also will stir up the meta so we can see how foreigners and Koreans adapt to all these changes.
Maru and Gumiho should be happy with the mech changes.
2.Can't help but to think that they swapped the anti air and anti ground attack for cyclone around.. it's lock on for air is very bad (160 dmg over 14 sec) and mech already had good amount of anti armor ground options in tank thor hellbat ect.
The mobile portion of mech was really bad, since hellions were so mediocre. In BW it was vultures (along with strong tanks) that made mech viable by letting the terran assert some map control. Cyclones + Hellions now fulfill the same role.
A lot of mechanical issue stems from lack of anti-air and while broodlord range revert helps, not gonna do much vs protoss...
You realize that tempest anti-ground range was nerfed to 6? The Thor now hits all the long-range massive air units, which were the biggest problem before.
Cyclone also absolutely shreds worker line (1 worker per second) with this change but not great vs other units so I am not too excited for the repurpose.
Huh? It's crazy dps vs most armored now (better than an immortal). As for worker shredding, it's not really that great for cost--about the dps of 3 stimmed marines--and really terrible if you're behind on upgrades.
On August 15 2016 02:55 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Seems like Avilo's lobby to make mech great again worked. Blizzard caved into Avilo and his mindless minions of mech maniacs.
These are some drastic changes, so it will be interesting to see what goes live and what dies. Also will stir up the meta so we can see how foreigners and Koreans adapt to all these changes.
Maru and Gumiho should be happy with the mech changes.
Maybe, its gonna be interesting to see whether this is the same case as "gumiho should be really happy about the medievac speed boost" but then it turned out it wasnt special after all because everyone became a gumiho of dropping
On August 15 2016 02:55 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Seems like Avilo's lobby to make mech great again worked. Blizzard caved into Avilo and his mindless minions of mech maniacs.
These are some drastic changes, so it will be interesting to see what goes live and what dies. Also will stir up the meta so we can see how foreigners and Koreans adapt to all these changes.
Maru and Gumiho should be happy with the mech changes.
Maybe, its gonna be interesting to see whether this is the same case as "gumiho should be really happy about the medievac speed boost" but then it turned out it wasnt special after all because everyone became a gumiho of dropping
Well yeah the medivac speed boost kind of normalized the terran skill level. It's not difficult to use medivacs; many foreign pros were already quite capable with drops. The boost only made it easier for all terrans to perform drops; not necessarily giving Maru a bigger edge.
This iconic unit is a critical part of the Mech composition. After numerous discussions with players, a key understanding has surfaced: the added mobility granted by Medivac pickup in Legacy of the Void also brought about the loss of one of the Siege Tank’s most enjoyable aspects: incredibly effective area control. Yet, constructing Medivacs (a unit which heals only biological units) is often not the right choice for Mech players, and so these players are not able to take full advantage of the Siege Tank’s strengths.
However, if we decrease the mobility of Siege Tanks by removing Medivac pickup, we can justify a large increase to its damage and reinvigorate the Siege Tank’s ability to assert dominance over specific areas of the map. Doing so will also decrease the unit’s overlap with the Widow Mine, which serves as a more mobile burst damage option (similar to the current Siege Tank with Medivac pickup).
Siege Tank Changes:
Sieged Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (+15 vs armored) to 40 (+30 vs armored). Sieged Siege Tanks can no longer be picked up by Medivacs. 35 (+15 vs armored) damage versus 40 (+30 vs armored) damage:
I told myself to never play LotV ladder until Blizzard made the changes I was hoping for! I am so glad because these changes are very close to what I wanted
I AM SO HAPPY. I might actually play ladder again soon!
On August 15 2016 02:38 Charoisaur wrote: Also I still hope for the -1 ultra armor nerf..
Keep in mind the Tank does 70 dmg against them, 85 with +3; so good Tank positioning might become the Ultra counter, BW style.
Ultras still got up to 8 armor, so the tank damage is realistically 62 to 77 against a fully upgraded Ultra, but that's still better than 42 to 57 damage.
It's a significant change i think. BW TvZ bio is fantastic IMO changing from heavy bio to mass Tank production in late game, changing the entire dynamic of the MU. If SC2 can get some of that it would be incredible for bio play. Not to mention opening up mech play especially with the BL change.
Am I the only one crying about siege tank pickup nerf? As a terran being able to pick up seiged tanks in LoTV was the funnest addition by far, it made TvT so much faster paced instead of tank-line stalemates. Plus being able to watch TY and Maru dance their tanks aorund eachother in TvT is incredible to watch.
Okay the rest of the changes are decent, who tf came up with the DT buff though? DT drops are a viable strategy in every Protoss matchup, yet now they can blink out of scans?? Warp prisms could already pick them up from far enough.
as always i dont care what blizz do as long as the game always feels fresh but looking at it, it seems blizz are trying to create ways for games to have comebacks, looks cool cant really wait
2.Can't help but to think that they swapped the anti air and anti ground attack for cyclone around.. it's lock on for air is very bad (160 dmg over 14 sec) and mech already had good amount of anti armor ground options in tank thor hellbat ect.
The mobile portion of mech was really bad, since hellions were so mediocre. In BW it was vultures (along with strong tanks) that made mech viable by letting the terran assert some map control. Cyclones + Hellions now fulfill the same role.
A lot of mechanical issue stems from lack of anti-air and while broodlord range revert helps, not gonna do much vs protoss...
You realize that tempest anti-ground range was nerfed to 6? The Thor now hits all the long-range massive air units, which were the biggest problem before.
Cyclone also absolutely shreds worker line (1 worker per second) with this change but not great vs other units so I am not too excited for the repurpose.
Huh? It's crazy dps vs most armored now (better than an immortal). As for worker shredding, it's not really that great for cost--about the dps of 3 stimmed marines--and really terrible if you're behind on upgrades.
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.
Omg this is amazing ! Thanks blizzard! Game already started to get boring cause there were like 7 units of each race kinda dead on higher lvl... But with this change the situation will way way better...
This iconic unit is a critical part of the Mech composition. After numerous discussions with players, a key understanding has surfaced: the added mobility granted by Medivac pickup in Legacy of the Void also brought about the loss of one of the Siege Tank’s most enjoyable aspects: incredibly effective area control. Yet, constructing Medivacs (a unit which heals only biological units) is often not the right choice for Mech players, and so these players are not able to take full advantage of the Siege Tank’s strengths.
However, if we decrease the mobility of Siege Tanks by removing Medivac pickup, we can justify a large increase to its damage and reinvigorate the Siege Tank’s ability to assert dominance over specific areas of the map. Doing so will also decrease the unit’s overlap with the Widow Mine, which serves as a more mobile burst damage option (similar to the current Siege Tank with Medivac pickup).
It is just so shocking to me that Blizzard needed to talk to players to realize this.
Does David Kim even understand what made the Tankivacs powerful? Does he even realize why the Siege Tank was strong in the first place?
I've been hammering the point home that the Siege Tank needed a huge buff since... before the HOTS Beta. And most of the community has been too.
On August 15 2016 02:55 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Seems like Avilo's lobby to make mech great again worked. Blizzard caved into Avilo and his mindless minions of mech maniacs.
These are some drastic changes, so it will be interesting to see what goes live and what dies. Also will stir up the meta so we can see how foreigners and Koreans adapt to all these changes.
Maru and Gumiho should be happy with the mech changes.
On August 15 2016 03:02 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Judging by many of the comments so far, it seems there are a whole lot more 'mech' players than I expected.
There are many who want the Siege Tank to actually be a strong area control unit. And there are probably just as many who hate the Medivac pickup and what it did to TvT.
On August 15 2016 02:55 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Seems like Avilo's lobby to make mech great again worked. Blizzard caved into Avilo and his mindless minions of mech maniacs.
These are some drastic changes, so it will be interesting to see what goes live and what dies. Also will stir up the meta so we can see how foreigners and Koreans adapt to all these changes.
Maru and Gumiho should be happy with the mech changes.
Are you 'little Jimmy' from chat?
I am not the 'little Jimmy' you're referring too. Is he important? Because if he is, than I can be him if you wish.
Altough i would like to see carrier buff maby bring back 50 hp taken for no reason or short ther bulidng timing , same should be done to battlecrusiers short their building time so ppl use them more often
Not sure if this was mentioned, but I think the tank changes might make a bio/mech composition incredibly powerful. With only a few tanks, terrans might be able to hold out on defense while medivac drops still does it's usually damage.
Terran -The Cyclone Maybe okay? I'm glad they're open to complete redesign. Think of how much better sc2 would have been if they took the thought of complete redesign to the roach and marauder back at the start of WoL. -The Siege Tank Mixed feelings. I think we're just going to see turtle mech and nightmare TvT of Viking/Tank vision wars. -The Liberator and the Thor Fair to Zerg. Fair to mech. -The Banshee It can't be changed for the better, this change will do little to nothing. The Banshee will always be just a binary harassment unit. I hope they just let the Banshee remain as is. -The Viking I don't even understand! I hope it makes it in untouched just because it's so weird, and will have no real impact other than letting Viking feel better about themselves. -The Battlecruiser Best changes out of all the changes listed for Terran. -The Raven Whatever.
Protoss -The Tempest It involves another zone control ability! I don't care if these changes work or not as-is, it's just another step in the right direction. -The Zealot Buffs are fine. -The Carrier Receiving little bits of attention just like the Battlecruiser and the Zealot. These are good changes that are unlikely to cause more problems. I can't see anything wrong with this. -The Dark Templar never in a million years.
Zerg -The Swarm Host The core concept of the Swarm Host is just bad. The unit needs to die. I hope that the testing of the Swarm Host will help him see this. "Swarm Host: Removed" is the final change. -Ravager and Hydralisk and Baneling I'm grouping them together because they're going to have a combined impact. I think Zerg will still not want to use Hydralisk at best, and at worst you're going to see the painfully uninteresting roach/hydra mass dominate ZvP. Hydralisk are too far on the end of expense and fragility. The Siege Tank change in addition to the Ravager armor change WILL cause painful turtle mech, especially with a large, direct buff to banelings. Widow mine splash will no longer kill banelings. I hope all three of these changes will not make it through, and the Hydralisk is given a different kind of consideration. -The Infestor Whatever.
Yeah but at least it's funny to read, and to be honest he has recommended some of the intended changes quite a lot on his stream, not the blink DT's though i don't think. hahahaa
2.Can't help but to think that they swapped the anti air and anti ground attack for cyclone around.. it's lock on for air is very bad (160 dmg over 14 sec) and mech already had good amount of anti armor ground options in tank thor hellbat ect.
The mobile portion of mech was really bad, since hellions were so mediocre. In BW it was vultures (along with strong tanks) that made mech viable by letting the terran assert some map control. Cyclones + Hellions now fulfill the same role.
A lot of mechanical issue stems from lack of anti-air and while broodlord range revert helps, not gonna do much vs protoss...
You realize that tempest anti-ground range was nerfed to 6? The Thor now hits all the long-range massive air units, which were the biggest problem before.
Cyclone also absolutely shreds worker line (1 worker per second) with this change but not great vs other units so I am not too excited for the repurpose.
Huh? It's crazy dps vs most armored now (better than an immortal). As for worker shredding, it's not really that great for cost--about the dps of 3 stimmed marines--and really terrible if you're behind on upgrades.
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.
pretty sad that the tankivacs are being removed if this patch goes through.. although i would like to see a choice of an upgrade tankivacs on tech lab factories having an option for bio compositions to have a fighting chance with turtling mech since it will become more common for players to go mech... different styles will make the matches interesting or transitioning to late game but i doubt it ... tankivacs make TvT more crazy even though.. matches end with 1 big engagement if no one harrases each other...3
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
It's a nice Carrier buff. Since they come with 4 Interceptors, it is still an added 100 minerals on their cost to build the remaining 4 Interceptors and 200 for the full 8. That cost can add up quickly, especially considering how Interceptors die more easily in SC2.
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.
2.Can't help but to think that they swapped the anti air and anti ground attack for cyclone around.. it's lock on for air is very bad (160 dmg over 14 sec) and mech already had good amount of anti armor ground options in tank thor hellbat ect.
The mobile portion of mech was really bad, since hellions were so mediocre. In BW it was vultures (along with strong tanks) that made mech viable by letting the terran assert some map control. Cyclones + Hellions now fulfill the same role.
A lot of mechanical issue stems from lack of anti-air and while broodlord range revert helps, not gonna do much vs protoss...
You realize that tempest anti-ground range was nerfed to 6? The Thor now hits all the long-range massive air units, which were the biggest problem before.
Cyclone also absolutely shreds worker line (1 worker per second) with this change but not great vs other units so I am not too excited for the repurpose.
Huh? It's crazy dps vs most armored now (better than an immortal). As for worker shredding, it's not really that great for cost--about the dps of 3 stimmed marines--and really terrible if you're behind on upgrades.
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.
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
Wow... I never thought I'd see the day Blizz/D.Kim actually focusing on game design rather than balance for once. Regardless of your thoughts on the actual proposed changes, it's nice to see them trying to focus on making the game more fun to play.
2.Can't help but to think that they swapped the anti air and anti ground attack for cyclone around.. it's lock on for air is very bad (160 dmg over 14 sec) and mech already had good amount of anti armor ground options in tank thor hellbat ect.
The mobile portion of mech was really bad, since hellions were so mediocre. In BW it was vultures (along with strong tanks) that made mech viable by letting the terran assert some map control. Cyclones + Hellions now fulfill the same role.
A lot of mechanical issue stems from lack of anti-air and while broodlord range revert helps, not gonna do much vs protoss...
You realize that tempest anti-ground range was nerfed to 6? The Thor now hits all the long-range massive air units, which were the biggest problem before.
Cyclone also absolutely shreds worker line (1 worker per second) with this change but not great vs other units so I am not too excited for the repurpose.
Huh? It's crazy dps vs most armored now (better than an immortal). As for worker shredding, it's not really that great for cost--about the dps of 3 stimmed marines--and really terrible if you're behind on upgrades.
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.
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.
This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game.. all the mech whining is so cancerous - play fucking protoss if you want to turtle all game and a move for the win. Nobody wants to watch 50 minute split map games. Period. I don't care if this makes terran stronger it makes the game so boring - and yah lets take tankivacs away which in the current meta are 100% necessary for holding multiple all ins in both non-mirrors- and the icing on the cake - absolutely no word on ultralisks the most fucked unit in the present meta - naw we'll just leave those alone..because in all likelihood they won't be imba anymore when every terran goes mech..guess it's time to find a new game after 6 years - thanks blizz
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
Vultures did full damage to shields. Came with three mines that did 125 explosive damage in a large splash radius. Cost 75 minerals. Were the fastest units in the game. They had amazing utility compared to hellions. Hellion are pretty much only good at kiting light melee and harassing undefended mineral lines. Vultures harassed, zoned with mines, killed small units, could strip shields from large units pretty efficiently, and could even hunt down and kill isolated groups with mine surrounds.
And mech has no good mobile anti-armor on the ground. Tanks and liberators need to siege. Thors are huge and clunky (and for that reason should be the designated anti-air, since you can't do anything interesting with them anyway). A change like this is exactly what mech needs with the new LoTV economy. Something that will let players get on the map, harass and take expansions.
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game..
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.
To avoid misunderstandings, I play Terran.
And my answer is still yes; BC would be OP against Protoss.
BC is rubbish because of feedback; in return, Protoss has no unit which counters BC except HT. If BC becomes immune to feedback, I`m quite sure that it would be broken as hell.
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game..
Viewership back then was higher than it is now.
Source?
You are honestly saying that viewership was higher when SH vs skytoss and zvt was 100% mech was higher than now? I'm talking about the tail end of hots right before lotv came out - not the majority of hots - which was the best state of the game imo.
I personally witnessed people leave live events before the games ended during this time frame. But if you've got the data then hey, maybe its just me.
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
And mech has no good mobile anti-armor on the ground. Tanks and liberators need to siege. Thors are huge and clunky (and for that reason should be the designated anti-air, since you can't do anything interesting with them anyway). A change like this is exactly what mech needs with the new LoTV economy. Something that will let players get on the map, harass and take expansions.
That's the design of mech. Low mobility but high firepower. Giving them a strong mobile unit will just turn it into bio 2.0.
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game..
Viewership back then was higher than it is now.
Source?
You are honestly saying that viewership was higher when SH vs skytoss and zvt was 100% mech was higher than now? I'm talking about the tail end of hots right before lotv came out - not the majority of hots - which was the best state of the game imo.
I personally witnessed people leave live events before the games ended during this time frame. But if you've got the data then hey, maybe its just me.
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game..
Viewership back then was higher than it is now.
Source?
You are honestly saying that viewership was higher when SH vs skytoss and zvt was 100% mech was higher than now? I'm talking about the tail end of hots right before lotv came out - not the majority of hots - which was the best state of the game imo.
I personally witnessed people leave live events before the games ended during this time frame. But if you've got the data then hey, maybe its just me.
Longer games have greater viewership.
Is this a troll post or you have some source to verify that?
I don't think I was dreaming when even blizzard acknowledged how dumb this was - and sited it as the reason for the design change on starting with more workers and having less minerals per site.
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.
To avoid misunderstanding, I play Terran.
And my answer is still yes; BC would be OP against Protoss.
BC is rubbish because of feedback; in return, Protoss has no unit which counters BC except HT. If BC becomes immune to feedback, I`m quite sure that it would be broken as hell.
BCs are rubbish because they're rubbish, not because of feedback. Tempests will still be fine at killing them. Even though they're 6 supply they're still cheaper and outrange.
Also it remains to be seen if it's even possible to get an economy that allows you to get a strong amount of BCs.
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game..
Viewership back then was higher than it is now.
Source?
You are honestly saying that viewership was higher when SH vs skytoss and zvt was 100% mech was higher than now? I'm talking about the tail end of hots right before lotv came out - not the majority of hots - which was the best state of the game imo.
I personally witnessed people leave live events before the games ended during this time frame. But if you've got the data then hey, maybe its just me.
Longer games have greater viewership.
Everyone in the world hates watching Maru and SoS do funky proxy builds that end the game really quick, these people are all singing from the heavens hoping that we can once again watch the thoroughly entertaining games that Snute brought us with swarm hosts like in HotS.
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game..
Viewership back then was higher than it is now.
Source?
You are honestly saying that viewership was higher when SH vs skytoss and zvt was 100% mech was higher than now? I'm talking about the tail end of hots right before lotv came out - not the majority of hots - which was the best state of the game imo.
I personally witnessed people leave live events before the games ended during this time frame. But if you've got the data then hey, maybe its just me.
Longer games have greater viewership.
Is this a troll post or you have some source to verify that?
I don't think I was dreaming when even blizzard acknowledged how dumb this was - and sited it as the reason for the design change on starting with more workers and having less minerals per site.
Here's a source. https://www.fuzic.nl/trends/ Looks like there definitely was a bump in November from LotV's release, but it has declined substantially since then.
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.
Doesn't matter when its good against similar units as the Liberator. Maybe slightly better vs Stalkers/Hydras, and no weakness vs AA units. But overall there is a huge overlap.
Anyway, I am also very dissapointed that they didn't redesign spellcasters such as the Raven and the Sentry which imo are just plaint boring.
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
Vultures did full damage to shields. Came with three mines that did 125 explosive damage in a large splash radius. Cost 75 minerals. Were the fastest units in the game. They had amazing utility compared to hellions. Hellion are pretty much only good at kiting light melee and harassing undefended mineral lines. Vultures harassed, zoned with mines, killed small units, could strip shields from large units pretty efficiently, and could even hunt down and kill isolated groups with mine surrounds.
And mech has no good mobile anti-armor on the ground. Tanks and liberators need to siege. Thors are huge and clunky (and for that reason should be the designated anti-air, since you can't do anything interesting with them anyway). A change like this is exactly what mech needs with the new LoTV economy. Something that will let players get on the map, harass and take expansions.
Lets face it- nothings going to replace the utility vultures had with mines and its speed-I guess but I feel like bigger part of problem lies in lack of anti air for mech. Mech right now after this change won't have good way to deal with air- other than going air themselves.
Thors do somewhat ok job at it but only against light air units- its High impact mode doesn't do much damage to justify making it for pure anti air counter- just as a generalist unit
Tanks actually kill shit. I think they'd have to roll back the seige upgrade buff with the 70 damage. Some early pushes might be too strong. Maybe the lotv economy would be enough though. We'll have to see.
On August 15 2016 04:17 juvenal wrote: "We're crushing and burning, might as well try every retarded change we can think of" type of change, I like this attitude. I imagine pros do not.
I like this Icefrog attitude right now. Although the game is in a better state than most previous metas, it's not perfect and a fresh shakeup is what it needs to spike viewership and avoid stagnation until the design and balance is in a better spot. At least we get a few months of testing starting this week to smooth things out.
Great. Absolutely great. Can't say I agree with all the changes -they won't all go through anyway- but we needed the balance team to go bold. I'm so happy for SC2.
On August 15 2016 04:17 juvenal wrote: "We're crushing and burning, might as well try every retarded change we can think of" type of change, I like this attitude. I imagine pros do not.
I like this Icefrog attitude right now. Although the game is in a better state than most previous metas, it's not perfect and a fresh shakeup is what it needs to spike viewership and avoid stagnation until the design and balance is in a better spot. At least we get a few months of testing starting this week to smooth things out.
Everything in the thread promotes more rewards to players for doing nothing but defending until a max army max economy. There is no way that will help viewership - it can't be possible.
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
Vultures did full damage to shields. Came with three mines that did 125 explosive damage in a large splash radius. Cost 75 minerals. Were the fastest units in the game. They had amazing utility compared to hellions. Hellion are pretty much only good at kiting light melee and harassing undefended mineral lines. Vultures harassed, zoned with mines, killed small units, could strip shields from large units pretty efficiently, and could even hunt down and kill isolated groups with mine surrounds.
And mech has no good mobile anti-armor on the ground. Tanks and liberators need to siege. Thors are huge and clunky (and for that reason should be the designated anti-air, since you can't do anything interesting with them anyway). A change like this is exactly what mech needs with the new LoTV economy. Something that will let players get on the map, harass and take expansions.
Lets face it- nothings going to replace the utility vultures had with mines and its speed-I guess but I feel like bigger part of problem lies in lack of anti air for mech. Mech right now after this change won't have good way to deal with air- other than going air themselves.
Thors do somewhat ok job at it but only against light air units- its High impact mode doesn't do much damage to justify making it for pure anti air counter- just as a generalist unit
What air units do you think are going to be a problem? Broodlords no longer outrange thors (and aren't cost efficient if you're killing the broodlings), tempests got a range and supply nerf, carriers lost release interceptors and took a health nerf (from HotS where they weren't used at all).
And all that's assuming that teching up to mass air deathballs is even viable anymore.
On August 15 2016 04:17 juvenal wrote: "We're crushing and burning, might as well try every retarded change we can think of" type of change, I like this attitude. I imagine pros do not.
I like this Icefrog attitude right now. Although the game is in a better state than most previous metas, it's not perfect and a fresh shakeup is what it needs to spike viewership and avoid stagnation until the design and balance is in a better spot. At least we get a few months of testing starting this week to smooth things out.
Everything in the thread promotes more rewards to players for doing nothing but defending until a max army max economy. There is no way that will help viewership - it can't be possible.
The way how you mine out faster in lotv makes that kind of play pretty bad.
On August 15 2016 04:17 juvenal wrote: "We're crushing and burning, might as well try every retarded change we can think of" type of change, I like this attitude. I imagine pros do not.
I like this Icefrog attitude right now. Although the game is in a better state than most previous metas, it's not perfect and a fresh shakeup is what it needs to spike viewership and avoid stagnation until the design and balance is in a better spot. At least we get a few months of testing starting this week to smooth things out.
Everything in the thread promotes more rewards to players for doing nothing but defending until a max army max economy. There is no way that will help viewership - it can't be possible.
Fewer resources per base already discourages hardcore turtling in LotV.
On August 15 2016 04:17 juvenal wrote: "We're crushing and burning, might as well try every retarded change we can think of" type of change, I like this attitude. I imagine pros do not.
I like this Icefrog attitude right now. Although the game is in a better state than most previous metas, it's not perfect and a fresh shakeup is what it needs to spike viewership and avoid stagnation until the design and balance is in a better spot. At least we get a few months of testing starting this week to smooth things out.
Everything in the thread promotes more rewards to players for doing nothing but defending until a max army max economy. There is no way that will help viewership - it can't be possible.
The way how you mine out faster in lotv makes that kind of play pretty bad.
In the current state absolutely - that's why nobody does it - but with these changes gtd the meta will settle out to waiting as long as u possibly can to grab ur 4th / 5th / 6th split map and see who can sit in their chair longer without hanging themself without attacking into their opponents defenders adv.
On August 15 2016 04:17 juvenal wrote: "We're crushing and burning, might as well try every retarded change we can think of" type of change, I like this attitude. I imagine pros do not.
I like this Icefrog attitude right now. Although the game is in a better state than most previous metas, it's not perfect and a fresh shakeup is what it needs to spike viewership and avoid stagnation until the design and balance is in a better spot. At least we get a few months of testing starting this week to smooth things out.
Icefrog has a much better reputation as opposed to David Kim though. People look forward to Dota 2 patches, people dread SC2 patches.
I like seeing big changes like these between each year of competition. I think it's good for everyone to shake things up by invalidating some current knowledge and encouraging the discovery of new build orders, strategies and tactics.
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
Vultures did full damage to shields. Came with three mines that did 125 explosive damage in a large splash radius. Cost 75 minerals. Were the fastest units in the game. They had amazing utility compared to hellions. Hellion are pretty much only good at kiting light melee and harassing undefended mineral lines. Vultures harassed, zoned with mines, killed small units, could strip shields from large units pretty efficiently, and could even hunt down and kill isolated groups with mine surrounds.
And mech has no good mobile anti-armor on the ground. Tanks and liberators need to siege. Thors are huge and clunky (and for that reason should be the designated anti-air, since you can't do anything interesting with them anyway). A change like this is exactly what mech needs with the new LoTV economy. Something that will let players get on the map, harass and take expansions.
Lets face it- nothings going to replace the utility vultures had with mines and its speed-I guess but I feel like bigger part of problem lies in lack of anti air for mech. Mech right now after this change won't have good way to deal with air- other than going air themselves.
Thors do somewhat ok job at it but only against light air units- its High impact mode doesn't do much damage to justify making it for pure anti air counter- just as a generalist unit
What air units do you think are going to be a problem? Broodlords no longer outrange thors (and aren't cost efficient if you're killing the broodlings), tempests got a range and supply nerf, carriers lost release interceptors and took a health nerf (from HotS where they weren't used at all).
And all that's assuming that teching up to mass air deathballs is even viable anymore.
Thor actually does great vs brood lord at +2 attack until it gets to 10+ brood lord situation then it starts to get duck behind each other even with mass clearing. The thors size make them unable to fire at once
Thor trades extremely inefficiently vs carriers. Like 1 for 2 or 3. Go test it yourself. Thor are terrible vs carriers even after the changes and 5 mineral interceptor will promote carriers and mech needs to turn to air for that if say 2-3 appears
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game..
Viewership back then was higher than it is now.
Source?
You are honestly saying that viewership was higher when SH vs skytoss and zvt was 100% mech was higher than now? I'm talking about the tail end of hots right before lotv came out - not the majority of hots - which was the best state of the game imo.
I personally witnessed people leave live events before the games ended during this time frame. But if you've got the data then hey, maybe its just me.
The only thing I don't like is that they did nothing with the disruptor that unit has become kinda worthless, people start switching back to the Collosus and we all know which of the two units is less boring and more fun...
On August 15 2016 03:53 DomeGetta wrote: This is fucking retarded man - lets force terran players to mech and make end of Hots again when literally no one watched the game.. all the mech whining is so cancerous - play fucking protoss if you want to turtle all game and a move for the win. Nobody wants to watch 50 minute split map games. Period. I don't care if this makes terran stronger it makes the game so boring - and yah lets take tankivacs away which in the current meta are 100% necessary for holding multiple all ins in both non-mirrors- and the icing on the cake - absolutely no word on ultralisks the most fucked unit in the present meta - naw we'll just leave those alone..because in all likelihood they won't be imba anymore when every terran goes mech..guess it's time to find a new game after 6 years - thanks blizz
Using bio simply wont help turtle if you watch snute.vs.uthermal or games like such
On August 15 2016 05:02 swissman777 wrote: Pls don't give these changes until after the global finals as a lot of these changes will change the game drastically
Dayvie said they're intended to come live after Blizzcon.
We ll see how those changes will be made and tweaked over the next months but i m happy they re trying. I really hope it s not just PR because if we only end up with a couple minor changes, that ll be it for me.
This DT blink seems like a really inconsequential gimmick (or a really broken shit, no middle of the road) It's worrysome that designers are having this kind of idea
Holy moly! It's great to see that Blizzard is trying hard to fuel the Starcraft passion, unlike Valve with TF2.
Also, guys. Please read what DK said about the DT. He said that the idea does not have a lot of confidence in implementing. It's just something throw out there.
Hmmm, I wonder if this would make Hellion/Viking viable vs Protoss. Vikings would now be less dangerous to overbuild vs Protoss since they'll wreck anything Mechanical that isn't an Immortal. Blue Flame Hellbats would deal with any Zealots/Adepts. Colossi would die to Air Vikings.
I do wonder how this changes the early game TvP though. As it stands, Protoss can still throw quite a few deadly openings that require different responses.
Proxy Oracle Warp Prism + Adept 7gate Blink DTs
A Cyclone was a relatively safe multiple use unit to help a defend against Oracles or Warp Prisms. 160 damage over 14 seconds? As if the Oracle or Warp Prism will stick around that long. I suppose you could build two Cyclones now that they can be Reactored. Would also help against Stalkers.
The most important is removing meditanks and increasing tank damage. That change should be implemented immediately, no point in waiting 4-5 months for getting real tanks.
A few changes make not sense though. DT is already a really good unit, no point in making it even stronger.
On August 15 2016 05:49 MockHamill wrote: The most important is removing meditanks and increasing tank damage. That change should be implemented immediately, no point in waiting 4-5 months for getting real tanks.
Except, I don't know, tournaments with thousands of dollars on the line going on right now that get messed up by huge changes like this.
On August 15 2016 05:47 Thezzy wrote: Hmmm, I wonder if this would make Hellion/Viking viable vs Protoss. Vikings would now be less dangerous to overbuild vs Protoss since they'll wreck anything Mechanical that isn't an Immortal. Blue Flame Hellbats would deal with any Zealots/Adepts. Colossi would die to Air Vikings.
I do wonder how this changes the early game TvP though. As it stands, Protoss can still throw quite a few deadly openings that require different responses.
Proxy Oracle Warp Prism + Adept 7gate Blink DTs
A Cyclone was a relatively safe multiple use unit to help a defend against Oracles or Warp Prisms. 160 damage over 14 seconds? As if the Oracle or Warp Prism will stick around that long. I suppose you could build two Cyclones now that they can be Reactored. Would also help against Stalkers.
180 health cyclone that doesn't need tech lab will help terran deal with protoss agression much faster. Also, the fact that the lock only works on air units will allow terran players to amove into an adept drop and have the cyclone auto lock the prism instead of casting it on an adept.
Overall terran changes seem very healthy.
Zerg changes seem uninspired, and protoss changes gimmicky, but as a terran player i'm just glad to see diversity added to terran.
Repurposing the Cyclone as a speedy, fragile anti-Armored unit to make them compliment the Hellion is good and all. However, I feel like restricting Lock On to only be an anti-air ability, and to no longer be autocastable is going to permanently damage Mech anti-air, which is desperately needed.
Siege Tank: 4 out of 5:
Buffing the Siege Tank's damage potential overall while simultaneously removing their drop potential can only be a good thing, As somebody who plays Random on ladder and who despises playing against Terran: Fuck Siegeivacs. They are incredibly overpowered, near-impossible to stop without significant anti-air, and turn all vs Terran matchups into a frustratingly cheesy clusterfuck.
However, I feel like the damage buff has been done wrong because of two critical issues:
1. 40 damage to Light will one-shot Zerglings. It's too powerful to justify. 2. The Archon still takes almost half as much damage, unlike in Brood War where it took a full 70 Explosive damage from Siege Tank fire. This is due to the Archon's unique status as a "neither Light nor Armored" unit. This change means that Archons will be able to take 9 hits before dying, as opposed to the 11 hits they could take before. Yet they still took 6 hits to kill back in BW.
Instead, I think their damage needs to be changed to the following:
70 damage (-35 vs Light)
This will allow them to do full damage to Archons. It will also allow them to do full damage to Ravagers without flagging them as Armoured, although Blizzard are doing this because ZvP...
Liberators: 2 out of 5:
Their anti-air potential has already been nerfed to uselessness against Armoured units and established Corruptors, Tempests, Void Rays, Battlecruisers and Vikings as their air-to-air counters. It doesn't need to be nerfed any further because they already suck against Mutalisks unless they've achieved a critical mass.
Thor: 0 out of 5
As far as I'm concerned, the Thor is one of those units that should just be removed from the game outright and replaced with a functional air-counter unit like the Goliath. Its bulky size, slow speed, cumbersome splash damage, and nerfed single target anti-air damage already makes it a shitty counter to air units, and only useful as a high cost meatshield against ground armies. Buffing the splash radius by 20% will just make it capable of hurting a few more mutalisks before they're hard-countered because lolololololol magic box.
This change does not fly well with me, especially when Liberator and Cyclone anti-air potential is being nerfed... TO THE GROUND, BABY!
Banshee: 1 out of 5
While I'll admit that Banshees are underused in later parts of the game, and the upgrade is too far a tech diversion to justify getting, Speedshees have stupidly good mobility with this upgrade which lets them quickly and easily snipe key units and bases.
Instead, I feel like Hyperflight Rotors needs to be removed and Blizzard needs to just not fix units that ain't broke.
Viking: 3 out of 5
Vikings definitely need a buff to their ground form. I'm not sure about making them anti-Armoured though. It basically means that mass Vikings can wipe out Stalkers and Roaches with absolute ease, which is a REALLY bad idea when they can land in a base en masse.
Battlecruiser: 3 out of 5:
And down goes the High Templar's usefulness against Sky Terran.
In all seriousness, this is a somewhat decent idea, but the most restrictive thing about the Battlecruiser is the fact that the Yamato Cannon needs to be unlocked with an upgrade.
Instead, I think they should lock Tactical Jump behind upgrades.
Raven: 3 out of 5
While any buff to the Raven is a good thing, I feel it would be a good unit if Seeker Missiles cost less energy, and didn't fizzle out like an unreliable sack of shit against anything remotely mobile. Instead, Seeker Missiles should perma-lock to their target and progressively chase them down before exploding. This could then lead to midgame Bio/Raven play as a SC2 form of SK Terran, because this time, the Raven would be able to do reliable splash damage, and reliably strong damage against key units like Ultralisks.
Tempest: 4 out of 5:
Nerfing their ground attack range was a must, although I'm not so sure about their Disruption Sphere ability. It seems far too powerful, and has far too long a duration.
Zealot: 0 out of 5:
The Zealot is one of those units that is incredibly powerful and doesn't need a buff at all. Instead, the Adept needs a nerf to ensure its use is only situational rather than replacing the Zealot. Adepts are used over Zealots because they:
1. Are ranged units. Although Zealots deal more DPS per unit, they actually deal less damage overall in most situations because they need to stick to their targets. Also, armour upgrades weaken their melee strikes a lot. 2. Have the exact same effective HP (combined Life and Shields) values and armour typing as a Zealot. 3. Have stupidly powerful mobility and harassment potential off the bat. Zealots have to research theirs.
Carrier: 5 out of 5:
Release Interceptor made them too powerful. It's good to put them back in check, while at the same time nerfing Interceptor cost and allowing Carriers to autobuild them.
Swarm Host: ? out of 5:
This one I can't judge because I never see Swarm Hosts used since their redesign. I personally liked the old design of the Swarm Host better, although I feel like Locusts needed a cost to morph or needed a slightly longer CD to pop than 20 seconds to make the Swarm Hosts temporarily vulnerable, because being able to indefinitely stall entire Protoss and Terran Mech deathballs with just 18 Swarm Hosts was broken.
Ravager: 1 out of 5
While I agree with this change in respect of ZvP and ZvT, I really don't like it with regards to ZvZ.
9 range Lurkers are already overpowered as fuck, and a Lurker line at present cannot be broken without a full-on tech switch to Brood Lords in ZvZ. Flagging the Ravager as an Armoured unit will make them take even more damage from Lurkers, which can already nuke them from existence.
Instead, I feel like the Ravager should retain its unique status as a "neither Light nor Armored" unit, but that Corrosive Bile should be buffed against Biological units instead.
Buffing Corrosive Bile damage to 80 against Biological units will basically mean that Lurkers can be 3-shotted instead of 4-shotted. This will make it easier to break Lurker contains without a Brood Lord tech switch, and improve Ravagers as a counter against Brood Lords.
Hydralisk: 5 out of 5:
Hydralisks need a speed buff both on and off creep, and they also need a range buff to increase their viability as core units. Personally though, I would have added a +biological damage modifier to their attack instead, to make them more useful against Terran bio, Zealots, and Mutalisks.
Baneling: 1 out of 5
This is another classic example of Blizzard fixing what ain't broke. Banelings are still a very good unit, and are one that force micro. Buffing their HP will only lead to more heavily Zerg favoured midgames.
Infestor: 4 out of 5
Allowing Infestors to use all their abilities whilst burrowed is a great idea, because this can once again make Neural Parasite viable, and adds a stealth element to using Fungal Growth.
However, I'm not so sure if I agree with Deep Tunnel as an ability. It feels overpowered, like you can just get vision, tunnel full energy Infestor hit squads into the enemy base, and stealth Fungal entire mineral lines to death.
Brood Lord: 5 out of 5:
This change is very well-justified, and might actually make Brood Lords counterable by ground forces. Where were these kinds of intelligent balance changes back in the Wings of Liberty days.
And some other unit issues that Blizzard should have addressed
Marauders - Splitting their attack into two was the dumbest decision David Kim ever made. It basically means that Armoured units, which intrinsically have more Armour, counter them, rather than the other way around.
Ultralisks - Ultralisks were fine back in Brood War, Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm. Adding a +2 armour buff to Chitinous Plating has basically killed the viability of Terran and Protoss late game, because nothing short of mass air, mass Immortals or mass Lurkers can take down fully upgraded Ultralisks.
The drop/harassment meta. Blizzard made so many changes to how dropships work, that it's almost impossible to shut down or prevent drop harassment strategies. Medivac boost was one of those dumbass ideas from HotS which basically made Blink Stalker play in PvT mandatory to prevent a doom drop from outright killing you. Also, Overlord drop changes in LotV have basically made ling/bane drop cheese builds abrurdly overpowered because of their ability to outright bypass defensive positions. Oh, and don't even get me started on the new Warp Prism which can pick up units from range and flee danger easily as a result.
On August 15 2016 05:47 Thezzy wrote: Hmmm, I wonder if this would make Hellion/Viking viable vs Protoss. Vikings would now be less dangerous to overbuild vs Protoss since they'll wreck anything Mechanical that isn't an Immortal. Blue Flame Hellbats would deal with any Zealots/Adepts. Colossi would die to Air Vikings.
I do wonder how this changes the early game TvP though. As it stands, Protoss can still throw quite a few deadly openings that require different responses.
Proxy Oracle Warp Prism + Adept 7gate Blink DTs
A Cyclone was a relatively safe multiple use unit to help a defend against Oracles or Warp Prisms. 160 damage over 14 seconds? As if the Oracle or Warp Prism will stick around that long. I suppose you could build two Cyclones now that they can be Reactored. Would also help against Stalkers.
180 health cyclone that doesn't need tech lab will help terran deal with protoss agression much faster. Also, the fact that the lock only works on air units will allow terran players to amove into an adept drop and have the cyclone auto lock the prism instead of casting it on an adept.
Overall terran changes seem very healthy.
Zerg changes seem uninspired, and protoss changes gimmicky, but as a terran player i'm just glad to see diversity added to terran.
On August 15 2016 06:30 Blargh wrote: But, why aren't adepts being changed?? I don't know why anyone would defend the adept. They are way too annoying of a unit.
Dayvie said they wanted to improve answers to adepts (tanks, banelings) rather than flatly making adepts worse
WHY?? WHY WOULD YOU BRING BACK THE MECH, STALEMATE CANCER????? i mean, you cant even pick up your tanks as a bio player, to at least have that advantage against you meching opponent. Also making such huge revamps after 1 year already is just really blizzard looking insecure as fuck about what they do.
I guess the "sit back and let things develope first" talk isnt a thing anymore. but really, why would you want to make bio unplayable and bring back boring stalemate games...
really didnt see anything positive about this changes
On August 15 2016 06:30 Blargh wrote: But, why aren't adepts being changed?? I don't know why anyone would defend the adept. They are way too annoying of a unit.
I like adepts I think they are a really fun unit. Just the 2 base 8 gate adept allin is maybe slightly too strong.
Repurposing the Cyclone as a speedy, fragile anti-Armored unit to make them compliment the Hellion is good and all. However, I feel like restricting Lock On to only be an anti-air ability, and to no longer be autocastable is going to permanently damage Mech anti-air, which is desperately needed.
mech anti air after these changes:
- Thor - anti-light and anti-armored mode. Just fat and high health pool
- Liberators (easy anti air) with siege single-target attack mode
- vikings anti-armored in air and anti-mechanical on ground
- battlecruisers - 500 damage yamato and basic attacks + global blink
- widow mines for ambushes, traps or other stuff. Great damage vs protoss
Blizzard once again ... for the 3485738758493th time... impressed the fuck out of me.
i remember Morhaime standing in front of the first 20 story office building he bought for Blizzard. The guy didn't have $100 worth of clothes on. what a great company.
On August 15 2016 06:08 Kerence wrote: Oh hey, actual big changes instead of just small balance ones. This could be good going forward.
can't do massive changes in the middle of a competitive season. they have to wait until after BlizzCon 2016... and obviously they'll have to make sure the game is stabilized by the beginning of the 2017 competitive season.
Quit SC2 a few months after lotv cos it was so bad. However with these mech changes i might play again next year. Time to wait and see if they can bring me back into the game or if they will just screw it up like i expect them to
On August 15 2016 07:09 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote: widow mine can't kill armored banelings via splash? so rip bio
Widow mine now kills 1 baneling and leaves all the rest alive with 5 hp. Bio is dead without tanks. TvZ will have two possible faces after these changes. Banelings gettings a 33% increase in survival from marine focus fire and hundreds of times more likely to die on top of marines.
1. Late WoL ling/bling/muta suffocating Marine/Medivac/Tank 2. Full I-wanna-hang-myself turtle mech.
There's also a lot of chances of baneling all-ins being an every-game sort of thing. No tankivac micro options, unlikely to have the firepower to kill banelings.
Tempest ability seems quite idiotic in large numbers. Sure you'll have less of them since they cost 2 more pop, but you can't chase tempest with ground AA anymore. It's like adding a weak storm to the tempest, that is known to combo very well with storm. It lasts 32 seconds, and has 42 cd. Only 10 secs CD? With a 13 sec cast range that's actually quite the same, so i really don't see the point.
On August 15 2016 07:15 TronJovolta wrote: NO FUCKING NO TO THE DT BUFF. Seriously?
I'll be fine with DTs getting Blink if they temporarily de-cloak themselves on attacking. That way, DTs get a mobility buff and an escape cooldown while at the same time no longer punishing players with build order losses should they fail to build detection in time.
On August 15 2016 07:09 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote: widow mine can't kill armored banelings via splash? so rip bio
Widow mine now kills 1 baneling and leaves all the rest alive with 5 hp.
No. The mine does 40 splash and the banes will have 40 hp.
I stand (happily) corrected. I like to see more baneling to deal with adepts in ZvP. I hope they don't continue on their plan of making Ravager armored so turtle mech won't be the most horrible to face in TvZ.
On August 15 2016 07:39 JackONeill wrote: Tempest ability seems quite idiotic in large numbers. Sure you'll have less of them since they cost 2 more pop, but you can't chase tempest with ground AA anymore. It's like adding a weak storm to the tempest, that is known to combo very well with storm. It lasts 32 seconds, and has 42 cd. Only 10 secs CD? With a 13 sec cast range that's actually quite the same, so i really don't see the point.
Yup, a 13 range disruption field is almost the same damage potential wise as just flat-out giving Tempests 15 attack range, and that's why I feel unsure of this change. At least the supply cost increase should make them far less massable.
On August 15 2016 07:15 Metalcore1993NZ wrote: Quit SC2 a few months after lotv cos it was so bad. However with these mech changes i might play again next year. Time to wait and see if they can bring me back into the game or if they will just screw it up like i expect them to
I actually started playing WoL and HotS ladder again because LotV was so goddamn bad. Far more enjoyable multiplayer experience than dying to the same cheap all-ins every game.
I think the amount of people who quit playing and watching SC2 after LotV's release, plus the emergency of Ultragamer500 (a SC2 streamer and suspected viewbotter who ladders while pretending to be Stephen Hawking and crapping on the game and Blizzard constantly in his robotic voice) has forced Blizzard to act and fix their game.
It also surprises me how many of these changes are the sort of thing Avilo has cried for over the last few years.
Some of these terran changes are reverted nerfs. About time Blizzard realized that balancing tanks and landed vikings around maps like steps of war and lost temple was folly.
On August 15 2016 06:03 Clbull wrote: My thoughts on the changes.
Cyclone: 3 out of 5:
Repurposing the Cyclone as a speedy, fragile anti-Armored unit to make them compliment the Hellion is good and all. However, I feel like restricting Lock On to only be an anti-air ability, and to no longer be autocastable is going to permanently damage Mech anti-air, which is desperately needed.
Siege Tank: 4 out of 5:
Buffing the Siege Tank's damage potential overall while simultaneously removing their drop potential can only be a good thing, As somebody who plays Random on ladder and who despises playing against Terran: Fuck Siegeivacs. They are incredibly overpowered, near-impossible to stop without significant anti-air, and turn all vs Terran matchups into a frustratingly cheesy clusterfuck.
However, I feel like the damage buff has been done wrong because of two critical issues:
1. 40 damage to Light will one-shot Zerglings. It's too powerful to justify. 2. The Archon still takes almost half as much damage, unlike in Brood War where it took a full 70 Explosive damage from Siege Tank fire. This is due to the Archon's unique status as a "neither Light nor Armored" unit. This change means that Archons will be able to take 9 hits before dying, as opposed to the 11 hits they could take before. Yet they still took 6 hits to kill back in BW.
Instead, I think their damage needs to be changed to the following:
This will allow them to do full damage to Archons. It will also allow them to do full damage to Ravagers without flagging them as Armoured, although Blizzard are doing this because ZvP...
Liberators: 2 out of 5:
Their anti-air potential has already been nerfed to uselessness against Armoured units and established Corruptors, Tempests, Void Rays, Battlecruisers and Vikings as their air-to-air counters. It doesn't need to be nerfed any further because they already suck against Mutalisks unless they've achieved a critical mass.
Thor: 0 out of 5
As far as I'm concerned, the Thor is one of those units that should just be removed from the game outright and replaced with a functional air-counter unit like the Goliath. Its bulky size, slow speed, cumbersome splash damage, and nerfed single target anti-air damage already makes it a shitty counter to air units, and only useful as a high cost meatshield against ground armies. Buffing the splash radius by 20% will just make it capable of hurting a few more mutalisks before they're hard-countered because lolololololol magic box.
This change does not fly well with me, especially when Liberator and Cyclone anti-air potential is being nerfed... TO THE GROUND, BABY!
Banshee: 1 out of 5
While I'll admit that Banshees are underused in later parts of the game, and the upgrade is too far a tech diversion to justify getting, Speedshees have stupidly good mobility with this upgrade which lets them quickly and easily snipe key units and bases.
Instead, I feel like Hyperflight Rotors needs to be removed and Blizzard needs to just not fix units that ain't broke.
Viking: 3 out of 5
Vikings definitely need a buff to their ground form. I'm not sure about making them anti-Armoured though. It basically means that mass Vikings can wipe out Stalkers and Roaches with absolute ease, which is a REALLY bad idea when they can land in a base en masse.
Battlecruiser: 3 out of 5:
And down goes the High Templar's usefulness against Sky Terran.
In all seriousness, this is a somewhat decent idea, but the most restrictive thing about the Battlecruiser is the fact that the Yamato Cannon needs to be unlocked with an upgrade.
Instead, I think they should lock Tactical Jump behind upgrades.
Raven: 3 out of 5
While any buff to the Raven is a good thing, I feel it would be a good unit if Seeker Missiles cost less energy, and didn't fizzle out like an unreliable sack of shit against anything remotely mobile. Instead, Seeker Missiles should perma-lock to their target and progressively chase them down before exploding. This could then lead to midgame Bio/Raven play as a SC2 form of SK Terran, because this time, the Raven would be able to do reliable splash damage, and reliably strong damage against key units like Ultralisks.
Tempest: 4 out of 5:
Nerfing their ground attack range was a must, although I'm not so sure about their Disruption Sphere ability. It seems far too powerful, and has far too long a duration.
Zealot: 0 out of 5:
The Zealot is one of those units that is incredibly powerful and doesn't need a buff at all. Instead, the Adept needs a nerf to ensure its use is only situational rather than replacing the Zealot. Adepts are used over Zealots because they:
1. Are ranged units. Although Zealots deal more DPS per unit, they actually deal less damage overall in most situations because they need to stick to their targets. Also, armour upgrades weaken their melee strikes a lot. 2. Have the exact same effective HP (combined Life and Shields) values and armour typing as a Zealot. 3. Have stupidly powerful mobility and harassment potential off the bat. Zealots have to research theirs.
Carrier: 5 out of 5:
Release Interceptor made them too powerful. It's good to put them back in check, while at the same time nerfing Interceptor cost and allowing Carriers to autobuild them.
Swarm Host: ? out of 5:
This one I can't judge because I never see Swarm Hosts used since their redesign. I personally liked the old design of the Swarm Host better, although I feel like Locusts needed a cost to morph or needed a slightly longer CD to pop than 20 seconds to make the Swarm Hosts temporarily vulnerable, because being able to indefinitely stall entire Protoss and Terran Mech deathballs with just 18 Swarm Hosts was broken.
Ravager: 1 out of 5
While I agree with this change in respect of ZvP and ZvT, I really don't like it with regards to ZvZ.
9 range Lurkers are already overpowered as fuck, and a Lurker line at present cannot be broken without a full-on tech switch to Brood Lords in ZvZ. Flagging the Ravager as an Armoured unit will make them take even more damage from Lurkers, which can already nuke them from existence.
Instead, I feel like the Ravager should retain its unique status as a "neither Light nor Armored" unit, but that Corrosive Bile should be buffed against Biological units instead.
Buffing Corrosive Bile damage to 80 against Biological units will basically mean that Lurkers can be 3-shotted instead of 4-shotted. This will make it easier to break Lurker contains without a Brood Lord tech switch, and improve Ravagers as a counter against Brood Lords.
Hydralisk: 5 out of 5:
Hydralisks need a speed buff both on and off creep, and they also need a range buff to increase their viability as core units. Personally though, I would have added a +biological damage modifier to their attack instead, to make them more useful against Terran bio, Zealots, and Mutalisks.
Baneling: 1 out of 5
This is another classic example of Blizzard fixing what ain't broke. Banelings are still a very good unit, and are one that force micro. Buffing their HP will only lead to more heavily Zerg favoured midgames.
Infestor: 4 out of 5
Allowing Infestors to use all their abilities whilst burrowed is a great idea, because this can once again make Neural Parasite viable, and adds a stealth element to using Fungal Growth.
However, I'm not so sure if I agree with Deep Tunnel as an ability. It feels overpowered, like you can just get vision, tunnel full energy Infestor hit squads into the enemy base, and stealth Fungal entire mineral lines to death.
Brood Lord: 5 out of 5:
This change is very well-justified, and might actually make Brood Lords counterable by ground forces. Where were these kinds of intelligent balance changes back in the Wings of Liberty days.
And some other unit issues that Blizzard should have addressed
Marauders - Splitting their attack into two was the dumbest decision David Kim ever made. It basically means that Armoured units, which intrinsically have more Armour, counter them, rather than the other way around.
Ultralisks - Ultralisks were fine back in Brood War, Wings of Liberty and Heart of the Swarm. Adding a +2 armour buff to Chitinous Plating has basically killed the viability of Terran and Protoss late game, because nothing short of mass air, mass Immortals or mass Lurkers can take down fully upgraded Ultralisks.
The drop/harassment meta. Blizzard made so many changes to how dropships work, that it's almost impossible to shut down or prevent drop harassment strategies. Medivac boost was one of those dumbass ideas from HotS which basically made Blink Stalker play in PvT mandatory to prevent a doom drop from outright killing you. Also, Overlord drop changes in LotV have basically made ling/bane drop cheese builds abrurdly overpowered because of their ability to outright bypass defensive positions. Oh, and don't even get me started on the new Warp Prism which can pick up units from range and flee danger easily as a result.
Really hard to find such a long post with almost nothing I agree
Lol was reading all the changes and thought -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading DT change: f*ck this shit, I am not coming back to get cheesed even more often and lose to one trick ponys
Changes like this could make me start to play again, if they turn out to be good for the game that is. I would still like further changes(Obviously). Such as more diversity in the openings. Less RNG in the openings(Much less).
Havent watched or played sc2 in a long time now. For example how does a terran open with none-factory vs protoss now? Is it still the same bullshit of atleast 6marines?
Holy shit those harrassments of each race are triggering me. Don't understand why they keep buffing harrassment but if they think its cool then lets revert HOTS's macro mechanic back for each race and tweak it. And tweak mineral line too to make sure you won't mine out too fast with old mechanic.Increase about 150 mineral for each cluster. If harrassment is buffed,mistakes of player must be more forgivable.
On August 15 2016 08:01 Rollora wrote: Lol was reading all the changes and thought -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading DT change: f*ck this shit, I am not coming back to get cheesed even more often and lose to one trick ponys
Keep in mind the DT upgrade takes as long to finish as stim if it's not chronoed. That has to be some real slow cheese.
I like some of the changes, some less so but most importantly I see a lot of buffs again and I rather had them tone things down a bit more (except the seige tank).
And the early harass option for the liberator they want to keep overlaps with the banshee, still. I just don't think that unit is any good for the game. I think the adept for instance is ok but certainly needs adjustments but no word about that which is weird to me. An HP nerf would do the trick probably and would also make the zealot the preferred meat shield again in bigger engagements, a role the adept stole.
On August 15 2016 08:01 Rollora wrote: Lol was reading all the changes and thought -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading DT change: f*ck this shit, I am not coming back to get cheesed even more often and lose to one trick ponys
Keep in mind the DT upgrade takes as long to finish as stim if it's not chronoed. That has to be some real slow cheese.
And you may want to produce raven before stim is done.Need blind counter for new DTs.
I actually just was saying to myself last night that even though LotV is a lot more fun to watch than HotS, it still could never match WoL for me. Tankivacs were definitely a part of my reasoning and hopefully the other changes here have large positive impacts aswell. I still hate the Adept though and would love to see something done about that stupid thing.
Wouldn't this new tempest spell, disruption sphere, be a pain in the pain if cast on mineral lines? Like, how do you even mine for 32 seconds? And the cooldown is only 43 seconds
First, I'm glad that blizzard is doing these sweeping changes. They realized that their game was horrendously imbalanced, extremely swingy, and ultimately unfun. I don't like all of their changes (or lack of; where are the changes to medivac afterburners, adept, mothership core photon overcharge, ultralisk, and warp prism? Although they at least made good changes to tankivac and liberator) but I can certainly appreciate the effort.
Cyclone The reason why it was made in the current meta was to help stop harass flying units like oracle, warp prism (if you could catch it early), banshee, etc, since it did so much damage to them quickly (compared to a viking). Changing lockon so it takes forever to do any damage to air units is a big change. Though mech at least has a bulky unit against armored ground units. At the very least it got a design overhaul which is nice (the cyclone was such a stupid gimmick). 6/10
Tank This is a very good change. This will turn tvt into the best mirror matchup. This will also help turn the tank back into what made it a great unit in BW and WoL; difficult to use but very rewarding. My only issue is that it might make the 1/1/1 build in tvp too good. 9/10
Liberator This might let mutas back into tvz which would be awesome. Might. I'm not sure if a few liberators can still destroy mutas or if the mutas can just magic box and be okay. Basically, if mutas can now be made in tvz without being laughed at I will take it. 10/10 if mutas can be made again in tvz
Thor This change helps a little but I they still won't be made except if the opponent is going mass muta. They're still too damn slow and expensive and shitty. 4/10
Banshee Ok change but it probably won't change much. They're simply too frail for their cost. Getting cloak AND speed upgrade are huge (but balanced) commitments. If you're getting both upgrades you're committed to making a lot of banshees, but they're not really good at doing anything except killing workers and the last thing we need is killing more workers. 4/10
BC Decent change. They still won't be made in tvp because of tempests but at the very least HTs don't laugh at them anymore. The other change that BC needed was either changing their attack to BW, where it's 1 attack on a longer cooldown (armor upgrades won't laugh at them as air terran is usually behind on upgrades compared to everyone else) or make yamato upgrade automatic so BCs pop out with an actual ability up. 5/10
Viking The only thing this really helps is TvP where you land the vikings after all the colossi are dead. But TvP doesn't really see colossi anymore because adepts are so fucking broken. They're still not very good against tempests (theoretically they're fine but any sort of ground support makes it very difficult to actually close in on them) and they still evaporate against vipers (the viking buff doesn't affect tvz but that's beside the point). Personally I would have liked to seen an upgrade on the starport tech lab that gave vikings more HP or more range over this change. Or, if you nerf adepts and buff colossi (I wouldn't buff colossi because colossi is a boring unit but it would be important for pure balance), this will be a good change. 4/10
Raven Auto turret damage buff is okay but the major issue with auto turrets is that it's often too hard to actually plant those fuckers. Being 4 squares when shit is everywhere is really hard to plant. I think changing auto turrets to be 1 square would mean that it's not so hard to plant turrets down in a big fight. I would have also liked seeker missile to change so that the missile will lock on and always hit its target, but it takes several seconds to land (and give a visual cue) so the opponent can split his units, IIRC that's how it worked in WoL. This way seeker missile at least does damage. Spending 125 energy for it to do absolutely nothing is so bad. 2/10
Tempest FINALLY TEMPESTS ARE 6 SUPPLY I can get behind this change. One of air toss' issues was having no splash damage in stargate. 13 range on the spell is too much though. I would rather change it to 8-9, same as colossi range and HT storm range. 7/10
Zealot Zealot change isn't gonna do anything because of adepts. In fact zealots are actually fine but they are made obsolete because of adepts. This change shows that blizzard doesn't understand that. 0/10
Carrier Good changes in theory but nobody really makes carriers anyway. 7/10
DT The issue with DTs is that they're borderline useless when detection is around. I guess that's a good way to make them balanced, but blink doesn't really help. It makes you either run away from detection, or circumvent the detection. Plus the cost and research time makes this pretty unviable anyway. 3/10
Swarm Host My issue with the swarm host is that it's a huge design overlap with the brood lord. Thus I would've liked a change where swarm host locusts instead only attack air units (and tweak numbers like cost, damage, range, etc). 1/10
Ravager Passable change, I'm not sure why they didn't have a light or heavy armor to begin with. Immortals now own them pretty hard and maybe tosses won't roll over and die to early ravagers. I would have liked to seen a different change (say that you had to upgrade the roach warren into a new building before you could make ravagers) but this is passable. 6/10
Hydralisk This will likely break zvp. Hydras were already tough to deal with as a toss unless you had splash. 2/10
Baneling I'm ok with this change, it makes it a little harder for terran to focus down the banelings with marines, but you can still split your marines to minimize the damage. 6/10
Infestor You cannot let infestors use fungal while burrowed. This is gonna get scrapped very quickly. TvZ will be unwinnable if this goes through. You will never be able to move out ever, even if you make ravens. Allowing Neural while burrowed is pretty dumb but at least it's not going to instantly wipe out your army. Infestors don't need a buff. The reason why zergs stopped making infestors is that rushing to ultras was often just better if you could hold out (remember you need the energy upgrade on the infestor). 0/10
Brood Lord Okay change in theory but thors will still be shit against brood lords. BLs clump up while thors are stupidly bulky so while all the BLs fire, only a couple thors will attack. If you want thors to actually be good against BLs (or against the long range air units in general) you have to make the thor's attack range larger. 1/10
No changes to medivac afterburners, adept, MSC photon overcharge, ultralisk, or vipers saddens me though. At least they addressed tankivac, liberator, and tempest though, but evne then the tempest change overall might be a buff.
Afterburners is a very powerful ability especially when it's available that early. It really forces zergs and tosses to have ridiculous defenses to counteract them. If you remove afterburners then you can nerf queen/spore and photon overcharge and make the game better.
adepts give toss in pvt the better army for the entire game. They are also now ruining pvp as well. They are simply poorly designed; a unit that is just 25 gas and 150 health (same total health as a fucking zealot) and ridiculous damage to light armor and comes from the warpgate should not be able to pseudo-teleport.
Photon overcharge give tosses an ability to defend harass without needing to make static defenses. Saving 200-300 minerals early in the game is extremely huge and allows tosses to either get an early 3rd or be able to aggressively tech (sometimes both in a map like dusk towers).
Ultralisk give zergs in zvt way too strong a lategame.
Vipers are way too good for the fact that they're fast, flying spellcasters with consume. Blinding cloud destroys mech, abduct destroys capital ships, and parasitic bomb destroys clumps of air units. People don't see these problems because zergs either die before they reach hive or they win with ultras (in zvt) or with a lair tech push (in zvp).
Some of these changes also cannot go through as they'll break matchups in half. Hydra buff will likely break pvz. Infestor buff (allowing them to cast fungal while burrowed) will definitely break tvz. Some of these changes also shows that blizzard doesn't understand what's causing problems. You don't need to buff zealots if you want tosses to start making them again, you need to nerf adepts. The raven change is not the reason why terrans can't make ravens, it's because it's too hard to plant turrets in a big fight and seeker missile is a worthless ability.
At least blizzard is trying though and showing that they care, which is a start. But they still have a lot of work to do.
I'm very happy they are testing such drastic changes, and very excited to see how this is going to work
I honestly don't understand how one could already whine about this: it's impossible to say how they are going to play out and what is going to happen. It's not like they are changing *one* unit, they are reworking many (core) units - several dynamics and interactions are going to change, and in my opinion the only way to judge the validity of this update will be to test them in the beta-map they will put out.
I really hope that someone in the community (basetrade TV or many TB) will organize some showmatches or even a small tournament with this test-map(s): it would be amazing to see pro players not involved in Blizzcon test these in a competitive environment (I doubt I could really gauge the impact of the changes from my own noobish level of play honestly)
An other point: no matter what the outcome will be, and what changes will go through, it's very refreshing to get these major modifications to units and gameplay. It almost feel like a different iteration of the game or a new expansion, and it's very nice to look forward to something like this. At least from my point of view it looks like they definitely care about SC2, and are willing to work on it (even drastically) to improve it. If we get big changes like this once every year - year and a half - I would be very happy !
Call me pessimistic, but this kinda sounds like that time they changed the artificial macro mechanics and then reverted the changes shortly thereafter. I'll wait and see if any of this stuff gets implemented before jumping on board and reinstalling SC2.
On August 15 2016 08:33 a_flayer wrote: Call me pessimistic, but this kinda sounds like that time they changed the artificial macro mechanics and then reverted the changes shortly thereafter. I'll wait and see if any of this stuff gets implemented before jumping on board and reinstalling SC2.
I'm also skeptical, I really really hope they don't backpedal on all these changes this time. It's funny how it took them 6 years to realize that tanks actually suck and revert it to WoL Beta status.
Please tell me this is a joke... All I'm seeing is that Terran and Zerg are getting buffs, Protoss getting nerfed with Zealot speed being the only 'buff'.
On August 15 2016 08:52 MoonyD wrote: Please tell me this is a joke... All I'm seeing is that Terran and Zerg are getting buffs, Protoss getting nerfed with Zealot speed being the only 'buff'.
Some zerg buffs are over the top (particularly hydra and infestor casting fungal while burrowed) but terran is getting big nerfs overall (tank is a nerf overall, liberator is a notable nerf for tvz), and the buffs are given to units who are barely seeing any use at all (cyclone, thor, raven, BC, banshee) or is only a small buff (viking).
Tempest isn't even a drastic nerf, if at all. More supply was necessary but at least they now have an AoE spell. In fact they would have to nerf this new spell because it's probably too good. An AoE spell that lasts 32 seconds is pretty stupid.
Okay. I haven't really paid attention to this game much for the last 6 months but:
This is likely too many changes at once, and it will be very unbalanced. It will bring ppl back, but it will take 6-12 months to get reasonable balance. Many pros will leave the weakest race. Casual players will leave the weakest race.
This is being in a hole and digging futher. Even though these changes can be good in the long run, it is way too much at this time. You cannot do this where the game is now.
I am not saying this is 100% sure to happen, but I find it far more likely than any other scenario.
On August 15 2016 08:52 MoonyD wrote: Please tell me this is a joke... All I'm seeing is that Terran and Zerg are getting buffs, Protoss getting nerfed with Zealot speed being the only 'buff'.
Yeah, that DT blink is doing nothing at all. Tempest while nerfed also got new ability and you can't call it a nerf just yet because you don't know how useful that ability will be.
Maybe they didn't get as much buffs as other factions but they certainly didn't get just nerfs...
As protoss i feel like we're losing a lot of our midgame power (particularly blink stalkers seem to suck ass vs terran and will be considerably worse vs hydra/bane), but gaining some lategame power between blink dts and carriers, so meh. Not enthusastic because i feel encouraged to turtle more and i personally prefer the more gateway-heavy styles.
The tempest change mostly means we will make a handful of them for sieging and to snipe liberators/broods, then go carriers i think.
On August 15 2016 09:01 Mozdk wrote: Okay. I haven't really paid attention to this game much for the last 6 months but:
This is likely too many changes at once, and it will be very unbalanced. It will bring ppl back, but it will take 6-12 months to get reasonable balance. Many pros will leave the weakest race. Casual players will leave the weakest race.
This is being in a hole and digging futher. Even though these changes can be good in the long run, it is way too much at this time. You cannot do this where the game is now.
I am not saying this is 100% sure to happen, but I find it far more likely than any other scenario.
This is very similar to an expansion release, but with fewer changes. It won't be nearly as dramatic as you think, but yes, there will certainly be some imbalances at first and that's fine
Awesome stuff, looks like they're trying to make the game more dynamic by buffing underused units and nerfing those that cause stale play. Seems less like nerfs or buffs and more like just making the game more fun!
I definitely hate roach play in general and ravagers even more, I basically never make a roach warren anymore except in ZvP to hold early gate pressure. So these changes are definitely great for my style of play.
Mech turtling will be far too strong, but I doubt the seige tank buff will make it into the game. It may be a novelty now, but in the long run the game would become boring to watch and frustrating to play.
I don't understand the baneling buff, it seems like it would negate a lot of marine micro which is not really what anyone wants.
I'm disappointed not to see some sort of adept nerf, they're too prevalent and not very fun to watch.
These are all design-oriented comments by the way - I'm not interested in balance. Everything will be balanced out in the end as it always is.
I do like that they're willing to try out some sweeping changes, and the other ones look more promising to me. We'll just have to wait and see how the test map plays out.
Cyclone buff: mech is designed to have low-mobility and high firepower. Having a strong mobile mech unit would just turn mech into bio 2.0. -0/10 Tankivac removal: great change but 70 damage vs armored is probably too much. 60 sounds more reasonable. -8/10 Liberator nerf: Should just be implemented now. -10/10 Banshee buff: Don't really like it but if they can find a good number for their speed it might be ok. -4/10 Viking buff: don't really care BC buff: Excellent change. Terran might have a lategame unit now. -10/10 Raven buff: auto-turrets are already almost broken in lategame tvt. Free units killing everything is bad. -0/10
Tempest: Every nerf to it is good but they should just be removed from the game and voids/carriers buffed to compensate as tempests are a horribly designed unit. -5/10 Zealot buff: ya it's fine. not a big deal probably. -7/10 Carrier change: good. release interceptor is pretty broken. -10/10 Dt buff: Lol -0/10
Swarm host buff: SHs should be removed as they are terribly designed. If they are cheap enough to be useful they will feel totally unfair as there is no counterplay to them except killing the opponent as long as they are vulnerable. Ravager nerf: Good -10/10 Hydra buff: speed buff is fine range buff will completely break zvp. 6/10 baneling buff: Terrible. Will make bio unusable in zvt. -0/10 Infestor buff: 10/10 for the laugh. Good joke. broodlord nerf: extra range should never have been in the game. Air units dominating ground units leads to bad gameplay -10/10
Other things that should be adressed: -Ultra armor -1 -lib range upgrade removed
Aside from what will end up actually going into the game, I can't help but worry about the future of the game when the balance team comes out and shows these potential changes to the community. Think about it, Disruption Spheres that supossedly counter the new tank, but have a million other broken uses, blink DTs(!!!), Raven super-turret that would destroy TvT right as the removal of tankivac fixed it, globally teleporting perma-burrow infestors.
Now, obviously, these things can't go into the game in their current form but it says something about the balance team that they said 'Ok, these changes seem fine, let's show them'.
turtle mech won't be a viable strategy. protoss and zerg lategame will still be strong and the lotv economy forces you to push out. currently it's literally impossible for mech to really do much because it's so weak in low numbers and heavily underpowered in the lategame. see the problem ? you're forced to max out but until you reach that point, you're basically already dead.
the mech buffs will help mech to actually move out and do something.
For those doubting this, we discussed all or most of these at the summit. So they do plan on doing this. There will be changes of course, but their intention is pretty clear. Shake things up.
Ok so obviously this is a huge number of HUGE changes, so it's literally impossible to really balance whine about them until we see them next to each other (seriously Burrow casting Infestors? Tempest Spheres? 70 damage tanks?)
But I can say for certain that I am absolutely THRILLED that they are making the attempt to make changes this big to the game that has felt very stagnant and un fun to play since the beginning of LoTV for me.
The Terran changes in particular I am in love with, and how can any Terran not be? Bio has been the only viable unit style for the entirety of LoTV up till now, this MIGHT change that. How can you not love it?
On August 15 2016 08:01 Rollora wrote: Lol was reading all the changes and thought -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading next change -ok cool, seems drastic but it can turn out to be good. Could make me ruturn to SC2 reading DT change: f*ck this shit, I am not coming back to get cheesed even more often and lose to one trick ponys
Keep in mind the DT upgrade takes as long to finish as stim if it's not chronoed. That has to be some real slow cheese.
True that but I hate hidden units and the players that just rely on winning by surprising, not actually having the mechanics to it. And this change would encourage them to further use DTs
On August 15 2016 10:28 Fran_ wrote: Wow a new game. I can't wait to defend baneling busts over baneling busts over baneling busts. Looks like we'll be able to go cyclone against Ultras?
They'll only do 1 damage to fully upgraded Ultras won't they?
I think general consensus would seem that we should immediately scrap the shitty DT Zeratul wanna be ability and perhaps buff Stalkers? With Stalkers already sucking vs. Terran and now Hydralisks will be far more potent I would much rather see the Carrier left alone and the attention be on the Stalker, it having an upgrade that gives it + light damage at the least or something idk, maybe faster rate of fire? Longer range?
Blink is powerful but if it wasn't in the game Stalkers would never be built ever.
On August 15 2016 09:03 Teoita wrote: As protoss i feel like we're losing a lot of our midgame power (particularly blink stalkers seem to suck ass vs terran and will be considerably worse vs hydra/bane), but gaining some lategame power between blink dts and carriers, so meh. Not enthusastic because i feel encouraged to turtle more and i personally prefer the more gateway-heavy styles.
The tempest change mostly means we will make a handful of them for sieging and to snipe liberators/broods, then go carriers i think.
On August 15 2016 09:01 Mozdk wrote: Okay. I haven't really paid attention to this game much for the last 6 months but:
This is likely too many changes at once, and it will be very unbalanced. It will bring ppl back, but it will take 6-12 months to get reasonable balance. Many pros will leave the weakest race. Casual players will leave the weakest race.
This is being in a hole and digging futher. Even though these changes can be good in the long run, it is way too much at this time. You cannot do this where the game is now.
I am not saying this is 100% sure to happen, but I find it far more likely than any other scenario.
This is very similar to an expansion release, but with fewer changes. It won't be nearly as dramatic as you think, but yes, there will certainly be some imbalances at first and that's fine
Basicly I am just scared this is a final blow to finish SC2 off. LoTV was not a new HOTS. It did not give nearly the same boost in percieved gameplay and viewercount. I do not believe the state of the game is ready for a long periode of messy imbalance.
That being said, I don't think SC2 will be an E-sports in 5 years either way, so DK and team has to do something, if they want it to be. And I guess they think that big changes are the answer. But I think the game is too complicated for a big audience. It's for elitist nerds, and we are too few to keep it alive for 20 years.
On August 15 2016 09:01 Mozdk wrote: Okay. I haven't really paid attention to this game much for the last 6 months but:
This is likely too many changes at once, and it will be very unbalanced. It will bring ppl back, but it will take 6-12 months to get reasonable balance. Many pros will leave the weakest race. Casual players will leave the weakest race.
This is being in a hole and digging futher. Even though these changes can be good in the long run, it is way too much at this time. You cannot do this where the game is now.
I am not saying this is 100% sure to happen, but I find it far more likely than any other scenario.
I don't like this reasoning, ever, at all. The reason it's taken this long to even get these changes is because the SC2 team has been too focused on balance, ignoring all the good design they trampled on to get to their 50/50 winrates - see Protoss as a race. The attitude that things like the Mothership Core are fine because the winrates are okay is what's driven me more mad than anything else about this game. We need more breaking down and rebuilding, if this game is to have any future.
On August 15 2016 09:01 Mozdk wrote: Okay. I haven't really paid attention to this game much for the last 6 months but:
This is likely too many changes at once, and it will be very unbalanced. It will bring ppl back, but it will take 6-12 months to get reasonable balance. Many pros will leave the weakest race. Casual players will leave the weakest race.
This is being in a hole and digging futher. Even though these changes can be good in the long run, it is way too much at this time. You cannot do this where the game is now.
I am not saying this is 100% sure to happen, but I find it far more likely than any other scenario.
I don't like this reasoning, ever, at all. The reason it's taken this long to even get these changes is because the SC2 team has been too focused on balance, ignoring all the good design they trampled on to get to their 50/50 winrates - see Protoss as a race. The attitude that things like the Mothership Core are fine because the winrates are okay is what's driven me more mad than anything else about this game. We need more breaking down and rebuilding, if this game is to have any future.
I couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Balance has never been the issue for me and its been frustrating to watch the focus on that 50/50 concept when I see glaring design issues that I feel should be addressed. Not that I have any real answers, but that's just been my experience of watching SC2 development over the past 5 years.
hm, I think swarm host supply cost should be reduced if they are trying to make it more common. You have to sacrifice like a quarter of your regular army if you want to do any damage with Swarm Host.
I'm not convinced that we need more common swarm hosts anyway. I'd be more in favor of somehow making an individual SH a little more effective at harassing, so that players can try to gain an econ advantage with 1 or 2 of them. Maybe locusts could fire something like reaper grenades that would scatter workers and eventually kill them if they aren't dealt with.
As a zerg player I can address only 3 match-ups of the 6, and only testing will reveal what these changes will actually do. Meanwhile, in ZvT it seems like the tank change and the ravager nerf will make the roach ravager combo used for defensive purposes only (tanks can't be brought that early in the game to the zerg territory, so it can be used defensively, but a zerg cannot engage with it into these tanks), and with the bane buff and the lib nerf muta ling bane will be seen more often then the roach ravager composition. May be the hydra buff will make hydras used more often in this match-up, as even though hydras can't do much vs marines, they do very well vs mech play, which seem to be something terrans will go for in this matchup (it will prepare them much better for the Ultralisk end game). Having hydras in the match-up, can make the way for lurkers there as well, which will be a nice turnover to the current meta - terran go mech and the zerg's answer is going for ling hydra lurker viper, with a BL transition in mind. From the terran point of view, the current option of the bio play may seem less viable without the tankivacs, so may be early bio pressure into mech will be the way to go. But only time will tell...
ZvP - I guess the hydra and the bane buffs will force prottoss players either tech faster, or be more aggressive in the early to mid game, as hydra bane ling combo (or simply ling bane into hive) may turn being more viable if the zerg will be allowed to be as greedy as it is in the current meta. Creep spreading will be much more useful with the hydra upgrade (I spread creep like a mad man in ZvT, but don't care that much about it in ZvP). Although the lurker transition may turn being harder with the new tempests, which will counter both transitions, lurkers and BLs but I guess the toss wouldn't be able to mass them as vipers will be able abducting them into hydras. Unlike most of the thread here, I like the DT change, even though I'm a zerg player. I get to see DTs either at the mid game (harass or 2 base all-in), or when the toss is lost. This DT upgrade can make the DT as a late game unit, which can be fun, less archons but being forced into a more a mobile army and some detection rather then engaging the protoss without taking too much damage from its deathball.
ZvZ - is the matchup I don't really like to play, and since the ling bane opener determines a lot regarding how will it proceed (at least at the diamond level where I play), I guess the bane buff will make ling bane pushes harder to deal with (queens and spines will have a harder time blowing up the coming banes), but as the other matchups, time will tell.
Regarding the infestor, I guess we'll see it more often, and while casting spells while burrowed is something which may turn being overpowered, the deep tunnel ability will probably pass the test. Unlike what many said here, I don't see it as an offensive ability, as getting infestors and waiting for them having enough energy to get to the other side of the map, cast some spells (be it fungal or infeted terrans) and hoping they come back, is a huge risk as all this waiting time will probably be a time when the zerg is very vulnerable mid game aggression, and these infestors will probably be lost at the enemy territory (going back and forth with these infestors meaning 200 energy must be saved, its very late into the game, while only a single fungal per infestor or 4 infested terrans per infestor can be cast). On the other hand, having the ability to save up the infestors after trading some army by getting them back to the base using this ability can make the infestor as a unit one should go for.
There are some changes to units which I rarely see, and I don't know how will these changes affect them. We'll see the dynamic in the coming months.
While reading the comments... it almost feels like 80% of ppl who bash on those changes never heard about balance maps and did not bother to tune in into dreamhack balance session...
It's their idea how to make SC2 fresh every year while dodge drastic changes in the middle of WCS Season.... which is FINE since we cant just ban race or unit like in MOBA....
Also they even bring ladder to balance test map in the few weeks... so if you gonna play it... blizzard will have more data to work with....
At last... some of those will not make it to the game for sure.. so PLEASE....
On August 15 2016 12:20 seemsgood wrote: My farovrite change is reduce =strength of air units and buff ground units to let players chose another option beside massing air.
Blizzard has been chipping away at air, improving ground,improving ground-to-air attacks over the past 6 months.. and i'm glad they've been doing that. its tough for them to do more than just "chip away" in the middle of a competitive season.
i'm glad to see Blizzard experiment with big changes during the "off season".
On August 15 2016 13:18 TheWinks wrote: Ultra armor still needs to be nerfed. If they're unwilling to do it on live servers, this is the perfect time to touch the ultra.
They will address Adept,ultralisk,liberator,warp prism in next feedback.
All changes are good with the exception of the banshee, we know this from beta, banshee that are faster then mutas and phoenix is a really horrible idea. Zerg.
The faster pace of LotV makes a unit that attacks once 60 sec horrible, SH need a redesign, lowering the price won't help.
Hydralisk are units that are to costly with very little HP. While the buffs makes the unit better... you won't see it as a core unit ever, it needs to go back to the old BW former. Cheap, effective and 1 supply
Ravages change is horrible, it's the only unit that prevents mass stalkers in ZvP because stalkers are very bad vs them. Also the unit needso to COUNTER MECH otherwise Zerg will have to turtle until Vipers. REMEMBER there will be no ground unit that counters Tanks from Zerg.
All other changes are very good or okay on the Zerg side.
Protoss.
The Tempest ability needs to be changed, it can be done by making deal damage to mechanical units to prevent dumb harassment.
Blink DT is a horrible idea and no it doesn't need explanation
On August 15 2016 13:57 FoxShine wrote: Full on mech from HotS, except now they have liberators for cover and cyclones to mix with hellbats. PvT is going to be untenable against mech.
Has PvT ever been untenable against mech in SC2? There were attempts on occasion especially during betas, but bio has always ended up as the default composition. Quite frankly, we have seen so little of mech TvP in SC2 that it's hard to say what it'll be like when it becomes more viable or even dominant in the meta.
Most of this shit is absurd. So strong. Some of it doesn't even make sense. Some of it is renegging on old design philosophies.
Honestly seems like they are trying to recreate BW stuff, using SC2 units. Like what the hell?
This tank change seems pretty broken vs Z early game which would snowball. How are Z supposed to counter tanks if they esssentially 1 shot everything with smart cast? There was a huge problem during alpha and early WOL where tanks got nerfed so they didn't destroy lings so hard.
(BW player bias incoming don't throw tomatoes please)
The best reaction I have heard about this is what Scan said, which I quote "is fucking retarded. There's so much more that could be worked on and they want to give DT blink, that's just stupid." Not my quote Seeker pls no ban. There really is a bunch that could be worked on and while I really do like the tank change because tankivacs are one of the biggest reasons I switched to BW, some of the other things sound stupid. I also like the Hydralisk change but I don't know how effective it'll be without nerfing some other units.
Overall I like the drastic changes, I like that Blizzard is going with extreme/jarring changes so late into Legacy of the Void, but this is what the beta was for and I'm overall disappointed it took this long and this many people leaving for Overwatch or Brood War to get anything out of them.
On August 15 2016 13:57 FoxShine wrote: Full on mech from HotS, except now they have liberators for cover and cyclones to mix with hellbats. PvT is going to be untenable against mech.
The main reason that noone has played mech against Protoss since beta is because blizzard gave Protoss a single unit that makes everything the Factory produces obsolete, in addition to actually buffing that unit multiple times while hitting the Siege Tank with nothing but nerfs time and again.
One thing that always stuck out for me is that most of the new units that came out with every expansion seemed in some way designed to help Zerg and Protoss deal with Siege Tanks more easily. This always struck me as a little odd since on the one hand, those units were very micro-intensive, which makes them all but useless for casual players since they lack the APM required to control both their clumped-up army and all the different unit types in it, and on the other hand because Siege Tanks were hardly ever used in any of the none-mirror TvX matchups on the professional level. TvP has been MMM since beta, and TvZ has most of the time revolved around either dropping everywhere with bio, or MMM parade pushes.
I think it's a good thing that Siege Tanks will finally be worthy of the name again. It'll be refreshing to see some more positional play. I strongly feel that the current way of playing Terran (attacking everywhere at once) only works if your opponent has worse multitasking skills than you have. Polt vs True (WCS Montreal 2016) has clearly shown that if your opponent can keep up or even outmultitask you, you're pretty much dead in the water from the start.
One of the reasons I stopped playing Starcraft 2 is because Siege Tanks were my favourite unit by far (I prefer slower, more positional play since I don't exactly have high APM) but just playing them put me at a severe disadvantage. I also found it pretty pathetic that a Siege Tank in siege mode couldn't even kill a single zergling in one shot, and that a bunch of squishy zerglings could overrun a number of tanks without much effort. In TvT it's even more funny: oh look, Siege Tanks, let's clear them out of the way with some... marines.
On August 15 2016 13:18 TheWinks wrote: Ultra armor still needs to be nerfed. If they're unwilling to do it on live servers, this is the perfect time to touch the ultra.
On August 15 2016 14:59 Topdoller wrote: If they are going to revamp the game like this, why don't they introduce unit spacing .and get rid of these death ball,. sc2 biggest down fall.
Wow, is it 2011 again? Haven't this complaint in years.
I am as excited for mech as anyone, but honestly without Vultures to assert map control it just doesn't seem like it will ever be the same. There will also forever be a Goliath-shaped hole in mech compositions. Thors are shit units, I wish they would just throw them out and reinstate Goliaths for anti-air.
Personally I am not finding protoss fun in LotV (Zerg is more exciting imo) and I recently switched races to Zerg. If these changes go through Terran looks to be the most fun race with their late-game seemingly reinstated, I might just jump races once again. The new protoss changes just don't excite me very much either- blink DTs are necessary to fight mech but otherwise unappealing, and carriers being good is awesome but would only encourage more turtle play.
But there's no need to overreact to all these. Many of them might not go through anyway.
EDIT: I don't get why people think protoss are getting big buffs. Blink DTs are going to be extremely expensive, still destroyed by detection and slow to come out (it takes research on the dark shrine), on top of being the only change expressly called "unlikely to make it". Carriers got a huge buff and awesome quality-of-life change by autobuilding them right off the bat, but if the only way to play toss is turtle-to-carriers I would NOT play that race.
The ravager getting armored is definitely a buff to protoss against zerg because it makes ravagers tofu against stalkers and immortals. The roach-ravager allin was evil and ridiculously frustrating to stop in a matchup which is already frustrating. Imagine having to teach new protoss players that you have to simcity perfectly (literally 1 hole and zerglings fuck you over) and also needing to prepare for an extremely hard-hitting allin attack.
On August 15 2016 15:51 WinterViewbot420 wrote: Hey speaking of mech, what about Blink Stalkers?
If cyclones destroy them and that siege tanks hit at 70 vs armored, suddently protosses won't be able to counter mech with only blink stalkers => tempest, which is the go-to BS right now to counter mech
I don't see why there has been so much time between these proposed changes and the beta... This is almost as drastic a change as releasing LotV all over again. While I do think that a lot of these new ideas could work and make the game better, I feel as though the game doesn't need all of that and that DK should try to leave things as close to they are as possible while trying to achieve balance within a few points. In my opinion: Nerf ultras, make medivacs unable to boost with tanks in them (maybe even a little slower), nerf tempests (the proposed nerf seems okay, but maybe even something else), and you've may just have a balanced game that doesn't cause all of the current pros to retire or switch games because they've got to adapt to new stuff for the tenth time since SC2's release. That is my greatest fear: top level Koreans (mostly KESPA teams only) leaving the game because of its ever evolving volatility and absolute refusal to become static for a period of twelve months without being boring (patchzergs, cheesy allins at beginning of expansions) or downright imbalanced.
edit: Also, to all the players who are yearning for mech, why do you want this to be in the game? It's less fun to watch, it's less fun to play (and play against), and once mech becomes stronged than bio by even just %5 of games per matchup, the standard for playing those matchups will turn into 100% mech based, with maybe a couple cheeses or early bio timings meant to crush certain openings. This is incredibly sad to me, as watching and playing with bio is the most satisfying thing in all of SC2 in my opinion.
I know it's a common joke suggestion to give blink to dark templars, I suppose that it was only time for Blizzard to finally try it. It seems cool and there is some logic behind it: 1. with chronoboost it is nice to have more upgrades in the game 2. the main annoyance with dark templars is the fact they can strike suddenly and decisively, necessitating design compromises like longer build times and cost probably out of proportion of their real worth. 3. the dark templar is one of the few units in the game without an upgrade to improve it, something that it shares with the mutalisk actually.
There are some buildings that take an extraordinarily long time to construct, most noticeably the dark shrine and the spire. The dark templar and the mutalisk have something in common: a large number of these units can easily catch an unsuspecting player off guard because they lack detection or anti-air, meaning that these units can be very decisive especially early on.
I am not sure why there are no upgrades in place for this pair to weaken their early strength, given that Blizzard elected to turn to a similar strategy with the banshee, a unit that can't be easily built in high numbers. Ultralisks too require a carapace upgrade before reaching full strength, reducing the surprise factor. I have long since thought that at a minimum zerg air units should be balanced around more easily accessible weapon upgrades, while giving the spire a reduced build time; but possibly something else.
An idea that I proposed a few years ago along these lines was a shielding ability for dark templar: temporarily increases armor by 10, possibly makes the unit visible and possibly removes attack for the duration; it could also be an on-off switch. The point was to give the dark templar some resilience when faced with detection, forcing the enemy to surround or cut it off or risk it escaping. Personally I feel that even with the vague contours of the ability I sketched, there is enough to suggest it's more interesting than Blizzard's concept. Blink has always been an ability which gives you instantly an ideal position with no cost, to a certain extent it makes battle positioning less intriguing though it's compensated for by some cool tactics. I can't foretell if dark templars can easily exploit this new power, but it could be that it just stops you from ever killing them leaving them a permanent nuisance.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I like that they are ready to introduce radical changes. However I don't believe it's good. The problem is going to be same as usually. All these "new" units are now designed to be overpowered, one way or the other. In the process of balancing the game they will require a lot of nerfing.
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
If some stuff turns out to be too strong, they can always nerf things from there. 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.
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.
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?).
The only change I love is the Tank change (im Protoss btw) Tankyvac is just to gimmicky in my eyes.
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!
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.
Armor and Weapon upgrades are going to be downright critical on the Cyclone. 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.
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)
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.
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 .
On August 15 2016 18:21 WhosQuany wrote: .. 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 ..
Joking.... right? DT is such a bullshit unit and can simply win the game on the spot just because the opponent lack detection. With lower requirements you better just build turrents everywhere because you never know if he may build one and you lack energy for scans.
I thought cyclones would be changed to counter ultras. What is the dps a 3-3 cyclone would have against a 7-3 ultra now?
If you are considering situation where ultras have +3 armor and chitinous plating then cyclones will do 5 dps vs ultras without +3 attack, and 10 dps with +3 attack. Yeah, cyclones won't counter ultras, but for this task you will have tanks and liberators, and ghosts.
First reaction is hype. Most hype since WoL was announced probably Never thought they would go ahead and make huge changes like these.
Then after a careful read... Feels like protoss gets the shaft yet again, with terran and zergs buffs across the board while toss gets blink DTs (lolwat) and slightly faster zealots. People hate DTs already, and giving a gimmick unit a gimmick ability is redundant. Tempests get a new ability that replaces the long range attack vs ground, which means their role stays the exact same.
With buffed tanks, cyclones, hydras and banes... Blink DTs is not what protoss needs. What protoss needs is the shade ability for zealots.
Edit: Oh yeah cyclone numbers will be tweaked no doubt, so they aren't blatantly OP. Probably also increase the cost.
Then after a careful read... Feels like protoss gets the shaft yet again, with terran and zergs buffs across the board while toss gets blink DTs (lolwat) and slightly faster zealots. People hate DTs already, and giving a gimmick unit a gimmick ability is redundant. Tempests get a new ability that replaces the long range attack vs ground, which means their role stays the exact same.
DT blink isn't a gimmick. It's essentially a way to maintain your DTs even if the Terran scanned your stuff. Basically making DTs not a one-trick-pony anymore.
Just a quick note that I don't think anyone's mentioned yet. The Thor splash radius increase means that it will hit multiple mutas even if they are magic boxed. I remember getting curious and testing a similar change back in WOL, and 3 thors could take on ~20 magic boxed mutas. So that's a pretty big buff against muta/ling, especially with tanks one-shotting zerglings. Won't help at all against broodlords or vipers though.
On August 15 2016 19:21 TheWildShooter wrote: It's funny how no one noticed that cyclones are getting insane buffs, which in current version will make this unit OP.
I'm just gonna summarize some of the most important changes of Cyclone:
OLD -> NEW Supply: 4 -> 3 HP: 120 -> 180 Range: 5 -> 6 DPS: 18 -> 30 (+30 vs armored)
As for DPS, even Liberators in defender mode have 53,125 DPS, and they want to give Cyclone 60 DPS vs armored.
And they can be reactored... #LegacyOfTheJoke
P.S. numbers for DPS are given in Blizzard seconds
While I don't doubt you that the new Cyclone is most likely too powerful, the power of the old Cyclone came solely from the Lock-On ability which is now removed vs Ground. First of all this needs to be tested first, but I would prefer weaker numbers and then give them turret-tracking, like Immortals and Siege Tanks.
On August 15 2016 19:43 StatixEx wrote: all these changes are great when a player just won a major tourney building nothing but lings and banes and counter attacking . . LOL,
Then after a careful read... Feels like protoss gets the shaft yet again, with terran and zergs buffs across the board while toss gets blink DTs (lolwat) and slightly faster zealots. People hate DTs already, and giving a gimmick unit a gimmick ability is redundant. Tempests get a new ability that replaces the long range attack vs ground, which means their role stays the exact same.
DT blink isn't a gimmick. It's essentially a way to maintain your DTs even if the Terran scanned your stuff. Basically making DTs not a one-trick-pony anymore.
Dt+WP achieves that goal with more skill involved.
I dont like this. I dont see the point of destroying the whole actual meta, when people have not figure out anything yet.
I feel they do BIG CHANGES to please all the people who loose their game and think it is because their is some OP stupid units, when there is lots of tools to improve instead of complaining in thread.
Then after a careful read... Feels like protoss gets the shaft yet again, with terran and zergs buffs across the board while toss gets blink DTs (lolwat) and slightly faster zealots. People hate DTs already, and giving a gimmick unit a gimmick ability is redundant. Tempests get a new ability that replaces the long range attack vs ground, which means their role stays the exact same.
DT blink isn't a gimmick. It's essentially a way to maintain your DTs even if the Terran scanned your stuff. Basically making DTs not a one-trick-pony anymore.
Dt+WP achieves that goal with more skill involved.
My thoughts exactly. DTs and every protoss unit can already have pseudo blink thanks to ranged prism pickup. So the proposed idea is even more redundant. And the DT is a gimmicky harass unit, not a core one. Why would anyone research blink for them instead of just making a prism, that costs only minerals and has many more uses.
Change zealot "leg upgrade" from charge+speed to (adept)shade+speed. Now that would be useful to the melee unit that keeps getting bullied by adepts, terran bio and roach/ravager/hydra/fungal.
I think tankivacs in their current form make some stuff really silly, but I'm not sure I think the idea should be 100% scrapped. How about needing to be researched, and also having a long cooldown on the medivac before they can pick up a tank again? Or even one sieged tank pickup per medivac. Use once, ability finished. Something like that. It could still suck, but the tradeoff of course is that you commit to that tank position and if there's something you didn't see, it gets obliterated.
I'm also disappointed that if they're considering such radical changes, they aren't re-envisioning the adept and warp prism.
(Full disclosure: I say all this from a spectator's view, not as someone who plays the game.)
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)
I think they're probably going to heavily nerf this ability because it's like a force field storm. It has no friendly fire, which means that it counters the broodlord/corruptor/viper comp. Stalkers will be much stronger against broodlords with a psi storm shield doing 14 dps against everything on the ground around it.
Late-game ling based compositions will also be heavily nerfed because lings only last for three seconds against a non-friendly fire storm.
Also means that you can't mine for 32 seconds or your entire mineral line is super wiped. Or against counter attacks, a tempest or two can protect almost a probe line.
Against Terran I don't think it's as powerful, but it does mean that heavy bio/liberator comps will be a bit easier to deal with since the bio won't be able to cover exposed liberators as easily.
There are so many ways you could use this spell that I don't really think it will have anywhere near the same damage and/or duration in its final interation.
For me, the problem with the way they balance the game is that they seem to balance Zerg and Protoss against Terran. Like they balance the two with terran tech in mind instead of creating ideas from scratch. This patch seems like more of the same. They buff/tweak some T units but immediately provide Z/P with the responses ready-made instead of letting them figure it out like T had to do with the oracle, for instance. (when that thing came out, it was a free-for-all for pvt for a good while)... Why not create the potential problems with the T buffs then see how things shake out?
Imo the infestor buff and the zealot buff are the most ridiculous...
On August 15 2016 20:24 Wohodix wrote: I dont like this. I dont see the point of destroying the whole actual meta, when people have not figure out anything yet.
I feel they do BIG CHANGES to please all the people who loose their game and think it is because their is some OP stupid units, when there is lots of tools to improve instead of complaining in thread.
The game in its current state simply isn't as fun or dynamic as it could/should be. Who cares about the meta if there is nobody left to play the game?
A lot of these changes could lead to better games and a lot more enjoyable play all around. Staying the course no matter how balanced the game is doesn't help because the game in its current form lacks potential and is frustrating in so many ways. Does this fix it? Probably not because they won't be ballsy enough to go through with major changes but if they do they could get this thing going the right way while there is still a player base to support it.
I stopped playing a few months ago because I thought Blizzard had given up on actually fixing Mech. I am very excited to see that they are changing directions on all of this.
These changes definitely have the potential to make the game great again, and what I had hoped LOTV would bring !!
Game has been stale since LOTV release. The only "changes" we've seen in the gameplay was : - more drops from Z - less adept/immo comps in PvT - less disruptors in PvP - a little mech in TvT, but only in KR
Appart from that, in huge majority : - ZvZ is still the same - ZvT is still about zerg turtling to T3 with roach ravagers while terran plays bio and tries to kill zerg before hive - TvP is still about protoss doing some dirty BS while taking a third, while terran sacks half his SCVs to do a 3 base liberator push - PvP is still the same - TvT is still about marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs - ZvP is still the same but with more meta shifts than the other MUs
It's long overdue that all the unused units in the game (cyclone-raven-BCs-thor-carriers-VRs-SH) be looked at, and that units that are locking down the opponent into one single playstyle be looked at (or see their counters buffed)
On August 15 2016 19:21 TheWildShooter wrote: It's funny how no one noticed that cyclones are getting insane buffs, which in current version will make this unit OP.
I'm just gonna summarize some of the most important changes of Cyclone:
OLD -> NEW Supply: 4 -> 3 HP: 120 -> 180 Range: 5 -> 6 DPS: 18 -> 30 (+30 vs armored)
As for DPS, even Liberators in defender mode have 53,125 DPS, and they want to give Cyclone 60 DPS vs armored.
And they can be reactored... #LegacyOfTheJoke
P.S. numbers for DPS are given in Blizzard seconds
Let's see the cyclone in the test map before speculating too much. A unit that doesn't rely on a gimmick can always see its stats changed. New cyclone doesn't rely on a gimmick. It's a footman with high DPS that'll help mech deal with positionnal checkmates and multiproned attack, while granting map presence.
SH still does, that's why changing its cost only is destined to fail.
On August 15 2016 19:21 TheWildShooter wrote: It's funny how no one noticed that cyclones are getting insane buffs, which in current version will make this unit OP.
I'm just gonna summarize some of the most important changes of Cyclone:
OLD -> NEW Supply: 4 -> 3 HP: 120 -> 180 Range: 5 -> 6 DPS: 18 -> 30 (+30 vs armored)
As for DPS, even Liberators in defender mode have 53,125 DPS, and they want to give Cyclone 60 DPS vs armored.
And they can be reactored... #LegacyOfTheJoke
P.S. numbers for DPS are given in Blizzard seconds
PvT mass cyclone amove win?
I believe its pretty even fight cause protoss has guardian shield.Until siege tanks or liberators arrive.
Keep in mind that armor is going make an enormous difference in Cyclone DPS. Against non-armored, with just 1 armor (which every Protoss unit has except the Probe I think?), Cyclones do only 2 damage per shot, a 33% reduction. Against high-armor targets that aren't Armored, they'll be near useless.
Guardian Shield is also going to be a massive counter against them.
They'll whack Stalkers pretty hard but I'm not sure they'll do the same to much of anything else.
Getting a weapon upgrade advantage though, without Guardian Shield? Then stuff might get nasty.
On August 15 2016 21:14 JackONeill wrote: Game has been stale since LOTV release. The only "changes" we've seen in the gameplay was : - more drops from Z - less adept/immo comps in PvT - less disruptors in PvP - a little mech in TvT, but only in KR
Appart from that, in huge majority : - ZvZ is still the same - ZvT is still about zerg turtling to T3 with roach ravagers while terran plays bio and tries to kill zerg before hive - TvP is still about protoss doing some dirty BS while taking a third, while terran sacks half his SCVs to do a 3 base liberator push - PvP is still the same - TvT is still about marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs - ZvP is still the same but with more meta shifts than the other MUs
It's long overdue that all the unused units in the game (cyclone-raven-BCs-thor-carriers-VRs-SH) be looked at, and that units that are locking down the opponent into one single playstyle be looked at (or see their counters buffed)
On August 15 2016 21:14 JackONeill wrote: Game has been stale since LOTV release. The only "changes" we've seen in the gameplay was : - more drops from Z - less adept/immo comps in PvT - less disruptors in PvP - a little mech in TvT, but only in KR
Appart from that, in huge majority : - ZvZ is still the same - ZvT is still about zerg turtling to T3 with roach ravagers while terran plays bio and tries to kill zerg before hive - TvP is still about protoss doing some dirty BS while taking a third, while terran sacks half his SCVs to do a 3 base liberator push - PvP is still the same - TvT is still about marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs - ZvP is still the same but with more meta shifts than the other MUs
It's long overdue that all the unused units in the game (cyclone-raven-BCs-thor-carriers-VRs-SH) be looked at, and that units that are locking down the opponent into one single playstyle be looked at (or see their counters buffed)
As a zerg player I won't address the matchups which aren't zerg related, but for the zerg related matchups the only one you are right on is ZvZ. The bane buff can make early ling bane pushes even harder to counter, but who knows how will it turn out.
In ZvT, with the tank buff and the ravager nerf, turtling to T3 tech with an RR army is going to be much harder.Puhsing into terrans will be imposiible with a roach ravager combo, as they are both armored and will be shred by tanks (tanks will 2 shot ravagers!). And Ultras won't be that powerful lategame anymore. Moreover, the cyclone may also turn into a roach ravager counter, which will make it impossible turtiling with those to get the T3 tech. Its hard now, and will be impossible with the tank buff. Terran will lose its ability to harass with tankivacs, but it seems like the mech route will be much more viable then bio for terran in this match-up (reactored buffed cyclones will make cyclone helion openers viable). Something which will bring back the viper to the game (blinding cloud will counter tanks again) as well as abducting those costly units (like thors libs, and so on). And the hydra and bane buffs will make them as the preffered tech paths rather then the roach ravager in the match-up (banes vs bio, hydra vs mech) which can also make the lurker as unit to go for in this matchup. The SH is already used by some grandmasters vs mech terrans, and with its buffs (which will be certainly reduced), it can also be seen in the math up as terrans will probably prefer (or at least consider) the mech tech choice. In other words, in my opinion it will break compleltey the current meta where terran is very powerful in the mid game and the minute zerg gets to the late game terrans must find their way securing their 4th, 5th, and so on. I'm a diamond zerg player who plays the RR into ultras style a lot, so I do know what its weaknesses are, all of which are addressed with the buffed terran units and the nerfed ravager.
In ZvP it seems like the hydra and bane buffs with the ravager nerf will shift the meta. Any choice the zerg makes the toss will have an answer to and vice versa. Tempests in low numbers will be definitely something to go for in the late game, which will again make vipers an interesting unit to go for zerg. With the infestor buffs (as the SH ones, I don't see all of them passing the test) we can see this unit in this match-up. Currently, ZvP is one of the most interesting math-ups. Protoss have different tech routes to go for, while zerg can adjust accordingly, and each race can force different endings to the game. Choosing one tech path for the T3 units is risky while forced, as each T3 unit has good counter (for both races), so I don't have any problems with making it even more fun and forcing the zerg being more adaptive. It was my worst math-up a month ago, but I'm having fun with it now, as there are so many ways to play it.
My terran and prottoss are gold like, so I can't speak for the other 3 match ups.
Blizzard still has no idea what they are doing. How does the SC2 team still have a job when they have failed to deliver after 4 years and literally taking SC2 from height of e-sports to the bottom. They need to let the team go and start fresh.
still removing tankivac isn't the best way. speaking about tvt bio vs mech and that mech players don't build medivacs and can't use tankivacs, adding 1 more sec to open fire cooldown of tanks when they jump out of medivacs sounds like a good idea for a test map.
I don't care whether the experts from the glorious community think the changes are great or not, but making big changes is in any case the right way to keep interest in the game going. I am definitely looking forward to it!
However the opening post is unclear on the exact realizoation: is there already a PTR or something? Or is it just planned?
On August 15 2016 21:14 JackONeill wrote: Game has been stale since LOTV release. The only "changes" we've seen in the gameplay was : - more drops from Z - less adept/immo comps in PvT - less disruptors in PvP - a little mech in TvT, but only in KR
Appart from that, in huge majority : - ZvZ is still the same - ZvT is still about zerg turtling to T3 with roach ravagers while terran plays bio and tries to kill zerg before hive - TvP is still about protoss doing some dirty BS while taking a third, while terran sacks half his SCVs to do a 3 base liberator push - PvP is still the same - TvT is still about marine tankivacs vs marine tankivacs - ZvP is still the same but with more meta shifts than the other MUs
It's long overdue that all the unused units in the game (cyclone-raven-BCs-thor-carriers-VRs-SH) be looked at, and that units that are locking down the opponent into one single playstyle be looked at (or see their counters buffed)
As a zerg player I won't address the matchups which aren't zerg related, but for the zerg related matchups the only one you are right on is ZvZ. The bane buff can make early ling bane pushes even harder to counter, but who knows how will it turn out.
In ZvT, with the tank buff and the ravager nerf, turtling to T3 tech with an RR army is going to be much harder.Puhsing into terrans will be imposiible with a roach ravager combo, as they are both armored and will be shred by tanks (tanks will 2 shot ravagers!). And Ultras won't be that powerful lategame anymore. Moreover, the cyclone may also turn into a roach ravager counter, which will make it impossible turtiling with those to get the T3 tech. Its hard now, and will be impossible with the tank buff. Terran will lose its ability to harass with tankivacs, but it seems like the mech route will be much more viable then bio for terran in this match-up (reactored buffed cyclones will make cyclone helion openers viable). Something which will bring back the viper to the game (blinding cloud will counter tanks again) as well as abducting those costly units (like thors libs, and so on). And the hydra and bane buffs will make them as the preffered tech paths rather then the roach ravager in the match-up (banes vs bio, hydra vs mech) which can also make the lurker as unit to go for in this matchup. The SH is already used by some grandmasters vs mech terrans, and with its buffs (which will be certainly reduced), it can also be seen in the math up as terrans will probably prefer (or at least consider) the mech tech choice. In other words, in my opinion it will break compleltey the current meta where terran is very powerful in the mid game and the minute zerg gets to the late game terrans must find their way securing their 4th, 5th, and so on. I'm a diamond zerg player who plays the RR into ultras style a lot, so I do know what its weaknesses are, all of which are addressed with the buffed terran units and the nerfed ravager.
In ZvP it seems like the hydra and bane buffs with the ravager nerf will shift the meta. Any choice the zerg makes the toss will have an answer to and vice versa. Tempests in low numbers will be definitely something to go for in the late game, which will again make vipers an interesting unit to go for zerg. With the infestor buffs (as the SH ones, I don't see all of them passing the test) we can see this unit in this match-up. Currently, ZvP is one of the most interesting math-ups. Protoss have different tech routes to go for, while zerg can adjust accordingly, and each race can force different endings to the game. Choosing one tech path for the T3 units is risky while forced, as each T3 unit has good counter (for both races), so I don't have any problems with making it even more fun and forcing the zerg being more adaptive. It was my worst math-up a month ago, but I'm having fun with it now, as there are so many ways to play it.
My terran and prottoss are gold like, so I can't speak for the other 3 match ups.
I didn't meant that the changes wouldn't change metas/gameplay, i'm sure they will and i'm glad. I meant that since november 2015 every single TvP has been about liberators killing every protoss ground unit while bio had to kill every stalker. Every TvZ was about zerg rushing T3 while terran tried to kill them with very agressive bio play. And so on.
Right now extremely powerfull units in the game dictates the way MU are played. Ultras are so strong against bio? Zerg rushes T3. Liberators are so strong against protoss? Let's watch polt going for silly masses of liberators in TvP.
Now, tanks will be much better against ultras, so terran who play bio will be able to transition out smoothly into the late game. Mutas won't be countered so hard by liberators, so LBM might be back as a standard style. Cyclones and tanks may allow terran to go mech in most matchups. I'm talking about terran in particular because bio + liberators or bio + tankivac in every single MU was boring, and I'm glad mech play will be a viable route now.
On August 15 2016 23:18 opisska wrote: However the opening post is unclear on the exact realizoation: is there already a PTR or something? Or is it just planned?
On August 15 2016 23:18 opisska wrote: However the opening post is unclear on the exact realizoation: is there already a PTR or something? Or is it just planned?
Hydra changes are wrong direction. 1 supply hydra! Viva la hydra revolution! As it stands now all I see is the return of cancer mech .
Why can't Zerg and Protoss get the same sort of love as Terran? 1 supply dreams! If they're going to put in a 70 damage, ultra accurate siege tank then anything is possible!
If blizzard just did something about adepts, lolivacs, gave some love to the disruptor, and made sure to put siege mode upgrade back in the game, then things would look pretty good.
But, seriously. 1 supply rebalanced hydras, Blizzard. Please. Give us some love like you're giving Terran. Or at the very least more HP so they don't get one shot by everything...
And to people complaining about ultras, wtf?! 2 fac tank and +2 weapons will be the death of zerg ground. If you're going to make such crazy changes, then I advocate one that will actually let Zerg make HUGE armies and have a proper racial identity for the first time in SC2.
On August 16 2016 00:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: The new cyclone will be insane and i don't like the direction at all. It's basically a high dps, fairly tanky "a move" unit. Not a huge fan :/
Terran has a lot to micro so I don't think it will be too bad if the Cyclone is more a-move.
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
On August 16 2016 00:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: The new cyclone will be insane and i don't like the direction at all. It's basically a high dps, fairly tanky "a move" unit. Not a huge fan :/
These are design changes. After design, comes the balancing phase to put all races on the same playing field.
On August 16 2016 00:32 The_Red_Viper wrote: The new cyclone will be insane and i don't like the direction at all. It's basically a high dps, fairly tanky "a move" unit. Not a huge fan :/
These are design changes. After design, comes the balancing phase to put all races on the same playing field.
Yeah and i dislike the design because it's basically "high dps unit against pretty much everything" (on the ground) This is the concept. The current numbers might change but considering that blizzard decided to test it like that it's surely the concept. It's still not cheap to build obviously so this might be ok, but at the same time it kinda competes with the siege tank in that area. I still think if anything cyclones should have been the stable anti air for mech, but hey whatever.
Props to Blizzard for accepting to look at design like this even though they had to close LOTV Beta and go retail a year ago. It takes some guts to go forward with these changes at this time. Taking the high road will pay off in the long run.
To anyone concerned about particular match-ups or balance at this point, please consider that after this new design, everything will be subject to changes (perhaps many patches) to ensure that balance is preserved and no unit/situation is too strong. Also, just because Mech could beciome more viable and perhaps even be seen at times in higher level competitive games does not preclude the possibility that bio will remain even stronger at the highest skill levels - it is way too early to tell.
Tbh honest I'm really surprised. There are still stats here and there that could be adjusted, but solid changes so far. This is a good direction but let's also be real here, this is what community feedback updates and beta should be all about, all of this is long overdue.
On August 16 2016 00:28 Qwyn wrote: Hydra changes are wrong direction. 1 supply hydra! Viva la hydra revolution! As it stands now all I see is the return of cancer mech .
Why can't Zerg and Protoss get the same sort of love as Terran? 1 supply dreams! If they're going to put in a 70 damage, ultra accurate siege tank then anything is possible!
If blizzard just did something about adepts, lolivacs, gave some love to the disruptor, and made sure to put siege mode upgrade back in the game, then things would look pretty good.
But, seriously. 1 supply rebalanced hydras, Blizzard. Please. Give us some love like you're giving Terran. Or at the very least more HP so they don't get one shot by everything...
And to people complaining about ultras, wtf?! 2 fac tank and +2 weapons will be the death of zerg ground. If you're going to make such crazy changes, then I advocate one that will actually let Zerg make HUGE armies and have a proper racial identity for the first time in SC2.
There are still LOADS of ways to punish Terran Mech, including:
1. Overlord drops. They can be done from much earlier in the game than in BW, WoL or HotS, and don't even require much of a time or resource commitment to pull off.
2. Baneling busts. If this change goes through and Banelings are going to gain 10 more HP, then Ling/Bane busts are going to be OP as fuck, and actually end Terran fast expand builds like Reaper Expand into Reactor Factory, where a good bust hits before you can make a decent number of Hellions or Widow Mines to hold. The only way to hold them in the new meta will be through builds where you tech before expanding i.e. Siege Expand, Hellion Expand, Widow Mine Expands, 111, or other such builds.
3. Vipers. Blinding Cloud will basically become the SC2 equivalent of Dark Swarm and Vipers will become the be-all-end-all counter to Terran Mech. With Siege Tanks remaining immobile, Vipers are going to counter Siege Tanks hard, and there is not a damn thing Terrans can do about it.
4. Ultralisks. Even with the significant buff to Siege Tanks, Ultralisks are still going to take at least 6 hits to kill, and at most 9 hits. And let's face it, Ultralisks are already ridiculously overpowered in the current meta, and will still remain powerful post-nerf.
5. Infestors. Deep Tunnel into your opponent's base, and fungal his entire mineral line to death whilst burrowed. Or catch him off guard with no detection and neural parasite the fuck out of his tanks and thors whilst underground. The possibilities are endless until he has lots of sensor tower and missile turret coverage.
6. Mutalisks. With the nerf to Cyclone Lock-on, and the blanket nerf to Liberators, Mutalisks are going to be stupidly powerful to the point where a slightly increased Thor splash radius won't help that much, especially vs magic box.
7. Brood Lords. If you recall WoL/HotS era Brood Lords, they were pretty damn good vs Thors when they had 1.5 less range than they do in LotV. I doubt changing their target priorities would change the dynamic of TvZ much.
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
That will leave the hydras with 1 hp after two shots due to regeneration
What do you guys think about disabling deep tunneling into areas with detection? I think it would be a little bit more reasonable in siege situations.
For example it would prevent sending lings and teleporting with infestors at the same time to neural parasite/fungal etc to break a terran tank line easily
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)
Its a retarded ForceFieldStorm (trust me nobody wants this) from a unit that Protoss doesn´t need and never needed (designed to counter Broodlords)
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
3 with regeneration. But with other units involved and splash, regeneration can be ignored.
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)
Its a retarded ForceFieldStorm (trust me nobody wants this) from a unit that Protoss doesn´t need and never needed (designed to counter Broodlords)
I don't want it as well but it looks really strong on paper
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)
Its a retarded ForceFieldStorm (trust me nobody wants this) from a unit that Protoss doesn´t need and never needed (designed to counter Broodlords)
I don't want it as well but it looks really strong on paper
Of course its strong but i think this would be to much... a death ball A-Move Protoss army splashing storms Force-fields and now this BS? pls no
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.
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?).
It was fairly serious, those two together were great buffs.
It's just that the spotlight was stolen by the warhound (which was poorly designed from the start, highly mobile t2 unit that cost effectively countered every single unit and composition), the widow mine and the hellbat.
All three of these units were tuned to be too strong and then removed / toned down over the years.
Tank has been on the weaker side for a while. Come LOTV they saw that the tank and its styles were performing badly and chose to give it a lot of mobility instead of giving it the ability to fight better which was a mistake IMO and one that they're going back on now with these changes
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
That will leave the hydras with 1 hp after two shots due to regeneration
BOOM
I'll be looking for that apology letter in my PM folder later today.
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
That will leave the hydras with 1 hp after two shots due to regeneration
BOOM
I'll be looking for that apology letter in my PM folder later today.
Tanks fire instantly and perfectly simultaneously (with no travel time). It's quite likely that two tanks shooting at the same target can kill it before any regen occurs but i'm not sure if this happens or not
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
That will leave the hydras with 1 hp after two shots due to regeneration
BOOM
I'll be looking for that apology letter in my PM folder later today.
Tanks fire instantly and perfectly simultaneously (with no travel time). It's quite likely that two tanks shooting at the same target can kill it before any regen occurs but i'm not sure if this happens or not
With the upgrades it becomes a pretty academic point, but I would still find it interesting if someone would be able to make a comparison how a flock of hydras fares against a group of tanks with regeneration on/off (I have no idea how to change stuff like that and even if I had, I am too lazy to be bothered )
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
That will leave the hydras with 1 hp after two shots due to regeneration
BOOM
I'll be looking for that apology letter in my PM folder later today.
Tanks fire instantly and perfectly simultaneously (with no travel time). It's quite likely that two tanks shooting at the same target can kill it before any regen occurs but i'm not sure if this happens or not
Yes it will be quite likely (typically the 1st Hydra that walks in), but it nevertheless will always be the extreme exception, not the rule. Edit:Zerg units regen instantly upon taking damage so regardless of how its broken down, you need to do 81 damage to kill a Hydra.
Not to mention, you are complaining about the interaction between Hydras vs Tanks. Do you also complain about Immortals when you build Roaches or Banelings when you build Zerglings?
There are just some units that perform poorly versus another. The real problem I see is that you seem to think the answer to Tanks are...... mass Hydras.
Maybe build some Roaches to absorb the initial volleys, some Zerglings. You may just discover that spamming one unit is not how an RTS should work.
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
That will leave the hydras with 1 hp after two shots due to regeneration
BOOM
I'll be looking for that apology letter in my PM folder later today.
Tanks fire instantly and perfectly simultaneously (with no travel time). It's quite likely that two tanks shooting at the same target can kill it before any regen occurs but i'm not sure if this happens or not
Yes it will be quite likely (typically the 1st Hydra that walks in), but it nevertheless will always be the extreme exception, not the rule. Edit: Zerg units regen instantly upon taking damage so regardless of how its broken down, you need to do 81 damage to kill a Hydra.
Not to mention, you are complaining about the interaction between Hydras vs Tanks. Do you also complain about Immortals when you build Roaches or Banelings when you build Zerglings?
There are just some units that perform poorly versus another. The real problem I see is that you seem to think the answer to Tanks are...... mass Hydras.
Maybe build some Roaches to absorb the initial volleys, some Zerglings. You may just discover that spamming one unit is not how an RTS should work.
A minor buff to thor splash radius and a reduction in broodlord range to 10 will change nothing in regard to thor broodlord interaction. Thors will still get wrecked. I think Blizzard forgot that they buffed the broodlord in lotv. For the entirely of wol and hots the broodlord did have 10 range and the thor had an antiair mode thats better against armored targets. Thors were still garbage against them.
Unlike in brood war where any tank in range would fire, effectively over killing that unit. So if you shuttled in a few zelots into range, just before sending your army you could kind of mitigate the dmg received of the first volley or so, while the rest of your army gap closed.
We'll see how it goes, though i think that something to consider with how powerful the new tanks will be.
On August 15 2016 01:44 Solar424 wrote: I don't even care if none of these changes get put in: the fact that they are even being considered shows that David Kim has no idea what he is doing. How he has not been replaced yet is one of the great mysteries of the universe.
Why so salty? I think, Dayvie and his team have some great ideas of their own, combined with some of the better player feedback.
I think the idea of an active ability on Tempest to combat mech is good, but this damage idea is not. It deals relatively low dps but for very long duration, which makes it too powerful in some interactions but underwhelming in others. I mean damage won't be the only thing to force tanks to unsiege. I wouldve liked to see something like drastically reducing damage, forcing siege tanks to unsiege and lurkers to unburrow, but also as a zoning tool for more mobile compositions or as a siege weapon to allow Protoss units to storm a defended position, without being completely broken when abused against workers and larva and that sorta thing.
Also surprised that viper didn't get a mention. If mech is to be viable vZ, then I feel Viper needs some major work as well.
I love to see they are making such huge changes. Can't wait to test them.
I'm worried about the carrier buff though. I don't clearly see what will be the difference except for cheaper interceptors, but i play a lot of 2v2's, and when opponents go carrier i literally just cannot win. Ever. Even if i have the whole map and the opponents stay in their base with much less income, my army and remaxes always get wrecked so hard. Maybe i'm just doing it wrong but i'm worried about that buff.
On August 16 2016 03:45 HugoBallzak wrote: Big surprise here. Haven't touched this game since the week of release and I am sure not the only one.
I've barely played the multiplayer at all, co-op is fun and the campaign was awesome too.
These new changes might bring me back in though. I absolutely hated a ton of LoTV changes and a lot of these proposed new changes set things right with me especially the buffing of Tanks and the removing of the Medviac pick up.
On August 16 2016 03:35 dyDrawer wrote: I think the idea of an active ability on Tempest to combat mech is good, but this damage idea is not. It deals relatively low dps but for very long duration, which makes it too powerful in some interactions but underwhelming in others. I mean damage won't be the only thing to force tanks to unsiege. I wouldve liked to see something like drastically reducing damage, forcing siege tanks to unsiege and lurkers to unburrow, but also as a zoning tool for more mobile compositions or as a siege weapon to allow Protoss units to storm a defended position, without being completely broken when abused against workers and larva and that sorta thing.
Also surprised that viper didn't get a mention. If mech is to be viable vZ, then I feel Viper needs some major work as well.
Perhaps an attack speed slow or percent reduction in attack damage would be good if it kept its long duration? Or a damage amplification? Debuffs instead of DoT.
On August 15 2016 01:43 RuneZerg wrote: should have buffed hydra hp instead of increasing range... already a bad balance between damage output and survivability tbh, i mean new siege tank 2 shots hydras...
Or do they? Maybe you should take a close look at the stats....and actually do the math.
new tank does 40 dmg vs light, hydra has 80 hp, that would be 2 shots
That will leave the hydras with 1 hp after two shots due to regeneration
BOOM
I'll be looking for that apology letter in my PM folder later today.
Tanks fire instantly and perfectly simultaneously (with no travel time). It's quite likely that two tanks shooting at the same target can kill it before any regen occurs but i'm not sure if this happens or not
Yes it will be quite likely (typically the 1st Hydra that walks in), but it nevertheless will always be the extreme exception, not the rule. Edit:Zerg units regen instantly upon taking damage so regardless of how its broken down, you need to do 81 damage to kill a Hydra.
Not to mention, you are complaining about the interaction between Hydras vs Tanks. Do you also complain about Immortals when you build Roaches or Banelings when you build Zerglings?
There are just some units that perform poorly versus another. The real problem I see is that you seem to think the answer to Tanks are...... mass Hydras.
Maybe build some Roaches to absorb the initial volleys, some Zerglings. You may just discover that spamming one unit is not how an RTS should work.
This already was not supposed to work with the previous tanks (and it usually did not work), there are no ways that it will with this new one.
On August 16 2016 03:45 HugoBallzak wrote: Big surprise here. Haven't touched this game since the week of release and I am sure not the only one.
I've barely played the multiplayer at all, co-op is fun and the campaign was awesome too.
These new changes might bring me back in though. I absolutely hated a ton of LoTV changes and a lot of these proposed new changes set things right with me especially the buffing of Tanks and the removing of the Medviac pick up.
I think its sad and hilarious at the same time to see people who clearly have played a lot of Starcraft in their life, including myself, suddenly stopped sc2 with the LotV expansion.
Their numbers must have bombed so low this is their last ditch attempt to save the game most likely.
Drastic change is drastic, but i like it. I didnt expect Blizzard to do a thing like this. And as a person who complains all the time i have not much else to say than: lets get testing! things will need tweaks, but its great to see these many changes. And a toned down ravager and no tankivac, love to see the patchplayers drop in rank and QQ.
On August 16 2016 03:45 HugoBallzak wrote: Big surprise here. Haven't touched this game since the week of release and I am sure not the only one.
I've barely played the multiplayer at all, co-op is fun and the campaign was awesome too.
These new changes might bring me back in though. I absolutely hated a ton of LoTV changes and a lot of these proposed new changes set things right with me especially the buffing of Tanks and the removing of the Medviac pick up.
I think its sad and hilarious at the same time to see people who clearly have played a lot of Starcraft in their life, including myself, suddenly stopped sc2 with the LotV expansion.
Their numbers must have bombed so low this is their last ditch attempt to save the game most likely.
Maybe it'll not be that last ditch. David Kim said at Dreamhack that the team is willing for more annual balance shakeups if needed. The idea of a post-season shakeup might have popped up even before that.
On August 16 2016 03:45 HugoBallzak wrote: Big surprise here. Haven't touched this game since the week of release and I am sure not the only one.
I've barely played the multiplayer at all, co-op is fun and the campaign was awesome too.
These new changes might bring me back in though. I absolutely hated a ton of LoTV changes and a lot of these proposed new changes set things right with me especially the buffing of Tanks and the removing of the Medviac pick up.
I think its sad and hilarious at the same time to see people who clearly have played a lot of Starcraft in their life, including myself, suddenly stopped sc2 with the LotV expansion.
Their numbers must have bombed so low this is their last ditch attempt to save the game most likely.
Totally the feeling I get when roaming these forums, but it seems to be a completely different story when reading through reddit, people over there really seem to like the game "SC2 has never been better" is a line I get to read quite often there.
But it's really good to see that apparently isn't the case so they're kind of pressured to overhaul multiplayer to that extend (a thing they neglected to do for a very long time), but again current LotV really isn't much fun to play, so it can only get better and I really like most of the proposed changes.
I do feel that the current LoTV is the best iteration of starcraft 2 too, and I'm clearly going to stop playing it these changes goes through, because it means that I'll have to play against mech. You just can't satisfy everyone, in the end I'm still happy I've had a great five years with the game, I'm going to enjoy it while I still can, until Blizzcon.
doesn't make a lot of sense that you would stop BECAUSE of these changes if you played from wings of liberty onwards... expansions were bigger changes than these design changes, you never quit
the Broodlord change.. omfg - so Zerg has no more long range anything and terran gets 70k dps increase on tanks.. not sure what they put in Kims water but i want some of that
On August 16 2016 04:55 ROOTFayth wrote: doesn't make a lot of sense that you would stop BECAUSE of these changes if you played from wings of liberty onwards... expansions were bigger changes than these design changes, you never quit
I am just not interested to play against mech, so indeed I almost stopped at the end of HOTS but with good maps veto I avoided it most of the time, although I left the game when I scouted it. Now these are big chances that push mech play in the game, it pushes me out. ^^
Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
The idea of blink DTs is the stuff of nightmares, but with the 2 minute research, it's really not that big a deal. You're not going to see blink dt rushes, it just increases DT survivability in the late game.
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
They're also making Ravens a bit more useful. If DTs are such a big problem, I would probably look at a Raven, especially if the guy invests that much in his DTs.
Could you finally use DTs in some sort of army? Like holding them back, then jumping with them in an engagement into the enemy lines?
I dont think they are such a big problem in the beginning mid game: 2 minute research should delay their jumps enough to be prepared with overseer/raven on time. Only if you get caught offguard massive during the midgame, they will be game ending, but thats the same without the jumps. I think this upgrade is a classic "cool to have upgrade but we dont see it often" upgrade
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
Well yeah "stationary" detectors are a lot worse vs this, BUT this would be more of a dt buff if the dt could blink from the beginning. It cannot though. So at the time it can you really, really should have observers/overseers anyway. In the case of terran you might actually want to build ravens now so, so sure in that case it's a bit different.
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
Well yeah "stationary" detectors are a lot worse vs this, BUT this would be more of a dt buff if the dt could blink from the beginning. It cannot though. So at the time it can you really, really should have observers/overseers anyway. In the case of terran you might actually want to build ravens now so, so sure in that case it's a bit different.
Again, it may be possible to evade detectors and attack again later. We need to test it out to know for sure.
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
Well yeah "stationary" detectors are a lot worse vs this, BUT this would be more of a dt buff if the dt could blink from the beginning. It cannot though. So at the time it can you really, really should have observers/overseers anyway. In the case of terran you might actually want to build ravens now so, so sure in that case it's a bit different.
Again, it may be possible to evade detectors and attack again later. We need to test it out to know for sure.
If the detector isn't stationary you just follow it can kill it anyway in most cases, no?
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
Well yeah "stationary" detectors are a lot worse vs this, BUT this would be more of a dt buff if the dt could blink from the beginning. It cannot though. So at the time it can you really, really should have observers/overseers anyway. In the case of terran you might actually want to build ravens now so, so sure in that case it's a bit different.
Again, it may be possible to evade detectors and attack again later. We need to test it out to know for sure.
If the detector isn't stationary you just follow it can kill it anyway in most cases, no?
Right but you can juke it like Ryung's banshee in GSL.
On August 16 2016 06:13 n3p wrote: The infestor is back boys! Nothing is more terrifying than the four-festor hit squad. Edit: Misspelled a word cause dumb.
There is absolutely now way the port ability will actually be in the game. Being able to cast while burrowed maybe, i feel like this should be an upgrade though. In general i feel like upgrades are underused quite a lot.
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
I mean I can see multiple reasons (effecting Terran more then Zerg).
DT"s can blink up and down a cliff. So even with overlords in position/supply depos you won't be ready for it when they decide to teleport to your main/natural/third/etc.
For Terran this is a bigger deal because imagine scanning a DT and BAM it's out of range thanks to blink. So have to use another one.
I can see this being a major pain in the ass for Terran more so then Zerg cause overseers and all that. I don't think DT's need a buff at all, I would rather dark archons
DT"s can blink up and down a cliff. So even with overlords in position/supply depos you won't be ready for it when they decide to teleport to your main/natural/third/etc.
That's actually a good point but at the same time i am also not sure if you really want to use it to get in with ~20 seconds cool down.
Other than that i think it isn't really scary if you have mobile detection already (which you really should at that point tbh). Terrans have to build ravens probably, so there is that.
On August 16 2016 06:13 n3p wrote: The infestor is back boys! Nothing is more terrifying than the four-festor hit squad. Edit: Misspelled a word cause dumb.
There is absolutely now way the port ability will actually be in the game. Being able to cast while burrowed maybe, i feel like this should be an upgrade though. In general i feel like upgrades are underused quite a lot.
As a Terran I'd much rather deal with teleporting infestors than burrowed fungals
On August 16 2016 06:13 n3p wrote: The infestor is back boys! Nothing is more terrifying than the four-festor hit squad. Edit: Misspelled a word cause dumb.
There is absolutely now way the port ability will actually be in the game. Being able to cast while burrowed maybe, i feel like this should be an upgrade though. In general i feel like upgrades are underused quite a lot.
As a Terran I'd much rather deal with teleporting infestors than burrowed fungals
Teleporting gives the infestor basically free "perfect" positioning if you have some sort of vision which is rather easy with zerg (overlords, creep, some lings) While burrowed movement is similar you still can counter that with detection. I feel the the raven needs maybe some love if the dt and burrow change actually make it though.
On the other hand blizzard seems to like teleportation quite a lot in general (warpins, nydus, bc, now infestor) so who knows.
On August 16 2016 06:13 n3p wrote: The infestor is back boys! Nothing is more terrifying than the four-festor hit squad. Edit: Misspelled a word cause dumb.
There is absolutely now way the port ability will actually be in the game. Being able to cast while burrowed maybe, i feel like this should be an upgrade though. In general i feel like upgrades are underused quite a lot.
As a Terran I'd much rather deal with teleporting infestors than burrowed fungals
Teleporting gives the infestor basically free "perfect" positioning if you have some sort of vision which is rather easy with zerg (overlords, creep, some lings) While burrowed movement is similar you still can counter that with detection. I feel the the raven needs maybe some love if the dt and burrow change actually make it though.
On the other hand blizzard seems to like teleportation quite a lot in general (warpins, nydus, bc, now infestor) so who knows.
Yeah the raven being a terrible unit to make might be why. It's slow, it's expensive, it's easy to snipe, it doesn't synergize well with bio and you need a tech lab on your starport. I mean if mech takes over the world this wouldn't be such a big deal because most mech units laugh at fungal, burrowed or not.
But they might want to look into helping out bio in the lategame somehow. Maybe making ravens useful helps.
On August 16 2016 06:13 n3p wrote: The infestor is back boys! Nothing is more terrifying than the four-festor hit squad. Edit: Misspelled a word cause dumb.
There is absolutely now way the port ability will actually be in the game. Being able to cast while burrowed maybe, i feel like this should be an upgrade though. In general i feel like upgrades are underused quite a lot.
As a Terran I'd much rather deal with teleporting infestors than burrowed fungals
Teleporting gives the infestor basically free "perfect" positioning if you have some sort of vision which is rather easy with zerg (overlords, creep, some lings) While burrowed movement is similar you still can counter that with detection. I feel the the raven needs maybe some love if the dt and burrow change actually make it though.
On the other hand blizzard seems to like teleportation quite a lot in general (warpins, nydus, bc, now infestor) so who knows.
Well it won't be free if it costs energy, because then what you can actually do with the Infestors is much more limited. Positioning them well the old fashioned way should still have some value. Of course, it remains to be seen how Blizzard has this set up, and how well it works.
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
Well yeah "stationary" detectors are a lot worse vs this, BUT this would be more of a dt buff if the dt could blink from the beginning. It cannot though. So at the time it can you really, really should have observers/overseers anyway. In the case of terran you might actually want to build ravens now so, so sure in that case it's a bit different.
Stupid question: aren't observers slower than DTs? And is the speed upgrade still in the game?
On August 16 2016 05:52 The_Red_Viper wrote: Am i the only one who doesn't think that blink dts are too bad? What does it really achieve? It has a "short" teleport on a fairly long cooldown after a pretty long research time. I really fail to see why this would be incredibly strong. This seems more like a change that would affect gameplay if there wasn't a research for this, but with it? I just don't see it, can anyone explain?
Evading scans becomes much easier. Therefore it's easier to waste more scans with fewer dts
Well yeah "stationary" detectors are a lot worse vs this, BUT this would be more of a dt buff if the dt could blink from the beginning. It cannot though. So at the time it can you really, really should have observers/overseers anyway. In the case of terran you might actually want to build ravens now so, so sure in that case it's a bit different.
Stupid question: aren't observers slower than DTs? And is the speed upgrade still in the game?
The speed upgrade is still in the game. With speed observers are as fast as DTs.
If you don't pay attention blink could let it slip away.
Although the question if people are willing to pay 150/150 for this has to be asked. You could warp in an extra DT and micro it properly (perhaps even with a prism) instead.
On August 15 2016 21:14 JackONeill wrote: Game has been stale since LOTV release.
w t f maybe from a super casual's perspective...
thx for taking some of your valuable time and posting this.
i've been in diamond for 3+ years. from my POV the game is not stale. the silvers and golds i play 2v2s with don't feel the game is stale. i don't know what the opinions of bronze players are.
normally when people disagree with me i just stop posting because by nature i'm a very non-confrontational person. however, this has inspired me.
On August 15 2016 21:14 JackONeill wrote: Game has been stale since LOTV release.
w t f maybe from a super casual's perspective...
thx for taking some of your valuable time and posting this.
i've been in diamond for 3+ years. from my POV the game is not stale. the silvers and golds i play 2v2s with don't feel the game is stale. i don't know what the opinions of bronze players are.
He said it looks like this is what will put it in a good place. So lets not forget to consider any other holes before we exit the design phase again. This may sound greedy, but now is the time.
On August 16 2016 07:17 Elentos wrote: If you don't pay attention blink could let it slip away.
Although the question if people are willing to pay 150/150 for this has to be asked. You could warp in an extra DT and micro it properly (perhaps even with a prism) instead.
On August 15 2016 21:14 JackONeill wrote: Game has been stale since LOTV release.
w t f maybe from a super casual's perspective...
thx for taking some of your valuable time and posting this.
i've been in diamond for 3+ years. from my POV the game is not stale. the silvers and golds i play 2v2s with don't feel the game is stale. i don't know what the opinions of bronze players are.
With the new cyclone and its ridiculous DPS and speed to match the Hellion, what if that means it's a unit that can attack siege tanks without getting obliterated? Hellions can absorb 3 to 2 shots from a siege tank and Cyclones themselves can absorb 3 shots from a siege tank.
NO. What am I talking about of course that doesn't work, just liked stimmed marauder doesn't work against the CURRENT siege tank.
the thing is it's really pointless to discuss any change until we have tested it, so this theorycrafting is fun and all but we'll have to see how it fares in game
people raging over changes before they tried it should probably be ignored
I'm not interested in SC2 if the game still has hundreds of ways to lose to just because you don't have non-stop map vision. If Blizzard doesn't do more to reduce luck ("I hope my opponent doesn't scout me"), then SC2 isn't reliable. I know you hate BW, but BW actually had more stable/safe builds.
On August 16 2016 08:37 Shield wrote: I'm not interested in SC2 if the game still has hundreds of ways to lose to just because you don't have non-stop map vision. If Blizzard doesn't do more to reduce luck ("I hope my opponent doesn't scout me"), then SC2 isn't reliable. I know you hate BW, but BW actually had more stable/safe builds.
Map control and map vision was even bigger in BW because terrain gave pretty big advantages, I don't what you are talking about.
I think its interesting that the cyclone changes brings its dps up to a stimmed marine vs armored units. It's going to deal half damage (or less) vs light units.
vs Zerg it seems like it will shred roach armies, but loses to ravager/hydra/ling/bling which sounds fair
vs Protoss it'll destroy stalkers, but lose to adepts, zealots, and go even with immortals. Guardian shield is also probably really good vs it.
vs Terran it loses only to marines but it might not be a big deal since gas is so important.
On August 16 2016 04:55 ROOTFayth wrote: doesn't make a lot of sense that you would stop BECAUSE of these changes if you played from wings of liberty onwards... expansions were bigger changes than these design changes, you never quit
I am just not interested to play against mech, so indeed I almost stopped at the end of HOTS but with good maps veto I avoided it most of the time, although I left the game when I scouted it. Now these are big chances that push mech play in the game, it pushes me out. ^^
You'll not be missed, close the door on the way out.
The new patch for LOTV is a huge moving forward for SC2. The SC2 team finally wants to make some big design and balance changes not just during a expansion release. So I think I will provide my two cents.
In the new patch, the only changes for swarm host are a cost change and swoop range change, which I think are not going to make this useful again. And the dilemma is that if this unit becomes useful again, it will be the same old boring defensive game with passive swarm host play that many complained.
So I think a complete redesign of this unit is very much needed. Small resign change won't make this unit useful to play and fun to watch. It was changed from ground locus to fly locus and it didn't help.
So this idea of swarm host as a baneling launcher is very straight forward and self-explanatory. The swarm host came out without any normal attack or ability. Now, the swarm host can load up 4 banelings, like loading them into overlord. Use an ability on the swarm host to select a target area (like psi-storm). It is long range and has a good AOE. After you release this ability, the swarm host will shoot up one baneling into the air and then fall down into target area for some good AOE damages. You could release the ability up to 4 times to release all four banelings. You could then load another round of banelings again.
With the strong Terran mech army coming, I think this change is good in gameplay and balance as well. In this way, Zerg has a good way to force engagement or retreat from the Terran mech army. This achieves an important goal: to avoid the passive mech play style from Terran. This is very much in line with the philosophy of the Tempest's new ability: to force Terran mech to engage or to retreat so that there will less 1-hour passive mech games.
Also, the setting, art, and animation of swarm host are totally in line with this idea. When the swarm host loads up banelings, he baneling pops out of those holes on the back of swarm host, just like the locus eggs. It's perfectly fit artistically
By the way, if you read the reasoning behind why tankivac is being cut (iconic terran unit, clear strength/weakness that shouldn't be dismissed), and look at the very idea of blink DTs, you'll ask yourself if DK is capable of logical thinking.
The DT is iconic. The DT has clear strengths/weaknesses. And adding blink will completely shit all over it.
Overall the changes to protoss feel very gimmicky. I'm not even sure that the tempest nerf is that much of a nerf : right now mech vs toss can work if you tune your composition really well, and if your opponent goes for tempest, a few cyclones can kill them if you attack early enough. With the new cyclone dealing ten times less AA damage, and the tempest spell, I dunno how if the tempest isn't gonna be just as abusive since it can still kite vikings at 15 range. It all depends on the spell, which needs to be changed : if you can blanket an area with 30 sec ground PB, and send another wave 45 secs later, the more tempest you'll have, the more abusive your comp is gonna be, and the less the terran will be able to chase you. Just like right now.
On August 16 2016 12:23 JackONeill wrote: By the way, if you read the reasoning behind why tankivac is being cut (iconic terran unit, clear strength/weakness that shouldn't be dismissed), and look at the very idea of blink DTs, you'll ask yourself if DK is capable of logical thinking.
The DT is iconic. The DT has clear strengths/weaknesses. And adding blink will completely shit all over it.
Overall the changes to protoss feel very gimmicky. I'm not even sure that the tempest nerf is that much of a nerf : right now mech vs toss can work if you tune your composition really well, and if your opponent goes for tempest, a few cyclones can kill them if you attack early enough. With the new cyclone dealing ten times less AA damage, and the tempest spell, I dunno how if the tempest isn't gonna be just as abusive since it can still kite vikings at 15 range. It all depends on the spell, which needs to be changed : if you can blanket an area with 30 sec ground PB, and send another wave 45 secs later, the more tempest you'll have, the more abusive your comp is gonna be, and the less the terran will be able to chase you. Just like right now.
The Tempest change is what still worries me as with the current numbers on the spell, it seems just as abusable as before, but with the added benefit of killing worker lines and infrastructure in seconds, while still only being countered by air, air that it can kite to oblivion with 15 range.
Overall the changes are fantastic and they can't come soon enough.
So drastic, it's like a new expansion almost... I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year. With Blizzcon coming this is going to change pro metagame quite a lot and will no doubt make it harder for Koreans to simply roll over the foreigners.
People will say i'm biased as fuck etc but SC2 needs huge changes. For people saying stuff about mech this or that, i hope you realize 1% of pro games since SC2's release have been mech games. 99% have been bio or marine+tank games. There is something truely wrong with that.
Tank "buff" is essentially a revert of the old tank nerf that entirely killed mech itself out of viability. Mech is only forced to turtle because of all of the previous nerfs and still not having good anti-air. You're forced to turtle because moving tanks onto the map means you 100% will lose them and they don't even trade with basic units like zealots or zerglings or even marines.
If tanks can trade for their cost...mech games won't just be "sit there till you have 20 ravens" type of games.
The tempest ability is pretty bad they're adding - it's basically psi storm that stays in place for 40 seconds ....tempest + high templar was already bad enough i highly doubt they'll follow through with literally just giving tempests their own free psi storm as that will just re-invent the "mass tempest + high templar" problem without even needing high templar anymore lol.
Besides that i'mt not even gonna comment on the rest of the changes till i play with them myself on the test map. The only worrying thing to me is that they didn't mention anything about 8 armor ultras, viper parasitic bomb, invincible nydus, and mass adepts, which a lot of people will probably agree are ridiculous balance issues that still are in the game. Also i highly doubt it's a good idea to make bio unplayable with a baneling buff, the core unit that fights versus bio lol.
Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
I'm sure the SC2 community will give feedback on the changes. We should be happy blizzard finally is making big changes. We should be encouraging blizzard to do exactly shit like this because even if the changes are wrong blizzard finally seems to have the balls to be wrong and then hopefully actually iterate upon those changes and tune them up or down correspondingly.
How can there be any iteration if you're unwilling to make changes in the first place? Imo this patch / re-design announcement is the best thing i've heard in the last 5 yrs for SC2.
I think that Blizz should make the following changes to Terran: Make the scan animation a mere shimmer (like cloak) so that it is difficult to guess where the scan range is. Do a similar thing for the liberation zone.
One of the things that is completely taken for granted is the immense advantage it is having observers that are small and permanently cloaked. It's one thing to see what they opponent is doing. It is another thing entirely to be able to do so WITHOUT the opponent knowing that you're looking at them. That's actually a gigantic passive advantage...
Also, Ravens should be cheaper and quicker to build. Even if they have to take away/displace some abilities. Because, having a permanently cloaked detector unit or creep spanning half the map is way more effective than having the ability to sacrifice ~240 minerals in order to see one area for a few seconds...
How can there be any iteration if you're unwilling to make changes in the first place? Imo this patch / re-design announcement is the best thing i've heard in the last 5 yrs for SC2.
If there's one thing I agree with avilo about it's this.
For those who say the game doesnt need to be changed you need to open your eyes and see how many others have been clamoring for a major redesign. The hesitant, minor tweaks are annoyingly inept when tbh the game design as a whole feels lacklustre.
I still wish they made it less easy to massacre worker lines OR somehow made losing a handful of workers less impactful, but that's a pipe dream obviously. Imo by far the biggest problem with sc2 for getting new players is how quickly you can lose workers and how dire the consequences are.
Workers hover over ground. Perhaps make it so the tempest ability cant damage units that hover. Just like spidermines cant touch workers in broodwar.
There are rules to be added to the game. Something i found cool at the same time is if widowmines could shoot stealth units. It just adds another dimension to openings imo which is just fun.
On August 16 2016 13:31 Khai wrote: I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year.
This. But i guess DK is in the state where "SC2 is only getting worse everyday so let's turn everything on its head we got nothing to lose". I've been saying this for ages: "leave this game alone". It's not healthy for an esport to be changed drastically every half a year. But people continue to drag in their "the more changes the better" casual attitude. It's keeping the game fresh the say. "i'll definitely gonna play after these changes". They said this before the LoTV release, they are saying this now. But the truth is LoTV has A HALF of HoTS playerbase http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=1&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c . Where are you guys, you promised me to play the game, you hyped so much, i believed you. But it all turned out that changes didnt attract new players or make old ones to come back but instead scared off the huge number of dedicated players. I myself did go through a long period of apathy and irritation, and finally overcame that and adapted. But seems like half of the players where lost in the process. Now they are gonna do it again. And all i see is people hyping that w/o even understanding how this will turn out lead by avilo who's only purpose is to attract attention to his person.
On August 16 2016 04:55 ROOTFayth wrote: doesn't make a lot of sense that you would stop BECAUSE of these changes if you played from wings of liberty onwards... expansions were bigger changes than these design changes, you never quit
I am just not interested to play against mech, so indeed I almost stopped at the end of HOTS but with good maps veto I avoided it most of the time, although I left the game when I scouted it. Now these are big chances that push mech play in the game, it pushes me out. ^^
You'll not be missed, close the door on the way out.
I will keep enjoying the game while it stays like it is right now, and hope they'll do different changes or that the patch proves me wrong when it comes out. So I won't leave right now, so please remains polite and civilized.
I liked idea of re-designed SH as larse suggested - SH that carries/launches banelings. Seems legit and fun to perform. But I may add that this new SH should from the start have its 'native' banelings, somewhat weaker than in-game ones, and after upgrade in Infestation Pit it could load & launch in-game banelings as well.
On August 16 2016 18:32 Striker.superfreunde wrote: Does someone has an educated guess how the testmap matchmaking will be implemented?
Mine would be they probably implement the changes for unranked play which would turn it into some kind of beta-mode for the rest of the year (or maybe even longer?) and leave ranked play for those who want to play "normal".
Another method would be introducing a PTR, but since that would require players to download an additional client, I'm not sure if that many people would play on it.
On August 16 2016 13:31 Khai wrote: I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year.
This. .
Isnt Dota 2 doing this exact thing regularly to shake up the metagame while simultaniously being the biggest esport? Seems like a flawed argument then.
Also IT IS a new Season/year when the changes will go live.Patch will happen after Blizzcon when the year 2016 WCS is over.
I think dota 2 is bigger than lol only in terms of prizepool not viewers yet (hard to say with ingame viewers and valve not releasing numbers to ti6 yet). But yeah, those two are at the top afaik.
Honestly whenever viewer numbers are declining visibly companies should probably shake up the meta.
I mainly protoss player so I'll mostly speak for the MU I know of. I like the idea of drastic changes, but I don't think those changes target the real problem we encounter in MU. I feel the main problem in the game is the fact that some units are so strong that they entirely dictate how MU are supposed to be played.
In PvT the problem is that adept are so strong combined with immortals and sentries that they force Terran to go for mass liberators which in turn are insanely strong vs ground and force Protoss into mass tempest. I don't really see changes going toward a resolution of this type of problem.
While I understand that Terran would like more variety with mech, I'd say, that the tank change is truly terrifying. Let's recall what BW games were and the fact that terran bio is stronger and much more mobile than bio back then. Think also that the tank upgrade comes with massive mech upgrade and the possibility to combine powerful tank with liberator, raven, etc...
Nerfing ground range for tempest seems a good idea so that Tempest would only dominate air and sieged ground but not every ground unit. I think this is a healthy change. For the 6 food, it sounds a lot, but it's hard to tell without testing. That being said, it let the PvZ MU with the only reliable option to go disruptors vs lurkers (I'm not saying it isn't balance for that we have the same problem, than before, some units completely lock the MU)
I don't think the blink for DT will be that useful, because about the same thing can be achieve with the prism and it cost a lot of resources and time which is critical in DT rush.
The zerg changes aren't really exciting, and it's really hard to tell how much of a change it is for the different MU.
On August 16 2016 13:51 avilo wrote: Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
SC2 consists of more than just TvZ. Also, i see lots of Medivac/Tank/Marine/Widow Mine compositions in TvZ.
you can not see the forest through the trees. The entire genre is in decline and a lower tide means all boats are lower. All Blizzard can do is slow the decline.
I'm happy with these changes and with Blizzard's continued efforts to support an RTS game. However, the entire genre and all teh games in it will continue to decline. It does not matter what Creative Assembly, Blizzard, Relic, and Blackbird/Gearbox do.. its already over. The reasons its over are beyond the scope of David Kim's job and the job of Team 1.
David Kim is doing a great job.
On August 16 2016 20:58 Blackfeather wrote: I think dota 2 is bigger than lol only in terms of prizepool not viewers yet (hard to say with ingame viewers and valve not releasing numbers to ti6 yet). But yeah, those two are at the top afaik. Honestly whenever viewer numbers are declining visibly companies should probably shake up the meta.
not always. sometimes the game is perfectly fine and forces beyond the game are causing it to decline in popularity.
While I understand that Terran would like more variety with mech, I'd say, that the tank change is truly terrifying. Let's recall what BW games were and the fact that terran bio is stronger and much more mobile than bio back then. Think also that the tank upgrade comes with massive mech upgrade and the possibility to combine powerful tank with liberator, raven, etc...
...
I like how people evoke the whole "tank was OP in BW, so let's be careful in buffing the tank in SC2". Guess what? Tanks were not OP in BW. PvT is historically above 50%. Were tanks good in BW? Obviously, but take them away and what would Terran do versus Protoss? Besides, BW is so different from SC2 that the comparison doesn't even make much sense. Protoss has a lot of counter units to tanks in SC2.
Blink DT is totally useless because of prism range. Good players already don't lose their DTs. Look at what Zest is doing when microing them.
But I really feel bad for protoss to counter early/mid terran mech pushes. With the nerf of Immortal barrier, how can protoss survive against such powerful tanks before tempests are here? Don't you think this will force voidrays production?
On August 16 2016 22:24 FFgringo wrote: Blink DT is totally useless because of prism range. Good players already don't lose their DTs. Look at what Zest is doing when microing them.
But I really feel bad for protoss to counter early/mid terran mech pushes. With the nerf of Immortal barrier, how can protoss survive against such powerful tanks before tempests are here? Don't you think this will force voidrays production?
Dont forget the disruptor balls, adept shades on top of the tanks = tank fire at tanks. Im sure there will be ways to deal with it. And as most people say when a race is struggling: let the meta settle, koreans will come up with something.
On August 16 2016 13:51 avilo wrote: People will say i'm biased as fuck etc but SC2 needs huge changes. For people saying stuff about mech this or that, i hope you realize 1% of pro games since SC2's release have been mech games. 99% have been bio or marine+tank games. There is something truely wrong with that.
Tank "buff" is essentially a revert of the old tank nerf that entirely killed mech itself out of viability. Mech is only forced to turtle because of all of the previous nerfs and still not having good anti-air. You're forced to turtle because moving tanks onto the map means you 100% will lose them and they don't even trade with basic units like zealots or zerglings or even marines.
If tanks can trade for their cost...mech games won't just be "sit there till you have 20 ravens" type of games.
The tempest ability is pretty bad they're adding - it's basically psi storm that stays in place for 40 seconds ....tempest + high templar was already bad enough i highly doubt they'll follow through with literally just giving tempests their own free psi storm as that will just re-invent the "mass tempest + high templar" problem without even needing high templar anymore lol.
Besides that i'mt not even gonna comment on the rest of the changes till i play with them myself on the test map. The only worrying thing to me is that they didn't mention anything about 8 armor ultras, viper parasitic bomb, invincible nydus, and mass adepts, which a lot of people will probably agree are ridiculous balance issues that still are in the game. Also i highly doubt it's a good idea to make bio unplayable with a baneling buff, the core unit that fights versus bio lol.
Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
I'm sure the SC2 community will give feedback on the changes. We should be happy blizzard finally is making big changes. We should be encouraging blizzard to do exactly shit like this because even if the changes are wrong blizzard finally seems to have the balls to be wrong and then hopefully actually iterate upon those changes and tune them up or down correspondingly.
How can there be any iteration if you're unwilling to make changes in the first place? Imo this patch / re-design announcement is the best thing i've heard in the last 5 yrs for SC2.
I agree completely. This is the kind of change needed to save the game. Not sure if it is too late though, Blizzard should have made a patch like this a long time ago.
While I understand that Terran would like more variety with mech, I'd say, that the tank change is truly terrifying. Let's recall what BW games were and the fact that terran bio is stronger and much more mobile than bio back then. Think also that the tank upgrade comes with massive mech upgrade and the possibility to combine powerful tank with liberator, raven, etc...
...
I like how people evoke the whole "tank was OP in BW, so let's be careful in buffing the tank in SC2". Guess what? Tanks were not OP in BW. PvT is historically above 50%. Were tanks good in BW? Obviously, but take them away and what would Terran do versus Protoss? Besides, BW is so different from SC2 that the comparison doesn't even make much sense. Protoss has a lot of counter units to tanks in SC2.
You obviously haven't read me. I did not say that Tanks were op in BW, but they dictate the way an entire MU were played. If we are looking for diversity in strategies, it's not what we would like.
Plus you're saying that SC 2 and BW are different games so the comparison doesn't hold and this what I said, adding that Lotv have brought other options to Terran which are already strong. Now Terran doesn't even need tank to hold vs protoss, except maybe vs blink stalker rush. In fact most pro PvT, are more about massing liberator and MMM.
And no Protoss don't have " a lot of counter " to tanks in SC2, since immortals don't have hardened shield anymore, they aren't such a hard counter as before. The only real counter vs Tank is the tempest, as it is also a real counter to liberator.
On August 16 2016 13:31 Khai wrote: I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year.
This. But i guess DK is in the state where "SC2 is only getting worse everyday so let's turn everything on its head we got nothing to lose". I've been saying this for ages: "leave this game alone". It's not healthy for an esport to be changed drastically every half a year. But people continue to drag in their "the more changes the better" casual attitude. It's keeping the game fresh the say. "i'll definitely gonna play after these changes". They said this before the LoTV release, they are saying this now. But the truth is LoTV has A HALF of HoTS playerbase http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=1&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c . Where are you guys, you promised me to play the game, you hyped so much, i believed you. But it all turned out that changes didnt attract new players or make old ones to come back but instead scared off the huge number of dedicated players. I myself did go through a long period of apathy and irritation, and finally overcame that and adapted. But seems like half of the players where lost in the process. Now they are gonna do it again. And all i see is people hyping that w/o even understanding how this will turn out lead by avilo who's only purpose is to attract attention to his person.
I was excited by lotv, i played a lot in the beta, esp. when they removed the macro boosters. I felt utterly let down when they released it. I still played a couple games but i could not bear it. To me, it s not fun. I used to love zvt but now every single z matchup feels boring. I ll try again after this patch though. It s true that players are lost after each big change but for me it is also because the actual changes dont live up to their expectations
While I understand that Terran would like more variety with mech, I'd say, that the tank change is truly terrifying. Let's recall what BW games were and the fact that terran bio is stronger and much more mobile than bio back then. Think also that the tank upgrade comes with massive mech upgrade and the possibility to combine powerful tank with liberator, raven, etc...
...
I like how people evoke the whole "tank was OP in BW, so let's be careful in buffing the tank in SC2". Guess what? Tanks were not OP in BW. PvT is historically above 50%. Were tanks good in BW? Obviously, but take them away and what would Terran do versus Protoss? Besides, BW is so different from SC2 that the comparison doesn't even make much sense. Protoss has a lot of counter units to tanks in SC2.
You obviously haven't read me. I did not say that Tanks were op in BW, but they dictate the way an entire MU were played. If we are looking for diversity in strategies, it's not what we would like.
Plus you're saying that SC 2 and BW are different games so the comparison doesn't hold and this what I said, adding that Lotv have brought other options to Terran which are already strong. Now Terran doesn't even need tank to hold vs protoss, except maybe vs blink stalker rush. In fact most pro PvT, are more about massing liberator and MMM.
And no Protoss don't have " a lot of counter " to tanks in SC2, since immortals don't have hardened shield anymore, they aren't such a hard counter as before. The only real counter vs Tank is the tempest, as it is also a real counter to liberator.
What about adepts shading on top of tanks? Blink stalkers? Charged zealots? Archons (which were bad vs tanks in BW, but now are way better)? Storms? If you want a hard counter composition that can basically 1A into a sieged tank lines, I don't think you want mech to ever be remotely viable. Guess what? In BW, Protoss couldn't 1A into a sieged tank line as well. They had to use many different tatics and spells to destroy a mech army abusing its lack of mobility.
On August 16 2016 13:51 avilo wrote: Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
SC2 consists of more than just TvZ. Also, i see lots of Medivac/Tank/Marine/Widow Mine compositions in TvZ.
you can not see the forest through the trees. The entire genre is in decline and a lower tide means all boats are lower. All Blizzard can do is slow the decline.
I'm happy with these changes and with Blizzard's continued efforts to support an RTS game. However, the entire genre and all teh games in it will continue to decline. It does not matter what Creative Assembly, Blizzard, Relic, and Blackbird/Gearbox do.. its already over. The reasons its over are beyond the scope of David Kim's job and the job of Team 1.
On August 16 2016 20:58 Blackfeather wrote: I think dota 2 is bigger than lol only in terms of prizepool not viewers yet (hard to say with ingame viewers and valve not releasing numbers to ti6 yet). But yeah, those two are at the top afaik. Honestly whenever viewer numbers are declining visibly companies should probably shake up the meta.
not always. sometimes the game is perfectly fine and forces beyond the game are causing it to decline in popularity.
Dunno, most competitive people I know stick to their guns unless they get either bored or frustrated. A new meta usually solves both.
Hell I haven't been laddering since early swarm and am hyped for balance changes, cause I really want sc2 to succeed and be the game I envision (not like that's ever gonna come true, nor saying that would be desirable for everyone).
Also a lot of genres have been labeled "dying" weren't dead at all. Look at RPGs, which were supposedly dead before DA:O and now are a stable AAA genre again. The genre is more dying because nobody is investing than dying because there's a huge lack of interest. I mean mobas are doing great, 4x are doing well, why should RTS be the only one left out?
Haven't played AoA, but outside of that the only new AA RTS I know of has been GG which had a lot of design flaws. They tried to create CnC in scifi but their units and atmosphere were utterly boring. Pretty optimistic that Relic's gonna make money with DoW III unless they screw up big time.
Lack of mobility isn't what it used to be. Deploying a tank line to minimise overkill with derpy pathfinding and snaggy units - that's lack of mobility. Sieging and unsieging a greased lozenge of perfect, no-overkill mech... not so much.
On August 16 2016 13:31 Khai wrote: I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year.
This. But i guess DK is in the state where "SC2 is only getting worse everyday so let's turn everything on its head we got nothing to lose". I've been saying this for ages: "leave this game alone". It's not healthy for an esport to be changed drastically every half a year. But people continue to drag in their "the more changes the better" casual attitude. It's keeping the game fresh the say. "i'll definitely gonna play after these changes". They said this before the LoTV release, they are saying this now. But the truth is LoTV has A HALF of HoTS playerbase http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=1&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c . Where are you guys, you promised me to play the game, you hyped so much, i believed you. But it all turned out that changes didnt attract new players or make old ones to come back but instead scared off the huge number of dedicated players. I myself did go through a long period of apathy and irritation, and finally overcame that and adapted. But seems like half of the players where lost in the process. Now they are gonna do it again. And all i see is people hyping that w/o even understanding how this will turn out lead by avilo who's only purpose is to attract attention to his person.
I was one that was hyped for LOTV and played very little and didn't watch to much either. Why? Because the game failed to deliver what i was personally hoping for: mech. Even more, the only MU where mech worked became a shit fest IMO, TvT; even the classic marine tank became way worse due to tankvacs. So i was disillusioned and frustrated with SC2 and the design team.
The announced changes are giving me a lot of hope that things will finally fall in to place and i can't wait to start playing again.
I'm also not a fan of avilo's thinking of "often and big changes like the MOBAS". I think the game needs big changes now, to fix design issues, and once that is dealt with, minor balance changes might be enough for a long, long time.
On August 16 2016 18:32 Striker.superfreunde wrote: Does someone has an educated guess how the testmap matchmaking will be implemented?
Mine would be they probably implement the changes for unranked play which would turn it into some kind of beta-mode for the rest of the year (or maybe even longer?) and leave ranked play for those who want to play "normal".
Another method would be introducing a PTR, but since that would require players to download an additional client, I'm not sure if that many people would play on it.
With changes this radical, some of which have been demanded by the community for years, I'm sure the PTR would become the most popular version of SC2 by far.
On August 16 2016 13:31 Khai wrote: I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year.
This. But i guess DK is in the state where "SC2 is only getting worse everyday so let's turn everything on its head we got nothing to lose". I've been saying this for ages: "leave this game alone". It's not healthy for an esport to be changed drastically every half a year. But people continue to drag in their "the more changes the better" casual attitude. It's keeping the game fresh the say. "i'll definitely gonna play after these changes". They said this before the LoTV release, they are saying this now. But the truth is LoTV has A HALF of HoTS playerbase http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=1&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c . Where are you guys, you promised me to play the game, you hyped so much, i believed you. But it all turned out that changes didnt attract new players or make old ones to come back but instead scared off the huge number of dedicated players. I myself did go through a long period of apathy and irritation, and finally overcame that and adapted. But seems like half of the players where lost in the process. Now they are gonna do it again. And all i see is people hyping that w/o even understanding how this will turn out lead by avilo who's only purpose is to attract attention to his person.
I was one that was hyped for LOTV and played very little and didn't watch to much either. Why? Because the game failed to deliver what i was personally hoping for: mech. Even more, the only MU where mech worked became a shit fest IMO, TvT; even the classic marine tank became way worse due to tankvacs. So i was disillusioned and frustrated with SC2 and the design team.
The announced changes are giving me a lot of hope that things will finally fall in to place and i can't wait to start playing again.
I'm also not a fan of avilo's thinking of "often and big changes like the MOBAS". I think the game needs big changes now, to fix design issues, and once that is dealt with, minor balance changes might be enough for a long, long time.
Brood War was very lucky to not need any balance or design changes after 2001, primarily due to the innovations brought on by revised build orders, new exploits, new maps and players further breaking mechanical boundaries.
Mech is a classic example of where David Kim royally fucked up with LotV and I am so glad they're changing things from Blizzcon onwards. It is almost impossible to play Mech from a competitive standpoint in any of the three matchups, because of how hard the Mech arsenal - or the air units that you have to build because Mech has shitty anti-air - get countered by key Protoss and Zerg units.
The Siege Tank desperately needed a damage buff, because it simply doesn't do the alpha damage it did back in Brood War, whist being 50% more supply inefficient and costing more vespene gas than its BW counterpart.
(Yes, Siege Tanks in BW cost 2 supply compared to the SC2 version which costs 3. Also, they cost 25 less Vespene Gas in BW in comparison to SC2, while dealing far less burst damage and DPS.)
If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
Cyclone looks way too volatile with that design: the unit now deals 42 DPS, 84 vs armored, and gains 14 DPS per upgrade or -14 per point of armor. That's so extreme that a single upgrade is going to completely decide games. A 33% damage swing for one upgrade is significantly more extreme than even the basic units (lings/marines).
I am personally NOT looking forward to two banelings no longer killing banelings in ZvZ (they will now survive with 1 HP). That's going to make being the defender in ling/bane an absolute nightmare, and it's already very stressful and a losing game.
On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote: If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
I heard that they want to integrate the balance test map into the matchmaking queue, but it won't come today. It may come in a few weeks though.
On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote: If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
I heard that they want to integrate the balance test map into the matchmaking queue, but it won't come today. It may come in a few weeks though.
Great, looking forward to it. It's gonna be the BETA feeling all over again!
I still cherish my memories of nexus-canon rushing people fondly
On August 16 2016 13:51 avilo wrote: Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
SC2 consists of more than just TvZ. Also, i see lots of Medivac/Tank/Marine/Widow Mine compositions in TvZ.
you can not see the forest through the trees. The entire genre is in decline and a lower tide means all boats are lower. All Blizzard can do is slow the decline.
I'm happy with these changes and with Blizzard's continued efforts to support an RTS game. However, the entire genre and all teh games in it will continue to decline. It does not matter what Creative Assembly, Blizzard, Relic, and Blackbird/Gearbox do.. its already over. The reasons its over are beyond the scope of David Kim's job and the job of Team 1.
David Kim is doing a great job.
On August 16 2016 20:58 Blackfeather wrote: I think dota 2 is bigger than lol only in terms of prizepool not viewers yet (hard to say with ingame viewers and valve not releasing numbers to ti6 yet). But yeah, those two are at the top afaik. Honestly whenever viewer numbers are declining visibly companies should probably shake up the meta.
not always. sometimes the game is perfectly fine and forces beyond the game are causing it to decline in popularity.
Dunno, most competitive people I know stick to their guns unless they get either bored or frustrated. A new meta usually solves both.
Hell I haven't been laddering since early swarm and am hyped for balance changes, cause I really want sc2 to succeed and be the game I envision (not like that's ever gonna come true, nor saying that would be desirable for everyone).
Also a lot of genres have been labeled "dying" weren't dead at all. Look at RPGs, which were supposedly dead before DA:O and now are a stable AAA genre again. The genre is more dying because nobody is investing than dying because there's a huge lack of interest. I mean mobas are doing great, 4x are doing well, why should RTS be the only one left out?
Haven't played AoA, but outside of that the only new AA RTS I know of has been GG which had a lot of design flaws. They tried to create CnC in scifi but their units and atmosphere were utterly boring. Pretty optimistic that Relic's gonna make money with DoW III unless they screw up big time.
you use the word "dying" i dont. the claim made by those saying the RTS genre still has a chance at immense popularity is that every single game maker is making bad games. Nah, these game makers have moved on and no longer want to extract blood from a stone.
now that we have free 10+ player voice on PC no one wants to play lonely 1v1 games while sitting at their PC at home. That is out of Blizzard's , Ensemble's and EALA's control.
On August 16 2016 23:44 ROOTFayth wrote: I think big design changes after every blizzcon would probably do wonders for SC2
I think it depends a lot on the state of the game, I don't want there to be change for the sake of it.
by state of the game you mean how popular it is? because at this point I don't think balance matters too much in terms of either bringing in new players or bringing back old players
I love the fact that Blizzard gives so much love to sc2 and has courage to bring so big changes. But as Zerg I have some issues with that. For example- Ravagers will now have armoured mark just as roaches. I just can't imagine how Zerg would defend new cyclone/new tank push when the changes will go live...As both wreck armoured units so freaking hard now.I mean Hydra maybe, but even if its light it still will die from 2 shots of tanks...I know that mech has some problems but i don't think that those design changes are balanced. Hope they will tweak some of it later.
On August 16 2016 13:51 avilo wrote: Anyways, my main thoughts about all those changes are - hallelujah. Who gives a fuck if some of the changes are too good or too bad. The point is they're changes that actually change the way we'll play the game rather than this game slowly dying off while every single caster pretends like the same exact 2 rax stim into 16 marine drop into the Terran dying to ultras is the epitome of SC2 strategic gameplay.
SC2 consists of more than just TvZ. Also, i see lots of Medivac/Tank/Marine/Widow Mine compositions in TvZ.
you can not see the forest through the trees. The entire genre is in decline and a lower tide means all boats are lower. All Blizzard can do is slow the decline.
I'm happy with these changes and with Blizzard's continued efforts to support an RTS game. However, the entire genre and all teh games in it will continue to decline. It does not matter what Creative Assembly, Blizzard, Relic, and Blackbird/Gearbox do.. its already over. The reasons its over are beyond the scope of David Kim's job and the job of Team 1.
David Kim is doing a great job.
On August 16 2016 20:58 Blackfeather wrote: I think dota 2 is bigger than lol only in terms of prizepool not viewers yet (hard to say with ingame viewers and valve not releasing numbers to ti6 yet). But yeah, those two are at the top afaik. Honestly whenever viewer numbers are declining visibly companies should probably shake up the meta.
not always. sometimes the game is perfectly fine and forces beyond the game are causing it to decline in popularity.
Dunno, most competitive people I know stick to their guns unless they get either bored or frustrated. A new meta usually solves both.
Hell I haven't been laddering since early swarm and am hyped for balance changes, cause I really want sc2 to succeed and be the game I envision (not like that's ever gonna come true, nor saying that would be desirable for everyone).
Also a lot of genres have been labeled "dying" weren't dead at all. Look at RPGs, which were supposedly dead before DA:O and now are a stable AAA genre again. The genre is more dying because nobody is investing than dying because there's a huge lack of interest. I mean mobas are doing great, 4x are doing well, why should RTS be the only one left out?
Haven't played AoA, but outside of that the only new AA RTS I know of has been GG which had a lot of design flaws. They tried to create CnC in scifi but their units and atmosphere were utterly boring. Pretty optimistic that Relic's gonna make money with DoW III unless they screw up big time.
you use the word "dying" i dont. the claim made by those saying the RTS genre still has a chance at immense popularity is that every single game maker is making bad games. Nah, these game makers have moved on and no longer want to extract blood from a stone.
now that we have free 10+ player voice on PC no one wants to play lonely 1v1 games while sitting at their PC at home. That is out of Blizzard's , Ensemble's and EALA's control.
Sorry if I put words in your mouth, wasn't my intention, I'm pretty tired.
I'm not convinced that ranked 1v1 is the future as well. But I can see 2v2 or 3v3 f.e. work if it's done well, gets rid of most of the old remnants that slow the game down unnecessarily and still provide some atmosphere. DoW 1 is a still a lot of fun on LAN-parties. I think relic is on a good way from what little we know of DoW3.
Also imo a well made single player rts could still sell well. A lot of the buyers of sc2 never saw the ladder despite the game intentionally being designed as an esport game.
I still think that Sc2 has the potential to get some of their players back if they change the ladder to more of a hybrid between LotV and SCBW and increase the diversity in strategies.
I still don't like their macro mechanics and terrible terrible damage systems, but I doubt they'll change the game that much.
Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
Im glad blizzard is finally discussing major changes. In my opinion the game would be much more interesting if changes of this magnitude were on the table twice a year.
I know a lot of people hate the idea of learning something new, but adapting to change is a skill that progamers should need anyway. You cant deny that sc2 interest has declined much more than it should for a blizzard flagship, and changes like this might breathe some life into it.
I think this is one of the best announcements weve had.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
There will always be demand for competitive 1v1 games, be they RTS, fighting games or other. Maybe not as popular as team games, but still a great need.
EDIT: and SC2, Civs and Total War sell very, very well.
On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote: If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
Also this very much. Please acknowledge this blizzard.
On August 16 2016 23:41 opisska wrote: If they really want people to test it widely, it needs to be accessible within a few clicks from the multiplayer screen and come with matchmaking. I don't really understand why they always just put out a "test map" and what useful data they can gather from it when most people won't bother looking for it - and even if they do, it's very hard to find an evenly matched game and most of the games will be onesided stomps not affected by the changes in any way.
Also this very much. Please acknowledge this blizzard.
Already been announced they will be adding matchmaking to it.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
There will always be demand for competitive 1v1 games, be they RTS, fighting games or other. Maybe not as popular as team games, but still a great need.
EDIT: and SC2, Civs and Total War sell very, very well.
Civs? Civilization is not an RTS. define "very very well" ? SC2: LotV didn't even make $0.1 Billion. Neither did SC2:HotS. ATVI counts their revenues in Billions not millions.
I'm very happy ATVI continues to fund SC2 despite its weak #s relative to every other Blizzard franchise except HotS.
On August 16 2016 23:47 RoKetha wrote: Cyclone looks way too volatile with that design: the unit now deals 42 DPS, 84 vs armored, and gains 14 DPS per upgrade or -14 per point of armor. That's so extreme that a single upgrade is going to completely decide games. A 33% damage swing for one upgrade is significantly more extreme than even the basic units (lings/marines).
I am personally NOT looking forward to two banelings no longer killing banelings in ZvZ (they will now survive with 1 HP). That's going to make being the defender in ling/bane an absolute nightmare, and it's already very stressful and a losing game.
That's what the balance map is for. If data proves that the unit's damage or health is too powerful, then it can be scaled back in later iterations.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
Voice communication plays a very small role in Dota 2 pubs. I haven't played LoL for multiple years, but from what I've seen recently (my little brother plays it) it's the same.
Skype/TS is used more often, but even then I'd argue it affects 10-15% of my games. And it's not just my games, most high ranked streamers don't really use their mic often nor do others in their games.
Again 4x/hybrids are selling very well, Stellaris and TWW both sold like crazy and Stellaris honestly was/is pretty unfinished and the TWW's 4x-elements are pretty mediocre.
Honestly GG suffers from bad design decisions more than bad graphics or too few units. They simply didn't put enough time into the planning phase. Ofc that is a money issue to some extent, but more than anything else it's a management issue.
I'm not saying Blizz nor Ensemble suck(ed). I really liked most things Ensemble tried in AoE3 and I have played it for ~80 hours or so, despite not liking the scenario. Loved aoe1 and 2. Didn't play Halo wars, sounds like it was a good game as well. Blizz introduced esports to me and sc2 was pretty dope compared to the alternatives. Wc2 is one of my first games ever played and I fell in love with the background story. Diablo 2 will always be one of my favorites. Wc3 was great too. I do think that both, AoE3 and sc2 could have been a lot better in hindsight though.
On August 17 2016 00:07 hiroshOne wrote: I love the fact that Blizzard gives so much love to sc2 and has courage to bring so big changes. But as Zerg I have some issues with that. For example- Ravagers will now have armoured mark just as roaches. I just can't imagine how Zerg would defend new cyclone/new tank push when the changes will go live...As both wreck armoured units so freaking hard now.I mean Hydra maybe, but even if its light it still will die from 2 shots of tanks...I know that mech has some problems but i don't think that those design changes are balanced. Hope they will tweak some of it later.
In my opinion, the matchup this will affect the worst is ZvZ, which is already decided by Lurkers in the midgame and Brood Lords in the late game.
Ravagers are already a pretty weak counter to the Lurker, taking four Corrosive Bile volleys to kill a single Lurker, and having stupidly low amounts of health in which to mitigate Lurker attacks.
If Ravagers are now Armored, then Lurkers are going to make mincemeat of them.
On August 16 2016 23:44 ROOTFayth wrote: I think big design changes after every blizzcon would probably do wonders for SC2
I think it depends a lot on the state of the game, I don't want there to be change for the sake of it.
by state of the game you mean how popular it is? because at this point I don't think balance matters too much in terms of either bringing in new players or bringing back old players
If you check RankedFTW's player population statistics, you'll see that LotV lost SC2 over half its active players, and has made it the most unpopular version of the game by far.
The last time this happened with a Blizzard game was WoW's really disappointing expansion pack, Warlords of Draenor.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
Voice communication plays a very small role in Dota 2 pubs. I haven't played LoL for multiple years, but from what I've seen recently (my little brother plays it) it's the same.
Skype/TS is used more often, but even then I'd argue it affects 10-15% of my games. And it's not just my games, most high ranked streamers don't really use their mic often nor do others in their games.
Again 4x/hybrids are selling very well, Stellaris and TWW both sold like crazy and Stellaris honestly was/is pretty unfinished and the TWW's 4x-elements are pretty mediocre.
Honestly GG suffers from bad design decisions more than bad graphics or too few units. They simply didn't put enough time into the planning phase. Ofc that is a money issue to some extent, but more than anything else it's a management issue.
I'm not saying Blizz nor Ensemble suck(ed). I really liked most things Ensemble tried in AoE3 and I have played it for ~80 hours or so, despite not liking the scenario. Loved aoe1 and 2. Didn't play Halo wars, sounds like it was a good game as well. Blizz introduced esports to me and sc2 was pretty dope compared to the alternatives. Wc2 is one of my first games ever played and I fell in love with the background story. Diablo 2 will always be one of my favorites. Wc3 was great too. I do think that both, AoE3 and sc2 could have been a lot better in hindsight though.
throughout the late 90s a plethora of totally shit RTS games came out and teh genre continued to grow by leaps and bounds.
new technology cuts both ways.
in 1989 a game like SC1 was not feasible for a PC worth less than $20,000. When SC1 became feasible for the average consumer the buzz of watching 100s are units kill each other on screen simultaneously was addictive and the energy and electricity could not be matched by other games.
The novelty of all those units killing each other led to huge growth in the genre and lots of so-so games succeeding.
Well , now its boring. We've been watching hundreds of units kill each other on screen for decades. Its no longer awe inspiring as it was in 1998 to see so much action on the screen.
New advances in CPU power and lower memory costs made the RTS genre possible and people gobbled it up while at the same time rejecting other older games that didn't require such high powered computers.
Now, RTS is on the wrong side of the tech advancements.
People immersed in the genre they love.. be it dot-eating-maze-games, RTS games, text adventure games... these people all think their genres failed because the games got worse. These people can not see the forest through the trees.
Dot-eating-maze games got better... the genre failed. Text adventure games got better. the genre failed. Game companies don't get worse at making games. They get better at making games. If companies got worse at making games we'd still be playing Pong because all the Atari 2600 games would've been worse than Pong.
The biggest problem the RTS genre has right now is a lack of funding. No one wants to invest in the genre. I can't say that i blame them.
On August 17 2016 00:07 hiroshOne wrote: I love the fact that Blizzard gives so much love to sc2 and has courage to bring so big changes. But as Zerg I have some issues with that. For example- Ravagers will now have armoured mark just as roaches. I just can't imagine how Zerg would defend new cyclone/new tank push when the changes will go live...As both wreck armoured units so freaking hard now.I mean Hydra maybe, but even if its light it still will die from 2 shots of tanks...I know that mech has some problems but i don't think that those design changes are balanced. Hope they will tweak some of it later.
In my opinion, the matchup this will affect the worst is ZvZ, which is already decided by Lurkers in the midgame and Brood Lords in the late game.
Ravagers are already a pretty weak counter to the Lurker, taking four Corrosive Bile volleys to kill a single Lurker, and having stupidly low amounts of health in which to mitigate Lurker attacks.
If Ravagers are now Armored, then Lurkers are going to make mincemeat of them.
isn't bile range equal to lurked range? You can shift que move command away and you shouldn't get hit.
You can do a timing attack since lurkers take long to tech to, or you can switch to air.
Imo banelings are going to be more problematic in zvz then ravager being armored. You'll be forced to make more banes to defend against his banes, because now the regeneration kicks in and they are 3 shot instead of 2.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
Voice communication plays a very small role in Dota 2 pubs. I haven't played LoL for multiple years, but from what I've seen recently (my little brother plays it) it's the same.
Skype/TS is used more often, but even then I'd argue it affects 10-15% of my games. And it's not just my games, most high ranked streamers don't really use their mic often nor do others in their games.
Again 4x/hybrids are selling very well, Stellaris and TWW both sold like crazy and Stellaris honestly was/is pretty unfinished and the TWW's 4x-elements are pretty mediocre.
Honestly GG suffers from bad design decisions more than bad graphics or too few units. They simply didn't put enough time into the planning phase. Ofc that is a money issue to some extent, but more than anything else it's a management issue.
I'm not saying Blizz nor Ensemble suck(ed). I really liked most things Ensemble tried in AoE3 and I have played it for ~80 hours or so, despite not liking the scenario. Loved aoe1 and 2. Didn't play Halo wars, sounds like it was a good game as well. Blizz introduced esports to me and sc2 was pretty dope compared to the alternatives. Wc2 is one of my first games ever played and I fell in love with the background story. Diablo 2 will always be one of my favorites. Wc3 was great too. I do think that both, AoE3 and sc2 could have been a lot better in hindsight though.
throughout the late 90s a plethora of totally shit RTS games came out and teh genre continued to grow by leaps and bounds.
new technology cuts both ways.
in 1989 a game like SC1 was not feasible for a PC worth less than $20,000. When SC1 became feasible for the average consumer the buzz of watching 100s are units kill each other on screen simultaneously was addictive and the energy and electricity could not be matched by other games.
The novelty of all those units killing each other led to huge growth in the genre and lots of so-so games succeeding.
Well , now its boring. We've been watching hundreds of units kill each other on screen for decades. Its no longer awe inspiring as it was in 1998 to see so much action on the screen.
New advances in CPU power and lower memory costs made the RTS genre possible and people gobbled it up while at the same time rejecting other older games that didn't require such high powered computers.
Now, RTS is on the wrong side of the tech advancements.
People immersed in the genre they love.. be it dot-eating-maze-games, RTS games, text adventure games... these people all think their genres failed because the games got worse. These people can not see the forest through the trees.
Dot-eating-maze games got better... the genre failed. Text adventure games got better. the genre failed. Game companies don't get worse at making games. They get better at making games. If companies got worse at making games we'd still be playing Pong because all the Atari 2600 games would've been worse than Pong.
The biggest problem the RTS genre has right now is a lack of funding. No one wants to invest in the genre. I can't say that i blame them.
Your argument that the audience for the RTS genre no longer exists in large numbers would make sense it if wasn't for the fact that subgenres of the RTS genres are selling well. Total war games are selling well, despite some utterly mediocratic games. MOBAS are just awash with people. They are all RTS's just not the starcraft/C&C style RTS. Why hasn't C&C and SC2 style games been selling well recently? Well, it truly is because of some very awful levels of game design choices.
the old "every single game maker sucks" thing. these same game makers seem to be able to make oodles of cash every where else.
somehow every studio that made very profritable RTS games from 1994 to 2001 all of a sudden became garbage. umm ya. they went from smart to dumb as they gained more experience in this new emerging genre. umm ya. because as you know.. .as you gain experience in a specific field you get worse. reductio ad absurdum.
Avilo is the best for that. Whoever the game designer is for whatever game it is he is playing. That guy is a total idiot destroying the game.
Total War? Selling well by what standard? Creative Assembly is not growing in size. Their investment in RTS is not increasing.
A MOBA and a 1v1 RTS game are a totally different experience. Donkey Kong, Mario Brothers and Super Mario Brothers ran off the same engine. Mario Brothers and Super Mario Brothers are not the same genre. In fact, Gallery platformers like DOnkey Kong effectively died once technology improved and Super Mario Brothers and SOnic were possible.
Again, its improving technology that ended games like Donkey Kong's and the Gallery Platformers ( donkey kong junior, space panic, lode runner) reign at the top. Not because the latest gallery platformers were bad.
As negative as my posts have been... its about macroscopic level stuff i don't care about. SC2 has been great fun for 6 years... 2v2 team games have been awesome.. and i look forward to Blizzcon 2016 , the GSL, and WCS. Blizzard and DK are doing a great job.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
Voice communication plays a very small role in Dota 2 pubs. I haven't played LoL for multiple years, but from what I've seen recently (my little brother plays it) it's the same.
Skype/TS is used more often, but even then I'd argue it affects 10-15% of my games. And it's not just my games, most high ranked streamers don't really use their mic often nor do others in their games.
Again 4x/hybrids are selling very well, Stellaris and TWW both sold like crazy and Stellaris honestly was/is pretty unfinished and the TWW's 4x-elements are pretty mediocre.
Honestly GG suffers from bad design decisions more than bad graphics or too few units. They simply didn't put enough time into the planning phase. Ofc that is a money issue to some extent, but more than anything else it's a management issue.
I'm not saying Blizz nor Ensemble suck(ed). I really liked most things Ensemble tried in AoE3 and I have played it for ~80 hours or so, despite not liking the scenario. Loved aoe1 and 2. Didn't play Halo wars, sounds like it was a good game as well. Blizz introduced esports to me and sc2 was pretty dope compared to the alternatives. Wc2 is one of my first games ever played and I fell in love with the background story. Diablo 2 will always be one of my favorites. Wc3 was great too. I do think that both, AoE3 and sc2 could have been a lot better in hindsight though.
throughout the late 90s a plethora of totally shit RTS games came out and teh genre continued to grow by leaps and bounds.
new technology cuts both ways.
in 1989 a game like SC1 was not feasible for a PC worth less than $20,000. When SC1 became feasible for the average consumer the buzz of watching 100s are units kill each other on screen simultaneously was addictive and the energy and electricity could not be matched by other games.
The novelty of all those units killing each other led to huge growth in the genre and lots of so-so games succeeding.
Well , now its boring. We've been watching hundreds of units kill each other on screen for decades. Its no longer awe inspiring as it was in 1998 to see so much action on the screen.
New advances in CPU power and lower memory costs made the RTS genre possible and people gobbled it up while at the same time rejecting other older games that didn't require such high powered computers.
Now, RTS is on the wrong side of the tech advancements.
People immersed in the genre they love.. be it dot-eating-maze-games, RTS games, text adventure games... these people all think their genres failed because the games got worse. These people can not see the forest through the trees.
Dot-eating-maze games got better... the genre failed. Text adventure games got better. the genre failed. Game companies don't get worse at making games. They get better at making games. If companies got worse at making games we'd still be playing Pong because all the Atari 2600 games would've been worse than Pong.
The biggest problem the RTS genre has right now is a lack of funding. No one wants to invest in the genre. I can't say that i blame them.
Yeah I didn't intent to say that Blizz got worse at what they are doing. Sc2 has a plethora of things where it's better than sc1, i.e. controls (which were terrible in BW by modern standards). I still like most of what they tried to do with LotV, I love that they cut the low worker start f.e. They just didn't go far enough for me, I agree that they can't keep producing the same games just a littlebit more polished.
I'm still surprised nobody after BfME seems to have played around with RPG-elements. Afaik BfME1 and Wc3 were a huge success.
See, that's the problem. Mario brothers and Super mario brothers are the same genre. That's why your arguments fail. By excluding anything that doesn't fit your own narrowly defined definitions, you are able to say that XYZ person is a genius or whetever your motivations are.
On August 17 2016 00:07 hiroshOne wrote: I love the fact that Blizzard gives so much love to sc2 and has courage to bring so big changes. But as Zerg I have some issues with that. For example- Ravagers will now have armoured mark just as roaches. I just can't imagine how Zerg would defend new cyclone/new tank push when the changes will go live...As both wreck armoured units so freaking hard now.I mean Hydra maybe, but even if its light it still will die from 2 shots of tanks...I know that mech has some problems but i don't think that those design changes are balanced. Hope they will tweak some of it later.
In my opinion, the matchup this will affect the worst is ZvZ, which is already decided by Lurkers in the midgame and Brood Lords in the late game.
Ravagers are already a pretty weak counter to the Lurker, taking four Corrosive Bile volleys to kill a single Lurker, and having stupidly low amounts of health in which to mitigate Lurker attacks.
If Ravagers are now Armored, then Lurkers are going to make mincemeat of them.
I can say with confidence I never make broodlords or lurkers in my ZvZs and my games are fine.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
There will always be demand for competitive 1v1 games, be they RTS, fighting games or other. Maybe not as popular as team games, but still a great need.
EDIT: and SC2, Civs and Total War sell very, very well.
Civs? Civilization is not an RTS. define "very very well" ? SC2: LotV didn't even make $0.1 Billion. Neither did SC2:HotS. ATVI counts their revenues in Billions not millions.
I'm very happy ATVI continues to fund SC2 despite its weak #s relative to every other Blizzard franchise except HotS.
I can only find LOTV 1 mil copies in one day so i'm sure you could at least add another 500k to that. Also keep in mind that the dev costs were relatively low since all the tech was already there, same for HOTS. Blizzard is not a charity and they know what they're doing much better then me or you; that they decided to make extra content for SC2, keep a design team to work on multiplayer and fund the esports sector is indicative enough that their RTS sector is important to the company.
There is another aspect that some people miss. Blizzard has not built it's name only through making quality products, but also by giving a lot of support for those products. An armchair businessman man would think that by doing that you eat in to the profits, as, after all, people have already given you the money so why make further investments in the product? But a quality businessman like the guys in charge of Blizzard know that in the long term this is highly profitable as it creates fans of the company, and not just individual products.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
Voice communication plays a very small role in Dota 2 pubs. I haven't played LoL for multiple years, but from what I've seen recently (my little brother plays it) it's the same.
Skype/TS is used more often, but even then I'd argue it affects 10-15% of my games. And it's not just my games, most high ranked streamers don't really use their mic often nor do others in their games.
Again 4x/hybrids are selling very well, Stellaris and TWW both sold like crazy and Stellaris honestly was/is pretty unfinished and the TWW's 4x-elements are pretty mediocre.
Honestly GG suffers from bad design decisions more than bad graphics or too few units. They simply didn't put enough time into the planning phase. Ofc that is a money issue to some extent, but more than anything else it's a management issue.
I'm not saying Blizz nor Ensemble suck(ed). I really liked most things Ensemble tried in AoE3 and I have played it for ~80 hours or so, despite not liking the scenario. Loved aoe1 and 2. Didn't play Halo wars, sounds like it was a good game as well. Blizz introduced esports to me and sc2 was pretty dope compared to the alternatives. Wc2 is one of my first games ever played and I fell in love with the background story. Diablo 2 will always be one of my favorites. Wc3 was great too. I do think that both, AoE3 and sc2 could have been a lot better in hindsight though.
throughout the late 90s a plethora of totally shit RTS games came out and teh genre continued to grow by leaps and bounds.
new technology cuts both ways.
in 1989 a game like SC1 was not feasible for a PC worth less than $20,000. When SC1 became feasible for the average consumer the buzz of watching 100s are units kill each other on screen simultaneously was addictive and the energy and electricity could not be matched by other games.
The novelty of all those units killing each other led to huge growth in the genre and lots of so-so games succeeding.
Well , now its boring. We've been watching hundreds of units kill each other on screen for decades. Its no longer awe inspiring as it was in 1998 to see so much action on the screen.
New advances in CPU power and lower memory costs made the RTS genre possible and people gobbled it up while at the same time rejecting other older games that didn't require such high powered computers.
Now, RTS is on the wrong side of the tech advancements.
People immersed in the genre they love.. be it dot-eating-maze-games, RTS games, text adventure games... these people all think their genres failed because the games got worse. These people can not see the forest through the trees.
Dot-eating-maze games got better... the genre failed. Text adventure games got better. the genre failed. Game companies don't get worse at making games. They get better at making games. If companies got worse at making games we'd still be playing Pong because all the Atari 2600 games would've been worse than Pong.
The biggest problem the RTS genre has right now is a lack of funding. No one wants to invest in the genre. I can't say that i blame them.
Your argument that the audience for the RTS genre no longer exists in large numbers would make sense it if wasn't for the fact that subgenres of the RTS genres are selling well. Total war games are selling well, despite some utterly mediocratic games. MOBAS are just awash with people. They are all RTS's just not the starcraft/C&C style RTS. Why hasn't C&C and SC2 style games been selling well recently? Well, it truly is because of some very awful levels of game design choices.
I agree with the bold part. It was also the case with HOTS imo. Huge number of people were pissed of at the way the game was looking and they jumped ship. Fix the game and many will come back, there is no doubt about that.
On August 17 2016 00:17 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Relic is a really good company and has done a great job with CoH and CoH2. The declining popularity of the CoH franchise is a reflection of a shift in consumer tastes. It is not because Relic sucks.
Ensemble doesn't suck either. The demand for their product declined. The staying power of Halo Wars was amazing and Ensemble did a great job on the game.
i like playing RTS games so i continue.. but i'm not blind to the over all trends. As technology improves consumers are given more choices and certain games get pushed out of the market as a result. the RTS genre is one such victim of improving technology. The MOBA with team wide voice communication was not technically possible in 1995. Now it is.
The money men are not stupid. They see the trends. As a result, RTS games are not getting funded. In 1999 RTS games were popping up every where because the money men felt it was a wise investment. This is no longer the case. Games like AoA and GG have miniscule budgets.
Voice communication plays a very small role in Dota 2 pubs. I haven't played LoL for multiple years, but from what I've seen recently (my little brother plays it) it's the same.
Skype/TS is used more often, but even then I'd argue it affects 10-15% of my games. And it's not just my games, most high ranked streamers don't really use their mic often nor do others in their games.
Again 4x/hybrids are selling very well, Stellaris and TWW both sold like crazy and Stellaris honestly was/is pretty unfinished and the TWW's 4x-elements are pretty mediocre.
Honestly GG suffers from bad design decisions more than bad graphics or too few units. They simply didn't put enough time into the planning phase. Ofc that is a money issue to some extent, but more than anything else it's a management issue.
I'm not saying Blizz nor Ensemble suck(ed). I really liked most things Ensemble tried in AoE3 and I have played it for ~80 hours or so, despite not liking the scenario. Loved aoe1 and 2. Didn't play Halo wars, sounds like it was a good game as well. Blizz introduced esports to me and sc2 was pretty dope compared to the alternatives. Wc2 is one of my first games ever played and I fell in love with the background story. Diablo 2 will always be one of my favorites. Wc3 was great too. I do think that both, AoE3 and sc2 could have been a lot better in hindsight though.
throughout the late 90s a plethora of totally shit RTS games came out and teh genre continued to grow by leaps and bounds.
new technology cuts both ways.
in 1989 a game like SC1 was not feasible for a PC worth less than $20,000. When SC1 became feasible for the average consumer the buzz of watching 100s are units kill each other on screen simultaneously was addictive and the energy and electricity could not be matched by other games.
The novelty of all those units killing each other led to huge growth in the genre and lots of so-so games succeeding.
Well , now its boring. We've been watching hundreds of units kill each other on screen for decades. Its no longer awe inspiring as it was in 1998 to see so much action on the screen.
New advances in CPU power and lower memory costs made the RTS genre possible and people gobbled it up while at the same time rejecting other older games that didn't require such high powered computers.
Now, RTS is on the wrong side of the tech advancements.
People immersed in the genre they love.. be it dot-eating-maze-games, RTS games, text adventure games... these people all think their genres failed because the games got worse. These people can not see the forest through the trees.
Dot-eating-maze games got better... the genre failed. Text adventure games got better. the genre failed. Game companies don't get worse at making games. They get better at making games. If companies got worse at making games we'd still be playing Pong because all the Atari 2600 games would've been worse than Pong.
The biggest problem the RTS genre has right now is a lack of funding. No one wants to invest in the genre. I can't say that i blame them.
This is simply not true, after all these years people still enjoy watching and playing both Broodwar and WarCraft3. StarCarft2 was just poorly designed and only harvests money from the success of the prequel. It is just plain suicide if you want to design something on top of a cult strategy game. I believe that WarCraft 4 has poor chances because of that as well. Not that it won't make money, it's just it will die after a few years and people will return to WarCraft 3.
This is basically what happened to many great movie sequels.
They just need to create some new universe, and not just leach and recycle on what has been great in the past. Blizzard PM me I have a lot of awesome ideas, I will make your RTS great again lol.
Total War? Selling well by what standard? Creative Assembly is not growing in size. Their investment in RTS is not increasing.
Ok, now i see that you are either uninformed or are just willing to lie in order to stick to your position.
Rome2 had by far the biggest budget to all their games till then, and it also generated the biggest profits. The funny thing is, they did not deserve those profits as the game was utter shit at launch. Yet, why did it sell so well? Because people were super hyped for a new TW RTS. Talk about interest a? Their new Warhammer games are also an increase in budget and scope.
Quality RTS sells just fine, the same as any genre. MOBAS are not instant hits just because they are MOBAS, see the Blizzard one. FPS is full of CoD clones that nobody cares about.
RTS is kinda different from a dot eating maze game. The latter genre is obviously limited, while the former has amazing diversity, spawned many new genres including the most popular ones today, and has like millions of testimonials of players saying how dedicated they are to this genre etc. I truly believe that RTS just needs a legitimately great game to revive it, because if SC2 was really so good and DB/DK are really so brilliant you wouldn't have half the playerbase constantly complaining about how much they hate the game. It won't have the relative success of BW, but if there was a new competitive RTS in the same subgenre as BW with popular appeal, a decent budget and a playerbase that has faith in the designers, I think it could have potential.
On August 17 2016 02:47 Sapphire.lux wrote: Ok, now i see that you are either uninformed or are just willing to lie in order to stick to your position.
Rome2 had by far the biggest budget to all their games till then, and it also generated the biggest profits. The funny thing is, they did not deserve those profits as the game was utter shit at launch. Yet, why did it sell so well? Because people were super hyped for a new TW RTS. Talk about interest a? Their new Warhammer games are also an increase in budget and scope.
CA's Headcount is down slightly
yes, Rome2 was best selling for the Total War franchise and now TW:Warhammer had "unprecedented" success. Its easy to improve on very low sales levels.
Rome2 was such a "sweeping success" that all SEGA could give CA was the "relatively unscathed" treatment. Headcount at CA went down slightly. Its "success" did not justify its budget. During this depressing announcement SEGA tried to put as positive as spin on things as they could , but they could not lie and claim CA was growing. Because it ain't.
500,000 sold in its first few days ain't that great. If this were 1990 it would be i guess. its not time for ATVI to pull Sledgehammer, Treyarch and Infinity Ward off of CoD and put them on RTS games though.
IMO, the Rome2 project ran out of cash in the middle of the project.
none of this has resulted in any growth in CA.
On August 17 2016 02:47 Sapphire.lux wrote: Quality RTS sells just fine, the same as any genre.
you can just shift the meaning of "quality" to suit however you want to frame the sales totals of any game title. So this doesn't mean much.
RTS studios are dropping like flies. What are popping up now are ultra low budget RTS games primarily funded by guys like Frank Klepecki (sp? C&C sound guy)
at this point people can keep shifting the goalposts as to what "good sales" are and what a "quality" game is. At the end of the day every studio is either maintaining headcounts or laying people off. The only AAA RTS is SC2 and Blizzard is giving it the old "we are not stepping on its toes for 10 years" blab because its not worth the investment.
No one is increasing their investment in the genre and many continue to pull back their investment.
Tim Morten is from Victory Games, Dustin Browder is from Westwood/EALA, Greg Black is from EALA. Blizzard is running out of places to raid for top notch employees.
No one is increasing their investment in the genre and many continue to pull back their investment.
But that's also because SC2 has a stranglehold on the genre. Developers are afraid to compete with Blizzard, for instance virtually all of the MMO's that tried to compete with World of Warcraft miserably failed. Why should you create a competitor to Starcraft? Starcraft 2 has the name recognition, the established professional scene and over a decade of development. It is difficult to compete with Blizzard's resources, even if the game is technically underwhelming.
I don't like the cyclone change. Blizzard wants it to "defend additional bases or to keep the opponent contained". I think spider mines will do exactly that with much better interactions and a much higher skill ceiling than simply having a unit that kills everything armored.
RTS GAMES DIE BECAUSE NO GOOD RTS GAMES ARE MADE, AND NOT BECAUSE THEY CANT SELL. THE REASON IS THAT THEY DONT INVEST INTO IT BECAUSE THEY DONT KNOW HOW TO MAKE A GOOD RTS TO BEGIN WITH.
It was a long time ago BROODWAR was made. And that game TO has many flaws.
If a company 1) Knew what made a great RTS 2) Had the resources 3) Had the right staff
It would sell TONS and become the greatest esport game ever made.
If it would be possible for the discussion of the death, or not, of the RTS genre to go somewhere else and for this thread to stay about the design changes specifically that would be great.
Cool. However, for me to buy the game they'd have to get rid of the macro "mechanics" (properly called boosters) like mule, spawn larva, and chrono boost, and rebalance as necessary around that.
No one is increasing their investment in the genre and many continue to pull back their investment.
But that's also because SC2 has a stranglehold on the genre. Developers are afraid to compete with Blizzard, for instance virtually all of the MMO's that tried to compete with World of Warcraft miserably failed. Why should you create a competitor to Starcraft? Starcraft 2 has the name recognition, the established professional scene and over a decade of development. It is difficult to compete with Blizzard's resources, even if the game is technically underwhelming.
ya, no one made any MMO's after WoW... because they all said.. "hey guys... let billionaire mike keep it all.. we can't compete with him"
if someone is going to overgeneralize that blizz and DK have ruined SC2 i'm going to put their view within the context of the entire industry.
no, it is declining it won't die. there are still new dot-eating-maze games being made even though it peaked 35 years ago. RTS will continue it won't die. i've basically made all my points though. i've been happy with SC2 for years even as the community shrinks i still have lots of people i can play against.
Cant chronoboost the Dt's blink research don't know it this is a glitch, and the tempest ablility is nice but i just see units runing right throw it. Don't see that much use for blink dt the prism would do a better job and sets you up with robo tech for a bit more.
On August 17 2016 05:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: no, it is declining it won't die. there are still new dot-eating-maze games being made even though it peaked 35 years ago. RTS will continue it won't die. i've basically made all my points though. i've been happy with SC2 for years even as the community shrinks i still have lots of people i can play against.
No one is increasing their investment in the genre and many continue to pull back their investment.
But that's also because SC2 has a stranglehold on the genre. Developers are afraid to compete with Blizzard, for instance virtually all of the MMO's that tried to compete with World of Warcraft miserably failed. Why should you create a competitor to Starcraft? Starcraft 2 has the name recognition, the established professional scene and over a decade of development. It is difficult to compete with Blizzard's resources, even if the game is technically underwhelming.
ya, no one made any MMO's after WoW... because they all said.. "hey guys... let billionaire mike keep it all.. we can't compete with him"
Or its more like "Shit look at what Blizzard made, lets clone it and put a new skin"
Now that the Test Map is up, I have a few concerns about the changes...
Siege Tank:
Holy shit. Siege Tanks are OP as fuck in this build.
Perhaps 70 damage vs Armored is too big a change, considering the fact that Brood War Siege Tanks actually fire considerably slower than SC2 Siege Tanks. I'd personally tone it back down to 35 damage (+25 vs Armoured, to a total of 60 damage.) That way, Ravagers still get 3-shotted without weapon upgrades.
Either that, or I'd slow down their attack speed to reduce their damage per second and keep everything at 40 (+30 vs Armoured)
Cyclone:
I like the redesigned Cyclone, but I feel like Blizzard could be fixing even more problems with Mech with the new Cyclone; namely the style's pitifully weak anti-air capabilities.
Requiring Cyclones to Lock On to air targets is good and all, until you realise that:
If you have Cyclones and Hellions selected at the same time, you have to hit Tab in order to use Lock On. Lock On should be useable regardless of whether you have other units selected within your control group.
Lock On is far too weak for a unit that costs 150 Minerals and 100 Gas to produce. Maybe if Cyclones were cheaper, then the weakness would be justified.
On the other hand, Cyclones are FAR too strong against Armoured targets. They can just about contend with Zerglings, and completely wreck Roaches and Stalkers.
Instead, I'd like to see Blizzard reduce the cost and the damage that Cyclones deal to ground targets, while at the same time buffing Lock On to be a viable anti-air option. This would basically give Terran Mech the anti-air unit it deserves, because let's face it, the Thor is and will always be shit.
Or - failing that - stop trying to make the Cyclone and Thor work, and just remove them in favour of bringing the Goliath back; because the Goliath was at least good and performed its role well.
Baneling:
I'm just a lowly Platinum League 1 player, and the amount of High Master and Grandmaster ranked players I've been able to successfully cheese out with 40HP Banelings is already quite absurd. I think this one - if it goes through - will lead to fast expand builds become unviable in TvZ, and instead Hellion Expands, Siege Expands and 111 Expands taking their place.
This change cannot surely go through? We don't need another patchzerg era...
Tempest:
No. Just.... No.
The range reduction was quite good, but its new ability is the most absurdly broken thing I have ever seen. Either reduce the range, reduce the duration and overall DPS, or just go back to the drawing board overall.
While I support Stargate tech getting some form of aoe, the Tempest is now better at doing it than High Templar...
If you have Cyclones and Hellions selected at the same time, you have to hit Tab in order to use Lock On. Lock On should be useable regardless of whether you have other units selected within your control group.
You could always put Cyclones in a different group.
But I get your point. Maybe Cyclones can be put as a priority when mixed in a group. Taht way if you box select hellions and cyclones, lock on will be usable easily and you don't have to tab.
If you have Cyclones and Hellions selected at the same time, you have to hit Tab in order to use Lock On. Lock On should be useable regardless of whether you have other units selected within your control group.
You could always put Cyclones in a different group.
But I get your point. Maybe Cyclones can be put as a priority when mixed in a group. Taht way if you box select hellions and cyclones, lock on will be usable easily and you don't have to tab.
I already need 3 (poss 4) control groups to micro units for the way I play. I have main army assigned to 4, siege tanks assigned to 5, and air forces assigned to 6, and banshees assigned to 7 if I ever use them to poke/harass.
Adding another one for Cyclones would just be stupid amounts of complexity.
Some thoughts after playing and obsing several games on the test map. I played mech in most of my games even before this new map.
Cyclones completely dumpster everything armored, but get dumpstered on by anything non-armored. Mech, and terran in general, doesn't really need more anti-armor damage imo, i'd rather see their damage changed to 4 and bonus to armored removed. That said, the speed with which they currently kill pylons is just something to behold.
The liberator nerf makes it so you can never attack with mech in tvz. Any sort of early muta play basically makes you have to sit there and turtle with turrets and mines till you get a good number of thors. Even then, a cloud of mutas guarantees that any attack you're gonna do is basically all-in.
Blink DTs are not such a big deal after all. I eagerly await Zest to prove me wrong though.
7 range hydras are insane. They might completely break ZvP and they're great in ZvT. They're not great vs mech, but they could be amazing sitting under the Brood Lords in the lategame.
I didn't get a chance to see the new tempest in action.
The banshee change is kinda cute, it makes it easier to incoporate speed banshees into more standard terran play. I'm sure someone in Korea will come up with some crazy build abusing this though and we'll see it nerfed.
Tanks are borderline. I think taking away some of the extra armored damage and giving it back with an upgrade would be better. Currently, I can see some early tank pushes be extremely dangerous.
Every Terran game I played/obsd was mech, so the new blings didn't come into play alot.
Cyclones just kill everything. Spider mines would do everything Blizzard wants to accomplish with the cylcone and its a lot more interesting than a unit that simply kills everything thats armored.
They are doing such a great job that they need to redesign lots of stuff in the middle of an expansion. Really great job right there.
They don't have to. The game would be fine as it is. They wanted to shake things up and make it more fun for everyone while also making new styles viable
I think the people shitting all over the announced changes will never be happy with the state of the game. It's a pity. These changes look like a huge step in the right direction. And they'll be missing the opportunity to help shape the game we all love into something better.
I can foresee early pressure into turtle mech being a huge problem. Blue flame Helions make Vultures look like an absolute joke. And the low level of execution required on the turtle mech player means little room for counterplay.
Add more mechanics like Cyclone air attacks only being able to manually attack air units so mech requires more APM. It'll be more satisfying for the player using mech and feel less cheap for players playing against them.
On August 17 2016 06:45 royalroadweed wrote: Cyclones just kill everything. Spider mines would do everything Blizzard wants to accomplish with the cylcone and its a lot more interesting than a unit that simply kills everything thats armored.
I'd be all for giving Hellions Spider Mines, especially if they interact the same way as in BW and don't target or hurt workers.
I was watching mech in broodwar and I was struck by how seige tanks didn't become so much progressively stronger the more seigetanks there was. In small numbers they were far stronger than in large numbers. Due to slow firing speeds and overkill, it was difficult to attack with seige tanks since the seige tanks needed to be spread out and the other units were needed to counterplay drops and the like against the seige tanks seiging out. It wasn't just some perfect slippery ball that seiges and unseiges and annihilates all that stands before it that wasn't a deliberate antimech unit.
They are doing such a great job that they need to redesign lots of stuff in the middle of an expansion. Really great job right there.
DK is probably not as good as Rob Pardo. Rob Pardo is the best game designer of the last 20 years. DK is doing great job but isn't as good as the best in the world.
it took 18 months for Rob Pardo and his team to fully balance Brood War and when SC1 came out a bunch of really fundamental stuff like speed of larva generation had to be reworked. Blizzard did a great job of EVENTUALLY getting SC1:BW, WC3:FT into great condition. All of these releases were perfected a long time after release.
Lets not pretend Rob Pardo showed up , wrinkled his nose a couple of times like that chick on bewitched and BW and Frozen THrone magically appeared on every store shelf in perfect balance.
DK , Greg Black and the rest of the team are doing a great job.
The very best game designers in the world are working on other game genres that pay real money and not this RTS penny ante stuff.
Considering the small amount of cash RTS generates we are damn lucky to have Blizzard supporting the genre so well.
Any how, i'm having too much fun playing with the new units to talk about the boring business side of games.
After first day of playing: Cyclones weren't as broken as I thought. They actually look like they're in a really great spot, always thought the unit was a little too weird, but now it makes so much more sense and it's strong too. Siege Tank is lovely to see actually just sit and be Sieged for once. Carriers and Zealots are freaking awesome, it really feels amazing and seems super viable, finally I can be like White Ra. Swarm Host seems useful and funnily enough is not super broken even though it got such an insane buff, which is kind of hilarious.
DT Blink isn't very amazing and is honestly unimaginative, it's Protoss it needs something new and fancy, not a reused ability, but I agree with the thought of giving some more game time to the DT other than the sweet little window where you reveal your hand. Ways you could do this: Buff Archon, introduce super awesome Dark Archon + (possibly a Twilight Archon?!,) Give it an ability where you click a unit and it swaps positions with it, give it Blink Strike (Charge+Blink combined!)
Hydra 7 range is a little too much, I like the strength it gives the Hydra, but comboed with the right units it seems a little too strong. It would push out niche strategies such as opening with Voids and Forcefields will be way worse vs them and actually work against the Protoss a lot of the time. I think it would be cooler if Hydras could be used more as a monobattle unit, instead of it being an obvious glass cannon unit that you put behind the Roach and it just does some nice extra dps. I think giving it a Regeneration upgrade similar to the Mutalisk or something could fit it nicely. 6 range upon spawn is nice though and the extra speed on creep makes it feel more Zergy.
I would like to see Tech Lab Liberators with perhaps 6x2 dmg, so it's not complete garbage vs Air, but at the same time you can't just crank them out super fast when you see Mutalisks. Then Banshee could be Reactor-able, with Speed Upgrade back on Fusion Core and I think something like that would really bring back the Banshee in full power.
Infestor Neural on Burrow is super cool, I think Fungal is too much however. It creates a cool moment when suddenly Infestors pop up from the ground and Fungal all the Mutas in a ZvZ, doing so from just underneath the ground would feel kind of cheap. You could however go with a different kind of Infestor, more like Abathur from HeroesOfTheStorm. -Infestor can use all abilities while Burrowed. -Infestor cannot Burrow Move. -Deep Tunnel doesn't cost energy, has low cooldown, Deep Tunnel reveals the Infestor and like Snipe breaks if it takes damage.
Lastly I just wanna say that Tempest sucks now, maybe I didn't have enough game time with it, but the ability seemed too low range and because it's pretty hard to kite with the Tempest, low range anti ground really doesn't make it great. I don't mind it that much though, since I wanna just make Carriers instead, but yeah, hopefully someone finds an exciting use for it.
Edit: Ohye another thing, I would like to see Immortals with 3-4 range attack, but have the Barrier absorb unlimited amounts of damage. Too many simply ignore the Barrier and they should be severely punished for that. Also for people who actually take the time to manually click Barrier should be rewarded. But also just aesthetically I would like to see low range tanky Immortals.
On August 17 2016 08:04 royalroadweed wrote: Holy shit infestors.
Mind control with that range from a cloaked unit looked way too powerful. If they're gonna keep it at that strength, they should just nerf the spell to use 200 energy or something.
For example: Thor single-shot mode is powerful. One overwhelming problem, however, is being able to get the Thor into position to fire at, say, BroodLords and/or Corruptors.
The maps general design is so much cul-de-sacs that there is no way to position many (too many) units properly so as to use their abilities.
One example is while, say Terran bio and tanks are destroying a Hatchery, the Zerg comes to defend its base with lings, roaches, and then its Tier 3 air units. Well, there is not enough room for everything. The maps are cramped to such a degree that there is no way to fire at Zerg's air because Thor can't fit alongside the other half of the army.
I feel frustrated by the effort and time into balancing, yet much of the solution would lay in new map designs.
Open areas are so fun as they allow a real head-to-head opportunity between armies. Each player can micro accordingly, allowing the units' full functionality to be seen.
so far I've played TvP and TvT. here are my thoughts:
CYCLONE: feels like a unit you want to make all game as a mech player. cyclone/hellion/mine synergy is very strong and fun to play. initially, the unit felt weaker because of the loss of lock-on damage. but when you factor in the reliable ground-to-ground weapon, reduced supply, reactor production and their incredible speed, they are truly part of the core mech army now. they feel strong in medium numbers and with 2/2 upgrades. I like that lock-on vs air is manual cast because you're constantly on your guard against banshees and voids, which will always get the first shot off unless you're fast. I also like that you have to be vigilant of zealot bombing and warp prisms messing with your tank lines.
TANKS: should have got this change long ago. tanks are tanks again.
BANSHEES: they feel stronger in TvP now, thanks to the speed upgrade being available. I haven't tried making more than 3 or 4, but needless to say they survive a lot longer and aren't just suicide units anymore. even if toss has blink/obs, you can bring them back home for repair, then go back out on the map with speed. they are great for map control. if you want a bit of information fast, like if toss has a third base (or ninja base), or you want to scout tech buildings, you can save scans and simply fly your speed banshee in for a look. they are slightly better for opening vT now that cyclone's don't have auto lock-on.
BUILDS: reactor/factory, double reactor/factory builds are very strong. the combination of speedy units like hellion/cyclone/mine allows you to take map control and put on pressure. reactor cyclones gives terran more of a chance to defend bullshit like proxy oracle, where if you don't have exactly 6 marines you'll suffer tremendous damage. overall, it gives terran more options when defending rushes, and more options for counter-attacking.
mech looks like it's in a good spot now. NICE ONE BLIZZ!
On August 17 2016 10:12 SHODAN wrote: so far I've played TvP and TvT. here are my thoughts:
CYCLONE: feels like a unit you want to make all game as a mech player. cyclone/hellion/mine synergy is very strong and fun to play. initially, the unit felt weaker because of the loss of lock-on damage. but when you factor in the reliable ground-to-ground weapon, reduced supply, reactor production and their incredible speed, they are truly part of the core mech army now. they feel strong in medium numbers and with 2/2 upgrades. I like that lock-on vs air is manual cast because you're constantly on your guard against banshees and voids, which will always get the first shot off unless you're fast. I also like that you have to be vigilant of zealot bombing and warp prisms messing with your tank lines.
TANKS: should have got this change long ago. tanks are tanks again.
BANSHEES: they feel stronger in TvP now, thanks to the speed upgrade being available. I haven't tried making more than 3 or 4, but needless to say they survive a lot longer and aren't just suicide units anymore. even if toss has blink/obs, you can bring them back home for repair, then go back out on the map with speed. they are great for map control. if you want a bit of information fast, like if toss has a third base (or ninja base), or you want to scout tech buildings, you can save scans and simply fly your speed banshee in for a look. they are slightly better for opening vT now that cyclone's don't have auto lock-on.
BUILDS: reactor/factory, double reactor/factory builds are very strong. the combination of speedy units like hellion/cyclone/mine allows you to take map control and put on pressure. reactor cyclones gives terran more of a chance to defend bullshit like proxy oracle, where if you don't have exactly 6 marines you'll suffer tremendous damage. overall, it gives terran more options when defending rushes, and more options for counter-attacking.
mech looks like it's in a good spot now. NICE ONE BLIZZ!
I agree with pretty much everything. Mech seems quite viable now. Kudos to Blizzard for finnaly trying to make mech viable!
These changes are okay, but Blizz needs to realize its the gimmicky stuff that's making the game not so great.... ie adept shades, oracles, warp prism pick-ups, (kudos for removing siege tank pickup!). Further the new infestor spell, the speed banshees, the cyclone, the battlecruisers wreak of gimmicky bad design. The game being fun for nubs and competitive on a prolevel has nothing to do with contrived and annoying spells.
It has to do with controlling units and making correct decisions very fast. My idea would be to open the maps up for more possible army movements while slowing other things down. Also seeing people tech up to ultras and winning at 12 mins is in no way fun to watch or play
Eh. I'll hold of judging until it actually comes out, with balance and new maps. But in my honest opinion this is NOT the way to make the game better. They need to stop adding new abilities and gimmicks and focus on honing down the gameplay right now in order to balance it. If I'm trying to balance a ruler on a point I wouldn't do it by constantly adding more and more stuff to each side hoping it ends up perfect, that just makes it easier to topple.
I mean they want DTs to be more viable late game (even though they already serve many many good uses), so they just add a random ability to them in hopes it makes them more used, why? They already serve their purpose. And who on earth came up with that Tempest change, it takes 2 tempest to pretty much make a mineral field unminable (???).
So many changes to discuss but it just seems like they are overdoing it. Adding more gimmicks to the game wont balance it, it just means they will end up constantly patching it and changing the maps to compensate.
On August 17 2016 11:14 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: These changes are okay, but Blizz needs to realize its the gimmicky stuff that's making the game not so great.... ie adept shades, oracles, warp prism pick-ups, (kudos for removing siege tank pickup!). Further the new infestor spell, the speed banshees, the cyclone, the battlecruisers wreak of gimmicky bad design. The game being fun for nubs and competitive on a prolevel has nothing to do with contrived and annoying spells.
It has to do with controlling units and making correct decisions very fast. My idea would be to open the maps up for more possible army movements while slowing other things down. Also seeing people tech up to ultras and winning at 12 mins is in no way fun to watch or play
banshees without speed are gimmicky. the old banshees were suicide units. once you hard-counter them, they are irrelevant for the rest of the game. not to mention, they are completely useless vs zerg, thanks to queen range, and hardly ever seen vs toss unless you're GuMiho.
battlecruisers with energy are gimmicky. just watch your mythical end-game sky army get wrecked by feedback.
the old cyclones were gimmicky. the cyclone 2.0 is just a solid mech infantry unit with an AA spell. where's the gimmick?
I hate the word gimmick. What does it even mean? I looked it up on dictionary.com, and I don't think their definition matches how it is used in this community. Or perhaps this community is not using the term properly.
Why is the adept's shade ability gimmicky? What makes a unit gimmicky? Is it the abilities it can use? Is a unit gimmicky if its easy to use? Hard to use? Is a niche unit gimmicky?
I think either people need to clarify their meaning of gimmicky, or perhaps better explain why they think a unit is gimmicky. It's used far to often by many to just write off a unit they don't like or have difficulty dealing with it.
On August 17 2016 11:58 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I hate the word gimmick. What does it even mean? I looked it up on dictionary.com, and I don't think their definition matches how it is used in this community. Or perhaps this community is not using the term properly.
Why is the adept's shade ability gimmicky? What makes a unit gimmicky? Is it the abilities it can use? Is a unit gimmicky if its easy to use? Hard to use? Is a niche unit gimmicky?
I think either people need to clarify their meaning of gimmicky, or perhaps better explain why they think a unit is gimmicky. It's used far to often by many to just write off a unit they don't like or have difficulty dealing with it.
I first heard it in Warcraft III when my opponent called my play "gimmicky"...
I guess gimmicky in RTS terms means cheesy, cute, not reliable, lucky, rock/paper/scissors. I imagine Blizzard's QA team don't use the word "gimmicky" in their test reports. gimmicky is an emotion more than anything. for example, oracles and adepts feel gimmicky to me because they are not satisfying to play against.
unless you back it up with solid examples, then gimmicky doesn't really mean anything.
On August 17 2016 11:58 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I hate the word gimmick. What does it even mean? I looked it up on dictionary.com, and I don't think their definition matches how it is used in this community. Or perhaps this community is not using the term properly.
Why is the adept's shade ability gimmicky? What makes a unit gimmicky? Is it the abilities it can use? Is a unit gimmicky if its easy to use? Hard to use? Is a niche unit gimmicky?
I think either people need to clarify their meaning of gimmicky, or perhaps better explain why they think a unit is gimmicky. It's used far to often by many to just write off a unit they don't like or have difficulty dealing with it.
I first heard it in Warcraft III when my opponent called my play "gimmicky"...
I guess gimmicky in RTS terms means cheesy, cute, not reliable, lucky, rock/paper/scissors. I imagine Blizzard's QA team don't use the word "gimmicky" in their test reports. gimmicky is an emotion more than anything. for example, oracles and adepts feel gimmicky to me because they are not satisfying to play against.
unless you back it up with solid examples, then gimmicky doesn't really mean anything.
That was my assumption when I keep reading comments that xyz units are gimmicky.
I would honestly hope everyone here would just drop that moniker. If you don't like a unit, don't call it gimmicky. Just say "I don't like it."
Give reasons of course, and it doesn't even have to be for balance/design reasons. It could be an anecdotal experience while playing a game. Played against a lategame zerg that you almost beat, but once he got Ultras you lost. So now you hate Ultralisks. Did your mineral line get decimated by a bunch of DT that was able to blink away to safety after your losses? Well just say you hate DT because they can decimate mineral lines and reliably escape.
Actually, I really don't like the blink DT. I think they are going to be incredibly overpowered. The only thing I can see balancing them out is if their version of blink had a long channel time that would cancel upon taking damage. So a DT would take 3 seconds to blink, and if they took damage at any point the blink would stop.
Just watched Pig, Livibee, and Vibe play a bunch of games against each other on the test map. From a viewer's standpoint, I liked pretty much every change that I saw. I didn't see all of them, no ravens, only one game with swarm host, no ravagers, one game with BCs, no carriers, and other units that already aren't really being used often so I won't comment on those but of the changes that I saw the most (blink DTs, new Cyclone, new Thor, new Infestor, new Hydras and some of the other more common stuff, like a couple games earlier in the day with Pig and a different player (EonBlu I think his name was) that had some spiffy tempest lockdowns and from the information I've gathered so far, blink DTs are good for baiting scans but by that point in the game the toss already had Tempest anyway and they're still good and I don't think that blink DTs are going to be that much of a game changer overall.
On the other hand, the new hydras look so strong vs protoss gateway armies now it's almost sickening to watch them shred through adepts/zealots/stalkers even off of creep. Of course there will be more of an answer to the PICA that lower level protoss players like myself have been using to beat zerg for months that I'm sure zerg players are happy about.
I haven't played in over a month but when I load the game up this weekend it's going to be on the test maps for sure. I'm really excited to try this stuff out.
Since I'm mainly watching the games at this point I don't really have any specific gripes that should really mean anything as far as it comes to playing them and I'm not sure if I'm excited because this is a big dump of new changes or because the changes are actually good from a player's perspective.
Anyway, my opinion so far is mostly positive. Can't wait to see the pros get a hold of this thing.
Cyclones vs protoss is in weird spot.You don't want to get high number of cyclones(not even massing) when opponent got about 5-6 void rays.Very good unit for early-mid game skirmishing and late game tech switching.
I like the direction of tanks. Very powerful map control is nice. Sacrificing mobility is ok. Libs are ok. You can still mass to counteract mutas. Cyclone changes, Thors, idk how much that will changes and how many newly created gaps will be filled. Thors are still slow to build slow to move and hard to make useful. Cyclones still seem too weak to fill the new roles.
I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
so people have to get used to the new balance. who would have thought.. oO
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
so people have to get used to the new balance. who would have thought.. oO
Not the question of balance I'm having issues, it's the design behind it that I dislike.
I still think mech lacks ground anti air- thors do very low dps for supply (19 dps for 6 supply unit vs 15dps from vikings that are 2 supply) vs armored air and cyclones do 10dps which is even lower.
Thors do have advantage of their dps being burst, but as the capital ships pop out, they start to trade poorly as thors are super clunky and low dps
Cyclone should be able to fill in that role but blizzard seems to direct it to it being anti ground unit... even when it was introduced at beginning of lotv to serve as mobile anti air mech unit.
For zerg, the hydras feel very nice, mobile, and powerful as they should be. Good change, may be tad strong vs protoss.
Cyclone should be able to fill in that role but blizzard seems to direct it to it being anti ground unit... even when it was introduced at beginning of lotv to serve as mobile anti air mech unit.
When did they say this? Certainly not when they first introduced it at Blizzcon.
On August 17 2016 11:45 Pugfarmer wrote: Yea I really think they just needed to tone down liberator AA, inc thor Aa, dec ultra armor, make adept shade uncancelablr, and inc tempest supply.
I'd really like to make shade uncancellable too. Its just obnoxious you have to plan around him being two places at once. Too much of a safety net with how much you get out of it.
New viking is ridiculously good,acceptable performance vs ground,good vs air just like goliaths. You can consider it's retarded goliath and of course blizzard won't let their beloved tengu got overlapped by cyclone.
I am very excited with what I am experiencing thus far. Overall design appears to be very much improved, considering that there will be some more tweaks, and at also re-balancing of sorts post redesign to keep Terran balanced with Zerg/Toss.
However, there is one area of concern that I can presently see. When more than a few factories are built, the immediate and obvious path for an opponent would appear to be massing air units. Factory/Starport options to deal with Z/P air (assuming a considerable investment in factory production buildings) appear to be somewhat lacking.
Perhaps the Thor would need some additional movement speed, and maybe also a small decrease in its size (model) so that it can path and more easily acquire the range necessary to fire upon more clumped air units. Otherwise, I could see a lot of micro against Terran to move in, fire, withdraw by both tempests and broodlords with no sufficient answer from heavy factory based play.
Thors are currently too clunky to go head to head at the present time with most units that they are intended to battle.
It would be very interesting to see some ground vs. ground battles (predominantly), by having "ground options" to battle mech. If the air transition is too powerful, players will circumvent any "balanced" ground response, and Terran players may be tempted to simply bypass the risk of short-lived factory play to go directly into Starports or avoid the same issue by simply playing bio.
This is just my view based on what I have seen so far of course.
A further redesigned (mobile) Thor would be interesting to see. It is difficult to fight siege from the air with only turrets (any stationary defense no matter how strong), and I feel that the Thor is currently somewhere between a mobile unit, and a stationary turret. With mobility, and better pathing/stacking, it may fill the hole left by the absense of another unit that existed in BW that I will not mention here...
On August 17 2016 22:12 VisionFlare wrote: The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this.
Did i miss something? I haven't seen SH being used in any of the tournaments i've watched, so this is a serious question.
It has been used... like twice from Rogue, as far as I remember.
On August 17 2016 22:12 VisionFlare wrote: The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this.
Did i miss something? I haven't seen SH being used in any of the tournaments i've watched, so this is a serious question.
It's that they still think their design could work and people didn't make them because of their cost. Which is both true. The mistake with their SH change was that it left a hole in zerg HotS lategame, not that new SH had terrible design. The cost was also wrong, but they changed it now.
The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this. The next few months give us an opportunity to test whether the role is indeed good, so we would like to significantly reduce the cost of the unit so that players are incentivized to use it. Depending on the results of this test, we can determine how to best make further moves accordingly.
Swarm Host Change:
Swarm Host cost reduced from 150/100 to 100/75. Increased Locust Swoop range from 4 to 6.
Why can't they just actually change the unit? Make it anti air or something
Mech TvZ with the nerfed liberator will be turtling with turrets untill a large number of thors are out.
And even then it can be unwinnable against a large amount of mutas because the thors are so slow and clunky and awkward they will never be able to catch the mutas. The thors are also not a good answer to broods, again because of their size and clunkiness. Even with the same range, Thors will have trouble shooting at Broods because of how xboxhuge Thors are and how they are cockblocked by broodlings.
I feel that Blizz is buffing the race that everyone play to get players back. But honestly lots of Terran (not everyone of them ) player are just lazy they want just to play sim city while massing mech, with no scout and map control. Of course you loose if you go blind expand + tech. Choose one of them.
In plat Terrans are still loosing to photon rush or 4/5 gate when this things are in the game for 5 years.
Protoss do need a nerf vs Terran because every opening is strong vs them. But on the other hand most of the Terrans I play dont even try to do other things than mmm tank liberator and expand everywhere. The ones trying are wining the others not. Where are widow mines, ghost, raven, hellbat ?
My point is lots of terrans are stuck in playing one style, they might come back for some of this changes, but if they dont develop more various opening (various timing, pressure, rythm) , Protoss will still find way to cheese them on ladder. And they will still leave because they are not having fun
I laugh so hard when I read some terran complaining about having to use tab to use lock on.
Thats what it feels like though. They are just picking units that aren't used the way they want and adding stupid abilities to them without thinking how much they actually change the gameplay, hence "gimmick". BC teleporting is a gimmick, DTs teleporting is a gimmick, Infestors now doing it seems gimmicky, the new Tempest ability had about zero thought go into it.
Some of the balancing on current units (changing dmg figures or range, removing Tankivacs etc) will work very well, people aren't complaining about them much. It's the nonsensical additions to the game that are annoying, as it just makes it harder to balance in the future and we don't need them.
The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this. The next few months give us an opportunity to test whether the role is indeed good, so we would like to significantly reduce the cost of the unit so that players are incentivized to use it. Depending on the results of this test, we can determine how to best make further moves accordingly.
Swarm Host Change:
Swarm Host cost reduced from 150/100 to 100/75. Increased Locust Swoop range from 4 to 6.
Why can't they just actually change the unit? Make it anti air or something
I've been advocating for ages for a swarm host that would spawn scourges and be the core lategame anti air vs skytoss for instance. Would be pretty hard to balance ofc but has a lot of fun potential.
Thats what it feels like though. They are just picking units that aren't used the way they want and adding stupid abilities to them without thinking how much they actually change the gameplay, hence "gimmick". BC teleporting is a gimmick, DTs teleporting is a gimmick, Infestors now doing it seems gimmicky, the new Tempest ability had about zero thought go into it.
Some of the balancing on current units (changing dmg figures or range, removing Tankivacs etc) will work very well, people aren't complaining about them much. It's the nonsensical additions to the game that are annoying, as it just makes it harder to balance in the future and we don't need them.
I agree. It's far harder to see what the solid changes do when you mix them up into a blend of very strange and probably uncalled for things. Blinking DTs, come on.
The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this. The next few months give us an opportunity to test whether the role is indeed good, so we would like to significantly reduce the cost of the unit so that players are incentivized to use it. Depending on the results of this test, we can determine how to best make further moves accordingly.
Swarm Host Change:
Swarm Host cost reduced from 150/100 to 100/75. Increased Locust Swoop range from 4 to 6.
Why can't they just actually change the unit? Make it anti air or something
I've been advocating for ages for a swarm host that would spawn scourges and be the core lategame anti air vs skytoss for instance. Would be pretty hard to balance ofc but has a lot of fun potential.
Nah free units are bad, blizzard should just completely remove that concept from sc2. Broodlords are also a lot stronger than they would be because broodlings actually block pathing, etc
On August 17 2016 22:12 VisionFlare wrote: The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this.
Did i miss something? I haven't seen SH being used in any of the tournaments i've watched, so this is a serious question.
It's that they still think their design could work and people didn't make them because of their cost. Which is both true. The mistake with their SH change was that it left a hole in zerg HotS lategame, not that new SH had terrible design. The cost was also wrong, but they changed it now.
People were complaining that Mutas and other units fulfill that harassment role much better, so now they've made the SH cheaper than Mutas to push for it to be tested.
The new role of the Swarm Host in Legacy of the Void seems to be good, but unit balance has made it impossible to confirm this. The next few months give us an opportunity to test whether the role is indeed good, so we would like to significantly reduce the cost of the unit so that players are incentivized to use it. Depending on the results of this test, we can determine how to best make further moves accordingly.
Swarm Host Change:
Swarm Host cost reduced from 150/100 to 100/75. Increased Locust Swoop range from 4 to 6.
Why can't they just actually change the unit? Make it anti air or something
I've been advocating for ages for a swarm host that would spawn scourges and be the core lategame anti air vs skytoss for instance. Would be pretty hard to balance ofc but has a lot of fun potential.
So have I, it just seems so obvious and I don't think balancing would necessarily be that problematic either
Quite off the topic, but I`d like to talk about Adepts.
Adept is a badly-designed unit, because it forces its opponents to choose untactical move. I.e., you have no choice but to chase shades, even if you know it`d be canceled.
So, my suggestion is this: just make it impossible to recall,
Edit: Or, at least, Adepts should be unable to attack while using retractable shade.
Hello. I would like to talk about the design changes currently planned for LOTV, specifically the Zealot and the Reaper.
But first, let me "introduce" myself. I have little knownledge about the duel aspect of Starcraft 2 : i used to play heart of the swarm with a friend, playing 2v2. We managed to reach master, so i'm not a total noob , but again, i have little to no knowledge about 1v1 buld order etc.. I"m talking mostly from a "spectator" point of view, and from a "designer" point of view.
So, now, about the redesign of the game.
From my understanding, the dev team is trying to achieve 2 things : 1. They want to make mech play viable, and by doing so, they need to rebalance many units. Hence the redesign of the Cyclone and all the "more subtle" changes to other units (armored ravager, Tempest changes, Broodlord slight nerf range...). 2. They also want to "buff" the less used units (Raven, Infestors, Battlecruisers...) by giving them light buff here and there. Hopefully, it should be enough to make them usefull again. (Even if Carrier still seems "mehh" to me ^^)
However, i don't understand why nothing is done about the Zealot and the Reaper. Right now those 2 units seem lost in the design space of the game : Zealot has been replaced by the Adept in 95% scenario, and reapers have little use after the early game (use mainly to scout and harass, until your opponent have enough defense to counter it.)
The change to zealot don't seem usefull to me : it provides no boost for the early game, and i feel, in the beginning of the game, players will still choose between Adept (harass potential, ok tank unit, good dps vs light unit) , Stalker (light armored bonus, range, can be micro, blink potential for the mid game) or a mix of the two.
I'm not talking about the Reaper, because honestly, i have no idea how to turn this unit into something usefull for mid/late game. Buffing a fast unit who ignore terrain height can be a recipe for disaster.
Unless i'm completely wrong about Zealots and Reapers, don't you think a little redesign for those 2 units could be helpful ? It would create more choices for Terran and Protoss players early, thus adding (hopefully) new strategy to the game.
I'm throwing ideas here and there, but what about looking into the singleplayer aspect of the game. Like adding 1 or 2 new upgrades to these 2 units based on their respective add-on ? Crazy suggestion, but you will get my point : give base Zealots the charge ability (nerf the ability lightly if needed) and replace the Charge upgrade by a Whirlwind upgrade similar to this one
Well, that's it This post is more about design than anything else. I would like to hear your opinions about this. Honestly, as a SC2 spectator and a gamer who enjoy game design, i would like to ask the Dev Team about this "concern" of me. Unfortunatly, i can't :x
And sorry for my poor english, i'm a french guy
Thank you for reading this.
I have recieved some good answers, and i was about to ask this : (basically, a question to the SC2 community)
Do you think that slightly changing the zealot and the adept like this would be ok ? :
1. Slighly buff the Zealot tanking ability to make them the early "tanking" unit gateway. 2. Slighly nerf the Adept tanking ability to compensate the Zealot "buff" (which also reflect the adept nature of a "weaker" but higher damage unit)
I'm not giving numbers, because again, i have little clue about balance.
On August 18 2016 01:10 mick007 wrote: Hello. I have some design questions that i have expressed in this thread, but i was told to post it there, so here i go
I will copy paste what i have previously post, hope you don't mind the wall of text
Hello. I would like to talk about the design changes currently planned for LOTV, specifically the Zealot and the Reaper.
But first, let me "introduce" myself. I have little knownledge about the duel aspect of Starcraft 2 : i used to play heart of the swarm with a friend, playing 2v2. We managed to reach master, so i'm not a total noob , but again, i have little to no knowledge about 1v1 buld order etc.. I"m talking mostly from a "spectator" point of view, and from a "designer" point of view.
So, now, about the redesign of the game.
From my understanding, the dev team is trying to achieve 2 things : 1. They want to make mech play viable, and by doing so, they need to rebalance many units. Hence the redesign of the Cyclone and all the "more subtle" changes to other units (armored ravager, Tempest changes, Broodlord slight nerf range...). 2. They also want to "buff" the less used units (Raven, Infestors, Battlecruisers...) by giving them light buff here and there. Hopefully, it should be enough to make them usefull again. (Even if Carrier still seems "mehh" to me ^^)
However, i don't understand why nothing is done about the Zealot and the Reaper. Right now those 2 units seem lost in the design space of the game : Zealot has been replaced by the Adept in 95% scenario, and reapers have little use after the early game (use mainly to scout and harass, until your opponent have enough defense to counter it.)
The change to zealot don't seem usefull to me : it provides no boost for the early game, and i feel, in the beginning of the game, players will still choose between Adept (harass potential, ok tank unit, good dps vs light unit) , Stalker (light armored bonus, range, can be micro, blink potential for the mid game) or a mix of the two.
I'm not talking about the Reaper, because honestly, i have no idea how to turn this unit into something usefull for mid/late game. Buffing a fast unit who ignore terrain height can be a recipe for disaster.
Unless i'm completely wrong about Zealots and Reapers, don't you think a little redesign for those 2 units could be helpful ? It would create more choices for Terran and Protoss players early, thus adding (hopefully) new strategy to the game.
I'm throwing ideas here and there, but what about looking into the singleplayer aspect of the game. Like adding 1 or 2 new upgrades to these 2 units based on their respective add-on ? Crazy suggestion, but you will get my point : give base Zealots the charge ability (nerf the ability lightly if needed) and replace the Charge upgrade by a Whirlwind upgrade similar to this one
Well, that's it This post is more about design than anything else. I would like to hear your opinions about this. Honestly, as a SC2 spectator and a gamer who enjoy game design, i would like to ask the Dev Team about this "concern" of me. Unfortunatly, i can't :x
And sorry for my poor english, i'm a french guy
Thank you for reading this.
I have recieved some good answers, and i was about to ask this : (basically, a question to the SC2 community)
Do you think that slightly changing the zealot and the adept like this would be ok ? :
1. Slighly buff the Zealot tanking ability to make them the early "tanking" unit gateway. 2. Slighly nerf the Adept tanking ability to compensate the Zealot "buff" (which also reflect the adept nature of a "weaker" but higher damage unit)
I'm not giving numbers, because again, i have little clue about balance.
Thank you
Jokes aside, both. Buff zealot`s health (10 or so) and nerf Adept`s shade.
The good changes that will go through and make a positive difference for the game
- Hydralsisk buff with Roach nerf (Hydras better to watch and more responsive to micro also they fucking suck ass in all match ups except ZvP for a small window)
- Tanks being changed back to be being good, this buff will almost certainly warrant Siege Mode eing an upgrade again, tanks just rolling out of the factory with that kind of firepower will be ludicrously OP and make attacking into Terran a bad idea.
- Tempest redesign is so good for the game, this unit is cancer, 15 range units have little place in a RTS in my opinion, theres nothing strategic about it, it forces an immediate all in attack.
- Banshee speed was OP back when they tested it but with buffed Queens and buffed anti - air Hydralisks it MIGHT be okay, anything to reward aggressive mech and not just turtle mech.
The changes that almost without a doubt be a terrible change for the game and should be scrapped
- Blink Dark Templar, there are other ways to make the unit better late game without making it holy shit OP
- Infestor Deep Tunnel sounds broken on paper, would prefer buffed IT's with a more damage Fungal.
There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
On August 18 2016 01:10 mick007 wrote: Hello. I have some design questions that i have expressed in this thread, but i was told to post it there, so here i go
I will copy paste what i have previously post, hope you don't mind the wall of text
Hello. I would like to talk about the design changes currently planned for LOTV, specifically the Zealot and the Reaper.
But first, let me "introduce" myself. I have little knownledge about the duel aspect of Starcraft 2 : i used to play heart of the swarm with a friend, playing 2v2. We managed to reach master, so i'm not a total noob , but again, i have little to no knowledge about 1v1 buld order etc.. I"m talking mostly from a "spectator" point of view, and from a "designer" point of view.
So, now, about the redesign of the game.
From my understanding, the dev team is trying to achieve 2 things : 1. They want to make mech play viable, and by doing so, they need to rebalance many units. Hence the redesign of the Cyclone and all the "more subtle" changes to other units (armored ravager, Tempest changes, Broodlord slight nerf range...). 2. They also want to "buff" the less used units (Raven, Infestors, Battlecruisers...) by giving them light buff here and there. Hopefully, it should be enough to make them usefull again. (Even if Carrier still seems "mehh" to me ^^)
However, i don't understand why nothing is done about the Zealot and the Reaper. Right now those 2 units seem lost in the design space of the game : Zealot has been replaced by the Adept in 95% scenario, and reapers have little use after the early game (use mainly to scout and harass, until your opponent have enough defense to counter it.)
The change to zealot don't seem usefull to me : it provides no boost for the early game, and i feel, in the beginning of the game, players will still choose between Adept (harass potential, ok tank unit, good dps vs light unit) , Stalker (light armored bonus, range, can be micro, blink potential for the mid game) or a mix of the two.
I'm not talking about the Reaper, because honestly, i have no idea how to turn this unit into something usefull for mid/late game. Buffing a fast unit who ignore terrain height can be a recipe for disaster.
Unless i'm completely wrong about Zealots and Reapers, don't you think a little redesign for those 2 units could be helpful ? It would create more choices for Terran and Protoss players early, thus adding (hopefully) new strategy to the game.
I'm throwing ideas here and there, but what about looking into the singleplayer aspect of the game. Like adding 1 or 2 new upgrades to these 2 units based on their respective add-on ? Crazy suggestion, but you will get my point : give base Zealots the charge ability (nerf the ability lightly if needed) and replace the Charge upgrade by a Whirlwind upgrade similar to this one
Well, that's it This post is more about design than anything else. I would like to hear your opinions about this. Honestly, as a SC2 spectator and a gamer who enjoy game design, i would like to ask the Dev Team about this "concern" of me. Unfortunatly, i can't :x
And sorry for my poor english, i'm a french guy
Thank you for reading this.
I have recieved some good answers, and i was about to ask this : (basically, a question to the SC2 community)
Do you think that slightly changing the zealot and the adept like this would be ok ? :
1. Slighly buff the Zealot tanking ability to make them the early "tanking" unit gateway. 2. Slighly nerf the Adept tanking ability to compensate the Zealot "buff" (which also reflect the adept nature of a "weaker" but higher damage unit)
I'm not giving numbers, because again, i have little clue about balance.
I agree that nerfing is part of the balance, but i'm trying to find a proper balance from a design point of view. Even if you nerf the adept, would you suddenly consider warping Zealots instead of Adept for the early game? (Considering you don't "kill" the adept with some heavy nerf ^^) I mean, adept is a range unit, with good dps, "ok" tanking ability and the ability to harass with their shade. The zealot has nothing like that. It's slow, melee range, good damage i suppose, but still a unit that suffer a lot from kiting. The adept looks more versatil overall. As i said in my previous post, we can toy with the statistics of the unit (less hp, less shield, more armor...) or we can add new ability (we can look at the single player campaign for this)
That's why i'm asking more for a "rebalance" from a design point of view. Turn the zealot into "your early tank unit that can still do ok damage". And slighly nerf the adept to counterbalance this.
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
Things can always be toned down,but the unit actually has to be well designed and tested out at the higher levels for the correct nerfs/tuning to be given, why don't people understand this?
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
mass ling too weak against them, just on their own without hellions even? that's not good
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
Things can always be toned down,but the unit actually has to be well designed and tested out at the higher levels for the correct nerfs/tuning to be given, why don't people understand this?
there's nothing in his post that says he doesn't understand that, he just gives information about the current unit
one of the most interesting nuances introduced by these changes is the (+8 bonus to mechanical) on landed viking damage. probes and SCVs are mechanical whereas drones are not. and of course zero zerg units are mechanical.
it'll be really cool to see how landed Vikings get used; specifically in scrappy 10+ minutes slug-fest games where both players are not any where close to pre-planned builds or compositions.
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
mass ling to weak against them, just on their own without hellions even? that's not good
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
Things can always be toned down,but the unit actually has to be well designed and tested out at the higher levels for the correct nerfs/tuning to be given, why don't people understand this?
there's nothing in his post that says he doesn't understand that, he just gives information about the current unit
I like the new Cyclone from a design point of view. It's surprisingly tanky, it's designed to counter armoured units, and it has the ability to Lock On to air targets.
The problem is that it's too expensive to mass produce, and its damage potential is far too powerful. If they tone down the amount of damage the unit does by about 60%, halve the cost of the unit, and perhaps allow Lock On to be autocast once more, it will be a good core Terran Mech unit.
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
mass ling to weak against them, just on their own without hellions even? that's not good
On August 18 2016 02:37 Beelzebub1 wrote:
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
Things can always be toned down,but the unit actually has to be well designed and tested out at the higher levels for the correct nerfs/tuning to be given, why don't people understand this?
there's nothing in his post that says he doesn't understand that, he just gives information about the current unit
I like the new Cyclone from a design point of view. It's surprisingly tanky, it's designed to counter armoured units, and it has the ability to Lock On to air targets.
The problem is that it's too expensive to mass produce, and its damage potential is far too powerful. If they tone down the amount of damage the unit does by about 60%, halve the cost of the unit, and perhaps allow Lock On to be autocast once more, it will be a good core Terran Mech unit.
Interesting but wouldn't it be better if it's made into an effective AA unit? And do something else with the Thor..
On August 18 2016 02:58 Clbull wrote: (talking Cyclone) The problem is that it's too expensive to mass produce, and its damage potential is far too powerful.
if your assessment is correct then isn't this the exact kind of conflict Blizzard wants to force interesting decision making... kinda like MULE v. Scan.
i like how they allow Cyclones to be reactored. it provides Blizzard lots of ways to nerf the Cyclone including its production rate.
In general , I really like how they went overboard with a lot of these changes. It makes for a very interesting few months as Blizzard massages this mish-mash of crazy units into a proper, competitive RTS.
On August 18 2016 04:36 Dingodile wrote: They have to stop buffing every unit. If they continue so than all units will be one hit units in 2 years.
most of these changes are to make the unit more useful or change the utility of the unit. The buffs we do see seem to just make the unit be used more, as opposed to rarely being used.
On August 18 2016 06:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: let's just remove all pretenses and rename the Banshee to the Orca, the Hellion to the Raider Buggy, and the Cyclone to the Pitbull.
I fucking wish the Cyclone was nearly as versatile as the Pitbull.
On August 18 2016 06:28 JimmyJRaynor wrote: let's just remove all pretenses and rename the Banshee to the Orca, the Hellion to the Raider Buggy, and the Cyclone to the Pitbull.
I fucking wish the Cyclone was nearly as versatile as the Pitbull. And Terran needs a proper Mammoth Tank.
This is top secret information that i probably should not even be posting in here... the secret leader of the Defenders of Man is Kane and he'll be played by Dustin Browder in Part 3 of the Nova mission packs.
I have a new fancy name for BCs. "Bitches". Cause best way to use them is just use yamato on carriers and tempests and teleport and keep doing that until protoss run out of resource rofl. Also they are the best answer for carriers right now.Which is necessary to force terran players move their mech army out to free supply for BCs.
My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
I think mech (tank centric) will work in a strong timing context. Like when you push with almost maxed supply around 9/10 minutes. After that, you need to react to what your opponent is doing. If he starting to mass tempests (or carriers), you need to do significant damage with your army (kill at least 1 mining base), and then start building vikings/thors/mines/whatever. It's a lot like in BW when the Protoss starts transitioning to carriers. In BW is easier though because you can make goliaths from the factory and they are at least somewhat decent vs ground units.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
It also seems to me that terran units just overlap too much. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators, vikings, thors without adding a new armor type.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
I half agree, tanks are going to be fantastically more powerful against everything except Immortals which will still, 5 years later, totally murder them, so while the tank will be much "better" against Protoss it's just going to make Protoss go for heavy Immortal builds which will still totally shit on mech just due to how the Immortal can negate high burst damage.
Mech already forces fast Broods/Corruptor/Viper, I don't think that relationship is going to change much with stronger tanks, only be reinforced.
No clue about how the new Cyclone will interact with anything it looks like combined with the Hellion it will be stupid strong against Zerg but that's what testing and balance patches are for right?
Tankcentric play is overrated turtle bullshit in my honest opinion, I would rather the aggressive options of mech be buffed, mech is already so incredibly strong defensively with PF and Liberators what it needs is the ability to attack before a critical mass and to harass/inflict economy damage.
Buffing the Banshee and Viking sounds cool but air units are just far too powerful across the board for all races. Between Liberators harassing mineral lines whilst ruling the skies, Skytoss being undefeatable, and Mutalisks being so OP with regeneration that a million hard counters have had to be introduced into the game just to deal with them I'm wondering if buffing air units is a good idea at all.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
It also seems to me that terran units just overlap like crazy. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators without adding a new armor type.
cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
It also seems to me that terran units just overlap like crazy. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators without adding a new armor type.
cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor
The problem I see with Terran is that there are so many units that overlap one another. Tank, widow mines liberators = zone control. Bashee, liberators - harass mineral line.
The better way is to remove one or two unit unit and make the reminder unit specialize and distinct. But they will never do it. So in the end, what we see are some units that are redundant or useless.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
It also seems to me that terran units just overlap like crazy. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators without adding a new armor type.
cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor
overlaps with Viking then.
not if the cyclone has significantly shorter range but higher dps. the viking can be for sustained long range damage, and the cyclone's job becomes to catch the air army out in the open, then just charge in and focus down as many units as possible.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
It also seems to me that terran units just overlap like crazy. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators without adding a new armor type.
cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor
overlaps with Viking then.
not if the cyclone has significantly shorter range but higher dps. the viking can be for sustained long range damage, and the cyclone's job becomes to catch the air army out in the open, then just charge in and focus down as many units as possible.
Sustained and longer range makes no sense in the same sentence. Sustained is only a term you use together with "high constant DPS".
But Longer range can be used for kiting but that's not neccasarily a role-thing. Rather its a feature of the unit to make it "feel different".
You could say the Viking is better vs other long-range units such as Carriers, Brood Lords and BCs. But that raises the question what exactly will the Cyclone then be good against.
Wish they would look at Protoss gateway units more. The strength in Protoss gateway revolves too much around the abilities of those units and fast upgrades.
They could slow up upgrade speed, tone down blink and adept shade and beef up those units some. I'd love to see a stronger stalker, especially vs air. If that means no blink then fine. Let the adept shade be the "blink" option and just let the stalker be a nice strong unit. It's ok for some units to have no special ability. Toss just has so many gimmicks and things to cast. Just let them have one strong simple unit.
On August 18 2016 10:50 BigRedDog wrote: The problem I see with Terran is that there are so many units that overlap one another. Tank, widow mines liberators = zone control. Bashee, liberators - harass mineral line.
The better way is to remove one or two unit unit and make the reminder unit specialize and distinct. But they will never do it. So in the end, what we see are some units that are redundant or useless.
good point Clifford.
i think they've already resigned themselves to this. I think they will wiggle away from the issue to an extent by making certain units only useless in certain matchups. Their goal is to make every unit have a good use in at least 1 matchup. They prolly prefer 2+ matchups.
For example, the Viking is more versatile now against P and T and is a much more effective worker killer against those races.
On August 18 2016 11:58 FLuE wrote: Wish they would look at Protoss gateway units more. The strength in Protoss gateway revolves too much around the abilities of those units and fast upgrades.
They could slow up upgrade speed, tone down blink and adept shade and beef up those units some. I'd love to see a stronger stalker, especially vs air. If that means no blink then fine. Let the adept shade be the "blink" option and just let the stalker be a nice strong unit. It's ok for some units to have no special ability. Toss just has so many gimmicks and things to cast. Just let them have one strong simple unit.
when blizzard was making WoL, the stalker should've been what the adept is now, and the dragoon should've been the all around strong unit.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
It also seems to me that terran units just overlap like crazy. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators without adding a new armor type.
cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor
overlaps with Viking then.
not if the cyclone has significantly shorter range but higher dps. the viking can be for sustained long range damage, and the cyclone's job becomes to catch the air army out in the open, then just charge in and focus down as many units as possible.
Sustained and longer range makes no sense in the same sentence. Sustained is only a term you use together with "high constant DPS".
But Longer range can be used for kiting but that's not neccasarily a role-thing. Rather its a feature of the unit to make it "feel different".
You could say the Viking is better vs other long-range units such as Carriers, Brood Lords and BCs. But that raises the question what exactly will the Cyclone then be good against.
(answer: nothing of value).
The cyclone feels like it has terrible AA. Good for A Banschee, WP, and overlord scout, not much else. It's a response to the many air based aggression P can make in the very early game IMO, not an AA solution; so the Viking is safe in it's role IMO. Against ground, it feels good against Stalkers and Roaches, not much else.
I like the unit so far. You can probably mech without them, but can also make a few in the early game for some pressure vs queens, stalkers, MC. The Tank also feels safe in it's role.
On August 18 2016 09:21 Gullis wrote: My fear is that the tank buff is not gonna change anything. Protoss will go with adept zealots templar tech and air which the tank doesn't really fair well against. Meaning you may play "mech" with cyclones, mines, thors, hellions/hellbats which is not really mech.
Against zerg, wont it only make zerg go in to broods, corruptors and vipers as fast as possible? (possible swarms host? but do you wanna build tanks against them?)
Additionally I feel like the cyclone is just a marauder 2.0 that you dont have to micro as much and any criticism the marauder got for taking up the tanks role as anti-armor applies to the cyclone as well (except against ultras I guess). Another concern is that they described the cyclone as way for terran to compete for map control and keeping the opponent in their base but is that really a playstyle that is compatible with mech (tanks)?.
I want a tankcentric play but with how strong air and abilities like shade, charge and all kinds of teleporting are, I just don't see how it can work out.
Are my fears just or should I just go to bed?
It also seems to me that terran units just overlap like crazy. I don't see how you can create any unique roles to tanks, cyclones, liberators without adding a new armor type.
cyclone should be anti air with short range, single target high dps, and bonus vs armor
overlaps with Viking then.
not if the cyclone has significantly shorter range but higher dps. the viking can be for sustained long range damage, and the cyclone's job becomes to catch the air army out in the open, then just charge in and focus down as many units as possible.
Sustained and longer range makes no sense in the same sentence. Sustained is only a term you use together with "high constant DPS".
But Longer range can be used for kiting but that's not neccasarily a role-thing. Rather its a feature of the unit to make it "feel different".
You could say the Viking is better vs other long-range units such as Carriers, Brood Lords and BCs. But that raises the question what exactly will the Cyclone then be good against.
(answer: nothing of value).
The cyclone feels like it has terrible AA. Good for A Banschee, WP, and overlord scout, not much else. It's a response to the many air based aggression P can make in the very early game IMO, not an AA solution; so the Viking is safe in it's role IMO. Against ground, it feels good against Stalkers and Roaches, not much else.
I like the unit so far. You can probably mech without them, but can also make a few in the early game for some pressure vs queens, stalkers, MC. The Tank also feels safe in it's role.
The new Cyclone's AA has less DPS than the Queen's AA afaik
On August 18 2016 02:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: one of the most interesting nuances introduced by these changes is the (+8 bonus to mechanical) on landed viking damage. probes and SCVs are mechanical whereas drones are not. and of course zero zerg units are mechanical.
it'll be really cool to see how landed Vikings get used; specifically in scrappy 10+ minutes slug-fest games where both players are not any where close to pre-planned builds or compositions.
I think a reason for that is that Tempests and Carriers are still only countered by Vikings, so now after you mass so many Vikings they don't become complete dead supply once the air war is over. It's a smart move and it makes them a lot like Goliaths.
The more i see and play, i feel like the changes have been very well thought out; not just as individual units as has been the case till now, but in terms of synergy within a race AND against other races. A lot of thinking and testing has gone in to this IMO. Color me impressed
On the negative side, blink DTs feel complete BS lol. Maybe we are supposed to build turrets everywhere or something but the scan is a waste right now. The SH is also highly abbusable at such a low price, but maybe that is to be expected at this stage.
If you want tier 2 units like cylone become tempest,carrier,BCs counter then terran's tier 3 will stay useless. BCs vs carriers is dank as fuck but its hard to figure out how to transition due to mech army is gas heavy already. About mass air case.I think they dont need to creat good ground anti air units,just give air units more weakness to force player add another units. That why we saw mass tempests but not mass broodlord.
I'm glad they're finally taking a more radical approach to changing the game but it's obvious the chief reason they're doing this is because SC2's viewer count is becoming RIDICULOUSLY low. It's too late, unfortunately.
On August 18 2016 01:40 Clbull wrote: There is an instant win TvZ all-in build where you make Reactor Factory at the start and spam Cyclones (and Hellions when you don't have the gas for Cyclones) and just rush your opponent while he's on two bases.
There is nothing that the Zerg player can do to hold it. Mass lings are too weak to kill the Cyclones, Roaches get hard-countered, Spine Crawlers get hard-countered, and a combination of lings, roaches and spines isn't really possible without weaker overall army numbers.
Even if you do survive, you're still on two bases, you likely sacrificed drones to hold, and your Terran opponent is now on two bases, likely producing more Cyclones and Hellions, and is now teching up to his third base and to Starport.
This is correct.
I've seen Hydra absolutely demolish this. It depends how many hellions and how many cyclones and then lings are also good. But yeah, mineral only armies of ling queen can get punished hard.
Just from looking at some streams, feels like cyclones and tanks overlap in the role of "ground unit that destroys armored units". For the tank it feels just right, since it's slow and static when attacking and has clear counters (like melee units on top of them, or air units).
Cyclones need to be better against air and worse vs ground than in their current iteration. Otherwise it's back to the old ways, with other ground units standing no chance against mech but any strong air army hardcountering it.
I agree with others who have said that cyclone AA is too weak. it should be strong against air and only decent against ground (like the goliath). widow mines help with anti-air, especially against light flyers. however, they can't really do anything against brood lords, liberators, carriers or tempests. I don't like the overlap between thors and cyclones. thors are terrible, clunky units that are joyless to use (unless you boost them everywhere with medivacs).
ideally, I'd like to see thors and cyclones combined into a cheap, reliable infantry mech with strong, long-range AA and mediocre ground attack (the goliath). give the thor the old yeller treatment. keep the movement speed and unit model of the cyclone, but give it all the goliath's attack characteristics, plus some kind of range upgrade with armory+techlab requirement.
I did'nt tested out the new map yet, but after playing a decent quantity of game lately, i agree with a precedent post that says that gateway units could get weaker ability and stronger stats, or a slight nerf to P aoes in a way or another, and boost gateway unit. I mean i feel like chargelots are just useless right now, their ONLY utility (to me) is to flank&destroy a base in PvZ late game, in PvT you generally found PF which make them useless, i'd better warp adept and shade them behind the mineral line. PvP mid/late i feel like they melt on adepts, making them sucks even if they avoid apm-less the disruptor Ball. Better doing Photons if i got that much minerals.
A match-up that really frustate me lately is PvT, the P bioball is so damn weak against the T ones, even with upgrades, that you ABSOLUTELY have to rely on aoe for defend, in PvZ i feel like it's more fair, because Z don't have all the movement possibility that MMM have, but vs T i feel like the positionnement of aoes &MC must be perfect in defensive phase of drop + agression if you don't want to lose key structures or bleed out too much unit, where even if this require APM, the T just have to drop where it's annoying which is'nt hard. Really those fight where your bioball melt &almost deal no damage due to Medivac are pretty raging. I don't think a massive rework is necessary, but if in this change they could tone down this situation a bit i feel like players could enjoy more the game.
On August 18 2016 16:58 SHODAN wrote: I agree with others who have said that cyclone AA is too weak. it should be strong against air and only decent against ground (like the goliath). widow mines help with anti-air, especially against light flyers. however, they can't really do anything against brood lords, liberators, carriers or tempests. I don't like the overlap between thors and cyclones. thors are terrible, clunky units that are joyless to use (unless you boost them everywhere with medivacs).
ideally, I'd like to see thors and cyclones combined into a cheap, reliable infantry mech with strong, long-range AA and mediocre ground attack (the goliath). give the thor the old yeller treatment. keep the movement speed and unit model of the cyclone, but give it all the goliath's attack characteristics, plus some kind of range upgrade with armory+techlab requirement.
You still want to produce cyclones to defend against stalkers,adepts shit on your base rather than hellion.Mobile option for mech,dat is the whole point of new cyclone. IF you trade its ground dmg for air dmg just like goliaths,we already know what will happen.Only thor needs more attention cause right now i dont even need to micro carriers for cost effect trade against thors like blizzard said....Just A-move.....
On August 16 2016 13:31 Khai wrote: I never understand why competitive games undergo such drastic changes, particularly when it's not at the start of a season/year.
This. But i guess DK is in the state where "SC2 is only getting worse everyday so let's turn everything on its head we got nothing to lose". I've been saying this for ages: "leave this game alone". It's not healthy for an esport to be changed drastically every half a year. But people continue to drag in their "the more changes the better" casual attitude. It's keeping the game fresh the say. "i'll definitely gonna play after these changes". They said this before the LoTV release, they are saying this now. But the truth is LoTV has A HALF of HoTS playerbase http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=1&r=-2&sx=a&sy=c . Where are you guys, you promised me to play the game, you hyped so much, i believed you. But it all turned out that changes didnt attract new players or make old ones to come back but instead scared off the huge number of dedicated players. I myself did go through a long period of apathy and irritation, and finally overcame that and adapted. But seems like half of the players where lost in the process. Now they are gonna do it again. And all i see is people hyping that w/o even understanding how this will turn out lead by avilo who's only purpose is to attract attention to his person.
Remove cyclone, reintroduce warhound with weak ground dps, good AA dps and the ability to repair mech units only at mule speed with small extra cost (+ maybe an energy cost )
Yea Thor + 1 armor
Remove tp for BC, instead adding a medivac boost with high cooldown, and some cargo space ( 1.5 medivac size ? )
Protoss
Canceling shades remove 20hp to the adept
Oracles increase energy consumption of the attack spell
New Tempest +1 range to ground, change the new spell to a kamikaze spell, maybe lasting longer Or reduce its dmg and adding negative movespeed buff to its zone
I think drastic changes like this have the opposite of the intended effect. They turn off more and more of the people who still play this game and they will not attract new/old players to the game. Just leave it alone if the option is big changes vs leave alone.
On August 18 2016 19:58 Wohodix wrote: Propositions Terran
Remove cyclone, reintroduce warhound with weak ground dps, good AA dps and the ability to repair mech units only at mule speed with small extra cost (+ maybe an energy cost )
Yea Thor + 1 armor
Remove tp for BC, instead adding a medivac boost with high cooldown, and some cargo space ( 1.5 medivac size ? )
Protoss
Canceling shades remove 20hp to the adept
Oracles increase energy consumption of the attack spell
New Tempest +1 range to ground, change the new spell to a kamikaze spell, maybe lasting longer Or reduce its dmg and adding negative movespeed buff to its zone
They could just change the Cyclone to do that
Variety wise better as well otherwise you'd get too many robots/ too little vehicles imo
I still think that the Cyclone AA attack should be removed completely. Mech should really only have one solid anti-air option: the Thor.
Why? Mech is supposed to be very strong against ground but immobile and requiring positional play. If you give it a strong, massable and mobile jack-of-all trades unit like the current cyclone, the list of potential counter plays becomes very short. This is not good design and makes games against mech dull.
What I would like to see is:
Lock-On ability moved to Thor and merged with Punisher Cannons (single-target AA)
Because the Thor should be the mech AA option both for light and armored targets. With the Lock-On ability the clunkiness of the Thor is mitigated and it will work better as a counter to massive air units (brood lords, carriers, BCs, even Tempests) while positioning may still provide a counter (flying out of sight and/or blocking the Thor with ground units).
Cyclone G2A removed
The Cyclone should be a massable footman unit with mostly micro-based counters and not an all-round unit.
Cyclone G2G range reduced (so, other ranged units can kite them more easily)
That way we might see micro intense positioning battles were the non-meching player tries to shave off some of the meching players footmen (Cyclones, Hellions) while the army is moving and backs out once tanks are deployed. This might make Bio, Blink Stalkers and Roach/Ravager/Hydra more viable against mech.
On August 18 2016 21:08 a_flayer wrote: Maybe just give the DTs the same movement speed bonus that Zealots get instead of giving them blink?
IMO they should just buff the least used/weaker units instead of the DT, which is already pretty good. I mean the stalker, disruptor and zealot could use some small buffs. The stalker in the AA damage, the disruptor in the nova cooldown and the zealot in hp/shield or getting the shade ability instead of charge
If Blizzard wants a completely new game experience they should make a new game instead of making drastic changes to an already existing game. They almost ruined LoD for me when they made immunities and even double-immunities a thing as well as making lots of fun builds unplayable with the synergy system (good idea, very poorly applied). I like LotV more than HotS but many players are very unhappy because they essentially have to play a completely different game than they did for years (LotV is not SC2 part 3, it has an entirely different feel). That is a very strong argument against another radical change that will again make SC2 into something it never was before. Even if I'm gonna like the new changes, most players probably don't want any further (radical) changes, so I'm against it. It's very important to not consistently piss off a large chunk of the existing player base.
On August 18 2016 19:58 Wohodix wrote: Propositions Terran
Remove cyclone, reintroduce warhound with weak ground dps, good AA dps and the ability to repair mech units only at mule speed with small extra cost (+ maybe an energy cost )
Yea Thor + 1 armor
Remove tp for BC, instead adding a medivac boost with high cooldown, and some cargo space ( 1.5 medivac size ? )
Protoss
Canceling shades remove 20hp to the adept
Oracles increase energy consumption of the attack spell
New Tempest +1 range to ground, change the new spell to a kamikaze spell, maybe lasting longer Or reduce its dmg and adding negative movespeed buff to its zone
They could just change the Cyclone to do that
Variety wise better as well otherwise you'd get too many robots/ too little vehicles imo
While they could, I think the warhound looked better imo. Cyclone just looks... Lame to me.
On August 18 2016 02:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote: one of the most interesting nuances introduced by these changes is the (+8 bonus to mechanical) on landed viking damage. probes and SCVs are mechanical whereas drones are not. and of course zero zerg units are mechanical.
it'll be really cool to see how landed Vikings get used; specifically in scrappy 10+ minutes slug-fest games where both players are not any where close to pre-planned builds or compositions.
I think a reason for that is that Tempests and Carriers are still only countered by Vikings, so now after you mass so many Vikings they don't become complete dead supply once the air war is over. It's a smart move and it makes them a lot like Goliaths.
Yeh I think this is actually a pretty significant buff to mech.
However, I still hate Vikings vs Air wars. Much prefer air vs ground.
With the new tank dominating the ground war they could also consider nerfing the AG attack of the liberator instead of the AA damage. Lower it from 85 to 77 and maybe add some +20 bonus vs massive or whatever.
On August 18 2016 23:43 Salteador Neo wrote: With the new tank dominating the ground war they could also consider nerfing the AG attack of the liberator instead of the AA damage. Lower it from 85 to 77 and maybe add some +20 bonus vs massive or whatever.
The only possible way to diffentiate tanks from liberators would indeed be by making one of the units better vs massive units and the other much weaker.
As you point out Liberators could deal bonus vs massive and tanks could deal less damage vs massive. Would actually also give terran a better and more fair counter to Ultras.
On August 18 2016 23:43 Salteador Neo wrote: With the new tank dominating the ground war they could also consider nerfing the AG attack of the liberator instead of the AA damage. Lower it from 85 to 77 and maybe add some +20 bonus vs massive or whatever.
The only possible way to diffentiate tanks from liberators would indeed be by making one of the units better vs massive units and the other much weaker.
As you point out Liberators could deal bonus vs massive and tanks could deal less damage vs massive. Would actually also give terran a better and more fair counter to Ultras.
Could be interesting interactions/positioning/etc. to see Libs v. Ultras as long as they didn't just completely melt them.
I don't think it is bad though that sometimes units serve the same role. One player might be better with tanks, another better with libs, heck even mines overlap some and some players might prefer that. If all 3 units are good but unique in how to micro and use them then it would be cool to see more players differ in their approach to the game but still be successful.
I think ultimately with SC2 having such hard counters it has made it so that variety in general is lacking. I think it is harder for 2 skilled players to take different approaches to solving the same problem. The game would be more enjoyable if there were more avenues to success vs. the same opponent style. At that point things like positioning, timing, and micro are what decide a battle instead of just A beats B so GG.
Disclaimer: I play Random at about Diamond level, so I hope there's not too much bias going into this. So here's my 2 cents:
Cyclone While I like the new Cyclone more than the old one, it feels like it is too strong against armored units like Stalkers and Roaches, and shit against anything else (even Zerglings). I think the new attack is a little over the top with the hard counter mechanic. They should rather deal about the same damage to any type of unit, maybe +1 bonus damage against armored, but not even that is necessary, considering that the tank is already dealing a quite decent amount of damage.
Siege Tank I like that the Pick-up-while-sieged ability got removed. Can't really argue precisely about the damage output though, maybe it's a little high, but not too much.
Liberator and the Thor Meh. While I kind of like that the Liberator's AA got nerfed a little, I still don't see it as a well designed unit with a unique role (there's already the tank for space control). Same thing almost for the Thor, I just like the Goliath way better.
Viking It's cool to see the Viking's anti-ground attack buffed, so it's actually kind of useful. However, almost the same applies as for the cyclone, why give it +8 against mechanical instead of just +4 against anything? I've also seen that they 2-shot probes and I don't like it. I really don't think the game needs even more worker harass options.
Battlecruiser Nice, but it's really damn strong for sniping a base. Maybe too strong. Also I never really liked the teleport ability...
Raven
an increase to their damage should give Ravens a bit more firepower in combat, while not adding too much to their ability to harass worker lines.
Well, it's certainly stronger now, and that's not a bad thing. But they're also 2-shotting workers right now, which is HUGE in my opinion. And like I said before the game is better off without it. I'm okay with it though as long as it doesn't make worker harass even better. David Kim missed the target on this one.
Tempest I don't think the ability is too strong against worker lines. By the time the Protoss has some Tempests to prevent you from mining, you should already have some decent AA out, so it's a huge risk for Protoss to do that play. If you kill his tempests that's actually a bad trade for him. On the other hand it's quite decent against siege units and buildings, so it's also not underpowered.
What I don't like in general though, is that they keep adding abilites to units, that just makes everything more complicated and "gimmicky" (yes I'm aware that some of you hate this word). I think it would be better if most units had decently designed attacks, with a few spell caster units mixed in (Ghost, Raven, Infestor. (Queen), Sentry, High Templar). Instead there are just too many units that have abilities that make the game too complex and maybe uncontrollable in the long run. Like someone before me in this thread put it, when trying to balance a ruler on your finger you don't keep adding weights to the ends. I think that describes how I feel about that trend pretty well.
Zealot I like the idea of giving the Zealot a place in the game again, haven't tried it out myself yet though.
Carrier I like it. Removed an ability here and maybe it will become a decent and more often used unit.
Dark Templar I don't get why they made this change. There was absolutely no reason to do so, as the DT is already decent and you have the chance to save them using Warp Prisms.
Swarm Host Meh, free units. I never liked the concept of the unit and I was glad when the use of it was going back to being almost non-existent. They should come up with a unit that has decent stats instead, if they don't want to remove units entirely. However I think that even Zerg has enough decent harass options already.
Baneling I don't think that was necessary. Bio play is cool to play and watch and I think fights of MMM vs Ling Bane Muta were decently balanced. Now the banelings are harder to kill so that might discourage people to go Bio instead of Mech.
Infestor Meh. Another ability added to a unit which already has plenty and then even a Teleport one. I don't think we need this. I like the concept of the Nydus better. Also I think the cast range of the spells are a little high while burrowed.
Brood Lord Not my favourite units from the get-go either (spawns free units). Personally I'm fine with the nerf. But bring back the Guardian. Sorry for BW bias
In conclusion: Stop adding new abilities randomly to units, I think it will cause the effect of "gimmicky" play. Also remove free units and design units with decent stats instead. The patch is not crap though, as I see a good trend in some changes: Cyclones, Tanks and Carriers to be specific.
On August 18 2016 23:43 Salteador Neo wrote: With the new tank dominating the ground war they could also consider nerfing the AG attack of the liberator instead of the AA damage. Lower it from 85 to 77 and maybe add some +20 bonus vs massive or whatever.
The only possible way to diffentiate tanks from liberators would indeed be by making one of the units better vs massive units and the other much weaker.
As you point out Liberators could deal bonus vs massive and tanks could deal less damage vs massive. Would actually also give terran a better and more fair counter to Ultras.
Oh please don't make me have to mass air units to counter also ground!
The Lib was made IMO as a zoning tool when they did not intend for the Tank to be fixed/buffed. Let's keep the Lib as a harass tool and a replacement for tanks in bio play, if the Terran bio player does not know how to use tanks .
I would have preferred the Lib to be an anti light air unit to give both mech and bio a more mobile response to Mutas and Phoenixes, with the anti ground as a secondary to improve on the valkyrie design.
Since that's not going to happen, let there be some overlap between Tanks and Libs, but let's not take away power from the Tank, especially not by promoting air play.
EDIT: it's a cool characteristic of bio to add different support units that do similar things but in different ways, Tanks, Libs, Mines. This is cool i think.
Oh please don't make me have to mass air units to counter also ground!
No if the Liberators actually get really good vs Ultras but worse vs other units, you will not mass it. You will only get a few and then the zerg will adjust his composition.
Liberators then become more of a reactive unit.
For harass purposes, Liberator is extremely boring: Banshee's, Medivacs and Hellions all provide much more skillful and fun harassoptions.
Let's keep the liberator as a unit that is strong positionally in some cases and the Tank as the default positional unit (with a few weakness's that the Liberator can cover).
Played my first 10 games on the test map, rank 2 diamond Zerg so take everything with severe grain of salt all of my opponents are also equally as bad.
New Hydralisk feels so so incredibly strong, I'm the first person to ask for a Hydralisk buff by my God man it SHREDS armies without heavy splash damage. I would prefer the changes to be something like this so Hydralisks can be stronger without being OP.
- Revert range buff out of the egg for ground but keep the extra range only against air units
- Muscular Augments gives speed boost off creep and maybe +1 armor or + 15 HP, remove the light tag
The Hydralisks issue isn't that it doesn't do damage, it does great damage, the problem is two fold, it is very brittle and units that do bonus damage to light evaporate them too quickly, looking specifically at the Phoenix and the Oracle, Hydralisks are supposed to be strong vs air units, but these two air units do bonus damage to light (stupid in my opinion they kill workers fine without it and years later proxy Oracle is still kind of cancer because of how retard fast it kills drones) and nullify the Hydralisk until they hit critical mass.
TLDR Removing the light tag is probably one of the best way to buff the Hydra along with either +1 armor or + 15 HP, it does need the extra range vs air units, but definitely not vs ground units, it's just overpowered they shred everything hard.
The Tempest change is cool but it lasts forever, feels way too overpowered, the Disruption Field thing is awesome but the duration is terrible (I know the duration was probably gonna get reduced anyways)
The Raven is just overpowered now, you can start massing tanks, liberators, and Ravens and pretty much nothing is safe, especially worker lines. Drop 6 + turrets in a base and that base is dead. Why can't they make the Raven good without making it a total cancer unit? This game doesn't need another unit that can decimate worker lines, it has far too much of it already.
Havent seen any blink Templars
Cyclones are hilariously overpowered when coupled with Hellions in a 2 base all in but really kind of suck ass otherwise
Haven't built a Swarm Host because well, why the hell would I? The unit just needs to be scrapped or totally redesigned, screw the cost, it's too much supply for a unit that attacks once a minute.
Haven't seen any BC's
New Zealots are absolutely terrifying, I wish they just moved faster right out of the gate though so that the MSC could be removed and we could move towards Protoss late game being toned down and beefing up Gateway units as a whole, sadly we all know that Kim doesn't have the stomach for any more major Protoss design changes.
Havent seen Thors
Tanks are fantastically powerful against Zerg now, but I like it, they should be strong, they require alot of micro and multitask to be used correctly it's not just an a move unit.
in general i like the changes (well there has to be some tweaking but thats ok). The only thing i dont like is that the swarmhost is still not completley redisigned or gets replaced by another unit.
I'd like to see Blizzard decrease the Siege Tank's supply cost to 2, and gas cost to 100 instead of buffing its damage. That way, they're far easier to amass, and leave gas and supply for other important units.
Tanks Tanks feel like tanks again. Removing flying tanks and increasing their damage is the best change in the test map. If this was the only change that got implemented to the live game I would be fine with that.
Carriers Removing the release interceptor ability was necessary since that ability was to strong. Decreasing interceptor cost is the wrong move. Carriers are already too strong against mech. Vikings get massacred by Carriers + HT/Archons Thors get defeated by Carriers + any ground unit Widow mines worked to some degree since it could kill the interceptors but now when interceptors are almost free not even widow mines work anymore.
Thors Increasing Thor splash slightly is a good move but I think it would be better to increase Thor amour by 1. Then Thor could actually trade against Carriers. Cyclones Mech already have an interesting anti-armor unit in the improved siege tank. A mech marauder is the last thing this game needs. Instead redesign the cyclone so that is fast, good against air and mediocre against ground. That way cyclones can support mech in a way that is needed instead of filling a role that is already filled by a more interesting unit. Tempest Increasing supply was necessary. Decreasing ground range and then giving the unit a slow psi storm is a bad idea. The unit still prevents you from even trying to use tanks since tanks that cannot be in siege mode are useless. The only effect is making Tempest weaker against bio which is unnecessary since Tempest were never too strong against bio, just too supply efficient. The old Tempest prevented you from playing mech. The new Tempest do the same thing but in another way. The difference is that new Tempest is also broken against mineral lines.
Battlecruiser The changes are good but they will still not be useful against Protoss or Zerg. Protoss due to Tempest hard countering BCs, Zerg due to Vipers hard countering BCs. There will still be no point in building BCs outside of TvT. Increasing the attack but lowering the ROF would solve some of the problems with the unit.
Swarm Host This unit is now completely broken again. It basically makes it so you can never build tanks and are forced to use bio or to mass 40+ widow mine and hope to get lucky. Swarm host games have already damaged Starcraft so much, please do not bring them back.
Raven Raven is already a good unit. The improved auto-turret makes mass Ravens broken again. I want to play mech, not mass Ravens against mass Swarm hosts.
DT with Blink Unnecessary change. DT are already a good unit; it is not necessary to improve worker killing even more. This game needs less worker killers, not more.
On August 19 2016 05:25 MockHamill wrote: Tanks Tanks feel like tanks again. Removing flying tanks and increasing their damage is the best change in the test map. If this was the only change that got implemented to the live game I would be fine with that.
Carriers Removing the release interceptor ability was necessary since that ability was to strong. Decreasing interceptor cost is the wrong move. Carriers are already too strong against mech. Vikings get massacred by Carriers + HT/Archons Thors get defeated by Carriers + any ground unit Widow mines worked to some degree since it could kill the interceptors but now when interceptors are almost free not even widow mines work anymore.
Thors Increasing Thor splash slightly is a good move but I think it would be better to increase Thor amour by 1. Then Thor could actually trade against Carriers. Cyclones Mech already have an interesting anti-armor unit in the improved siege tank. A mech marauder is the last thing this game needs. Instead redesign the cyclone so that is fast, good against air and mediocre against ground. That way cyclones can support mech in a way that is needed instead of filling a role that is already filled by a more interesting unit. Tempest Increasing supply was necessary. Decreasing ground range and then giving the unit a slow psi storm is a bad idea. The unit still prevents you from even trying to use tanks since tanks that cannot be in siege mode are useless. The only effect is making Tempest weaker against bio which is unnecessary since Tempest were never too strong against bio, just too supply efficient. The old Tempest prevented you from playing mech. The new Tempest do the same thing but in another way. The difference is that new Tempest is also broken against mineral lines.
Battlecruiser The changes are good but they will still not be useful against Protoss or Zerg. Protoss due to Tempest hard countering BCs, Zerg due to Vipers hard countering BCs. There will still be no point in building BCs outside of TvT. Increasing the attack but lowering the ROF would solve some of the problems with the unit.
Swarm Host This unit is now completely broken again. It basically makes it so you can never build tanks and are forced to use bio or to mass 40+ widow mine and hope to get lucky. Swarm host games have already damaged Starcraft so much, please do not bring them back.
Raven Raven is already a good unit. The improved auto-turret makes mass Ravens broken again. I want to play mech, not mass Ravens against mass Swarm hosts.
DT with Blink Unnecessary change. DT are already a good unit; it is not necessary to improve worker killing even more. This game needs less worker killers, not more.
I agree with all of this, love your summary of what the Cyclone should be, I like the big moves the balance team is making but I think this shows that they are still all these years later, people that are watching the game and not playing it themselves so their views of design and balance hinge on very high level of play only.
Mass Raven will suck ass vs someone like Dark with top micro, but it will suck to be Zerg against ladder Terrans going mass Raven, vice versa with Swarm Hosts (worst designed unit in the history of both Starcrafts imo)
I've seen a lot of people against DT with blink for various reasons, but one reason I keep reading is the "DT already good, don't need buff". I feel this isn't a good enough reason.
If that was the case, many other units don't need buffs because they're already good. Just because a unit is in a good state, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a buff. In the long list of units being re-designed, I agree that DT should be the last item. However, it could still use some love.
Currently, DTs are suicide mineral harass units. Sure their survival goes up when comped with the prism, but I feel DT should be the commando units. They should go in alone and do as much damage as possible, without any support. Also, shutting down DT is quite easy. Unless the Shrine is hidden, it shouldn't be hard for the opponent to scout a shrine and be prepared. Once an opponent is prepared for DT, they are practically useless, aside from morphing into Archons.
If DT were given the exact same blink as stalkers, then that would be OP as fuck. I think a new iteration of blink for DT could make them viable. As I said before, perhaps a channeled blink that takes 3 seconds. If damage occurs during the 3 sec, the blink is canceled. As well, a much longer cooldown than Stalkers blink.
On August 19 2016 05:39 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I've seen a lot of people against DT with blink for various reasons, but one reason I keep reading is the "DT already good, don't need buff". I feel this isn't a good enough reason.
If that was the case, many other units don't need buffs because they're already good. Just because a unit is in a good state, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a buff. In the long list of units being re-designed, I agree that DT should be the last item. However, it could still use some love.
Currently, DTs are suicide mineral harass units. Sure their survival goes up when comped with the prism, but I feel DT should be the commando units. They should go in alone and do as much damage as possible, without any support. Also, shutting down DT is quite easy. Unless the Shrine is hidden, it shouldn't be hard for the opponent to scout a shrine and be prepared. Once an opponent is prepared for DT, they are practically useless, aside from morphing into Archons.
If DT were given the exact same blink as stalkers, then that would be OP as fuck. I think a new iteration of blink for DT could make them viable. As I said before, perhaps a channeled blink that takes 3 seconds. If damage occurs during the 3 sec, the blink is canceled. As well, a much longer cooldown than Stalkers blink.
On August 19 2016 05:39 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I've seen a lot of people against DT with blink for various reasons, but one reason I keep reading is the "DT already good, don't need buff". I feel this isn't a good enough reason.
If that was the case, many other units don't need buffs because they're already good. Just because a unit is in a good state, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a buff. In the long list of units being re-designed, I agree that DT should be the last item. However, it could still use some love.
Currently, DTs are suicide mineral harass units. Sure their survival goes up when comped with the prism, but I feel DT should be the commando units. They should go in alone and do as much damage as possible, without any support. Also, shutting down DT is quite easy. Unless the Shrine is hidden, it shouldn't be hard for the opponent to scout a shrine and be prepared. Once an opponent is prepared for DT, they are practically useless, aside from morphing into Archons.
If DT were given the exact same blink as stalkers, then that would be OP as fuck. I think a new iteration of blink for DT could make them viable. As I said before, perhaps a channeled blink that takes 3 seconds. If damage occurs during the 3 sec, the blink is canceled. As well, a much longer cooldown than Stalkers blink.
DTs do too much damage, damage needs to be nerfed
Well if they do get a blink ability, I don't mind if they get a nerf to damage or health.
infestor is awesome, the 50 energy tunneling thing is a benefit to survival for the infestors, not harass. If you teleport your infestors into a base, 50 energy is a LOT of mana and you still need 50 energy to teleport out. I think what this does if anything is simply allow you to teleport your infestors back to your base or teleport them to the front line where you are fighting if they already have full energy.
"just build a nydus" as one user pointed out is non-sense and I don't see overlap here, if anything a nydus would combo better with infestors since they have an escape route if you manage their mana properly (which isn't always easy when you have them in a big group). I see more possibilities and opportunities with the infestor now, which is better than before because right now (pre-patch) the infestor is all but useless.
The reason why SC2 is in a bad place gameplay-wise is because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
WoL still had a high skillcap, enough to make players like MVP/Nestea/MC the dominate players for their respective races. You need to reward players for proper execution of the fundamentals, such as macro.. which SC2 doesnt do. That's where the game failed in my eyes, they tried to compensate for removing macro mechanics by adding activatable abilities in order to add skill to the game (via micro).. and they never stopped.
The problem is Starcraft isnt that type of game and it never was. BW was a hard game and most of the core units have no activatable abilities (or theyre not micro based abilities, like say stim pack and siege mode).
Obviously the reason why BW was hard is because of the lack of MBS and limited control groups. You needed high-end mechanics in order to macro well and proper micro was achieved through keyboard mechanics (like moving 6-7 groups of units and engaging properly as opposed to having to use a micro-based ability for every one of your goddamn units).
The pace of BW was slow but it didnt take anything away from the game/viewer experience.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: The reason why SC2 is in a bad place gameplay-wise is because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
I like the fast pace of the game, it's almost akin to cnc games. You're absolutely right about abilities though. And warpins removing defender's advantage.
In the end though, I think the game's in a bad place because it's so frustrating to play. It drives people away when you can lose a game because you looked away for 1 second. It's way too punishing. People might scream about skillcap and hard to master in the proscene and whatnot, but if every player lower than master's leaves because the game's too damn frustrating then there's not gonna be any proscene to watch.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
WoL still had a high skillcap, enough to make players like MVP/Nestea/MC the dominate players for their respective races. You need to reward players for proper execution of the fundamentals, such as macro.. which SC2 doesnt do. That's where the game failed in my eyes, they tried to compensate for removing macro mechanics by adding activatable abilities in order to add "skill" to the game (via micro).. and they never stopped.
The problem is Starcraft isnt that type of game and it never was. BW is a hard game and most of the core units have no activatable abilities (or theyre not micro based abilities, like say stim pack and siege mode).
Obviously the reason why BW is hard is because of the lack of MBS and limited control groups. You need high-end mechanics in order to macro and proper micro was achieved through keyboard mechanics (like moving 6-7 groups of units and engaging properly as opposed to having to use a micro-based ability for every one of your goddamn units).
The pace of BW was slow but it didnt take anything away from the game/viewer experience.
On August 19 2016 11:57 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I don't see that at all. WoL was hard because it was starcraft, and it will always be hard because of the korean leagues. MVP and Nestea were gods at WoL, but they fell off before HotS was released and WoL was still growing. I love HotS and LotV as expansions, but TT1 is right, they added all these new units that may not have been needed. If we went back to core WoL and balanced everything from what we know now? could be a game like BW that lives forever.
HotS/LotV were great expansions and it was fun playing with those new units, but maybe we should go back to basics, or wait for BW HD.
edit:
Though I do like some of the ideas they've used, but overall they should condense some of the units roles and outright delete some. A good example is the Thor, it's a clunky borderline hero unit, you can't balance this unit, change it into a goliath and call it the warhound. The viper should also go, but some of it's abilities should transfer to the infestor, it's abilities would be infested terrans, blinding cloud, and the new tunneling ability with an upgrade. The corruptor doesn't even need an ability for another example.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
WoL still had a high skillcap, enough to make players like MVP/Nestea/MC the dominate players for their respective races. You need to reward players for proper execution of the fundamentals, such as macro.. which SC2 doesnt do. That's where the game failed in my eyes, they tried to compensate for removing macro mechanics by adding activatable abilities in order to add "skill" to the game (via micro).. and they never stopped.
The problem is Starcraft isnt that type of game and it never was. BW was a hard game and most of the core units have no activatable abilities (or theyre not micro based abilities, like say stim pack and siege mode).
Obviously the reason why BW was hard is because of the lack of MBS and limited control groups. You needed high-end mechanics in order to macro and proper micro was achieved through keyboard mechanics (like moving 6-7 groups of units and engaging properly as opposed to having to use a micro-based ability for every one of your goddamn units).
The pace of BW was slow but it didnt take anything away from the game/viewer experience.
Yes WoL had a high skillcap, but it was nearly reached. The pros were playing the game at near perfection, and this led to very stale games (ala broodlords/infestors).
You want players rewarded for having perfect macro, but I think SC2 wasn't meant to do that. I feel like you want SC2 to be something it isn't, and therefore you view it as a failure.
I don't want to go into a BW/SC2 comparison, because that will lead into a never-ending circular debate and futility. I do want to say that BW is exciting to watch, but for very different reasons. It had very different skill-ceilings compared to SC2, and required better macro and micro. However, as you pointed out, this was due to UI and technological limitations. Anything is fun to watch when we know the skill-ceiling is difficult to reach, because we are in awe when we watch the pros do stuff we could never dream of.
I enjoyed watching Neeb deftly manage his warp prism against Scarlett. And when she finally managed to get rid of it, he casually sent in the backup.
I think we want different things from SC2, which is fine. However, I don't think its a failure. Not quite a complete success, but I like the direction its heading.
On August 19 2016 13:07 ROOTFayth wrote: they weren't playing the game near perfection at all....
Well I can't say for certain whether they were or not, but I can only judge it from the games I watched. When many games were playing out in nearly the same fashion, and compositions didn't vary, it gave me the impression that there was very little room for improvement.
Sure there were 1-off builds that might catch someone by surprise, but those were few and the exception.
the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out
what they should have done was swap units and redesign them completely rather than add units and give new abilities on top of the existing balance at the time. infestor/BL was stupid but it was patched before we really got to spend a long time with it. Besides, rather than nerf the infestor and add the viper, they could instead have swapped the infestors fungal growth for blinding cloud.
On August 19 2016 13:26 ROOTFayth wrote: the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out
So you can't say for certain either. Perhaps someone would have broken the broodlord/infestor meta given more time, but we will never know.
Regardless, the point of my discussion with TT1 is that we want different things from SC2. I'm not going to get into another discussion about the state of SC2 at the end of WoL.
Oh please don't make me have to mass air units to counter also ground!
No if the Liberators actually get really good vs Ultras but worse vs other units, you will not mass it. You will only get a few and then the zerg will adjust his composition.
Liberators then become more of a reactive unit.
For harass purposes, Liberator is extremely boring: Banshee's, Medivacs and Hellions all provide much more skillful and fun harassoptions.
Let's keep the liberator as a unit that is strong positionally in some cases and the Tank as the default positional unit (with a few weakness's that the Liberator can cover).
I see what you mean, but there's no point in overspecializing either of the units if they work perfectly well as is. Some bio players will prefer the Lib others Tanks, let there be a choice. There are a lot of things already that differentiates the units.
On August 19 2016 13:26 ROOTFayth wrote: the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out
So you can't say for certain either. Perhaps someone would have broken the broodlord/infestor meta given more time, but we will never know.
Regardless, the point of my discussion with TT1 is that we want different things from SC2. I'm not going to get into another discussion about the state of SC2 at the end of WoL.
I haven't made a snark post for a while. Here goes:
You won't discuss it because everyone knows zerg at the end of WoL was pants-on-head retarded.
After the 5 range queen patch the only thing zergs needed to worry about was the soul train and zvz. From time to time a terran or protoss would find a cool new way to damage the zerg before they reached 80 drones, but that timing or strategy would simply be incorporated into the zerg knowledge base and a prescripted response would be developed within a couple of weeks. Didn't matter if you were bomber with the 2-2 mass marine tank timing at 13:00, or oz with the wonky fast third nexus on daybreak. Zergs were figuring out how to deal with everything and then eventually get to mass infestor broodlord.
5 years and counting and I still think the queen 5 range patch was the single worst update to sc2. Early attacks was stopped mostly by queens, then mid-game attacks were useless because zerg would have 60 drones to the terrans 40-50 and know the predetermined timing to start making units to crush the wave. Then they'd have one more larva cycle and be at 80 drones, with the terran army destroyed. If terran managed to destroy the fourth with their timing it would usually be a much more interesting game but even then zerg could slowly add infestors to critical mass as opposed to making 20 at once and ending it earlier.
I STILL get upset when an unloaded dropship is stopped by 4 queens.
edit: some people may disagree with my analysis of the imbalanced queens, but everyone who says zerg wasnt stupidly imbalanced at the end of wol is a flat-earther in my mind.
On August 19 2016 13:26 ROOTFayth wrote: the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out
So you can't say for certain either. Perhaps someone would have broken the broodlord/infestor meta given more time, but we will never know.
Regardless, the point of my discussion with TT1 is that we want different things from SC2. I'm not going to get into another discussion about the state of SC2 at the end of WoL.
I haven't made a snark post for a while. Here goes:
You won't discuss it because everyone knows zerg at the end of WoL was pants-on-head retarded.
After the 5 range queen patch the only thing zergs needed to worry about was the soul train and zvz. From time to time a terran or protoss would find a cool new way to damage the zerg before they reached 80 drones, but that timing or strategy would simply be incorporated into the zerg knowledge base and a prescripted response would be developed within a couple of weeks. Didn't matter if you were bomber with the 2-2 mass marine tank timing at 13:00, or oz with the wonky fast third nexus on daybreak. Zergs were figuring out how to deal with everything and then eventually get to mass infestor broodlord.
5 years and counting and I still think the queen 5 range patch was the single worst update to sc2. Early attacks was stopped mostly by queens, then mid-game attacks were useless because zerg would have 60 drones to the terrans 40-50 and know the predetermined timing to start making units to crush the wave. Then they'd have one more larva cycle and be at 80 drones, with the terran army destroyed. If terran managed to destroy the fourth with their timing it would usually be a much more interesting game but even then zerg could slowly add infestors to critical mass as opposed to making 20 at once and ending it earlier.
I STILL get upset when an unloaded dropship is stopped by 4 queens.
edit: some people may disagree with my analysis of the imbalanced queens, but everyone who says zerg wasnt stupidly imbalanced at the end of wol is a flat-earther in my mind.
While the end of WOl with bl/corr/infestor was obviously overpowered, all the races have had their period. Terran dominated for the longest time to where GSL was literally called GOMTvT. Everyone has had to deal with bullshit. I don't think that was the worst change, I think the worst change that Blizzard ever did was refuse to nerf Bl/corr/infestor and buff zerg to compensate until hots. Even if bl/corr/infestor was balanced, it still should have been nerfed and Zerg buffed in a different area.
But that was a long time ago and has nothing to do with these new design changes now.
The main issue with queens, and MSC in some regard, is about the "how much at home?" syndrome.
Lemme explain.
When protoss pushes out, or goes for a drop, he only has to keep a MSC at home to summon 4 immobile thors on his pylons. A single unit left at home does that. When zerg pushes out, and even with F2, he has queens at home, that deal with most early agressions quite easily. Terran, on the other hand, can't do that : if you leave home with a mine drop and an oracle comes in, you have no defensive unit that "counter most agressions".
That the main issues, i think : "how much do i leave at home?" and "how early and how snowbally is my defensive unit(s)?" For protoss it's easy, just leave the MSCore and warp if you get backstabbed. You have MSC early, and defensive warp snowballs throughout the game. For zerg, just have your queens in a control group and amove on the minimap if a minedrop/adept drop comes in, and the more queens you have the better your defense is; Terran doesn't have a unit/units that are excellent polyvalent defensive units. If the raven was able to transform terran supplies into defensive structures (this is not a proposition, it'd be terrible), terran would build a defensive raven and push with other units much more freely.
However the design of a defensive unit(s) that's so accessible and, by gaining energy, gets better and better at dealing with agressions is terrible. Terran can't have such a unit because most terrans units are very good at defending : however, you don't have the easy choice protoss or zerg have, where defensive at-home units are very easy to identify. I'm not complaining terran doesn 't have such a unit, i'm just saddened that protoss and zerg do because it prevent agression by doing the same defensive mandatory stuff every single game. And seeing your drop getting killed by 4 queens or your oracle destroyed by 2 POs is just sad to play and watch.
On August 19 2016 13:26 ROOTFayth wrote: the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out
So you can't say for certain either. Perhaps someone would have broken the broodlord/infestor meta given more time, but we will never know.
Regardless, the point of my discussion with TT1 is that we want different things from SC2. I'm not going to get into another discussion about the state of SC2 at the end of WoL.
I haven't made a snark post for a while. Here goes:
You won't discuss it because everyone knows zerg at the end of WoL was pants-on-head retarded.
After the 5 range queen patch the only thing zergs needed to worry about was the soul train and zvz. From time to time a terran or protoss would find a cool new way to damage the zerg before they reached 80 drones, but that timing or strategy would simply be incorporated into the zerg knowledge base and a prescripted response would be developed within a couple of weeks. Didn't matter if you were bomber with the 2-2 mass marine tank timing at 13:00, or oz with the wonky fast third nexus on daybreak. Zergs were figuring out how to deal with everything and then eventually get to mass infestor broodlord.
5 years and counting and I still think the queen 5 range patch was the single worst update to sc2. Early attacks was stopped mostly by queens, then mid-game attacks were useless because zerg would have 60 drones to the terrans 40-50 and know the predetermined timing to start making units to crush the wave. Then they'd have one more larva cycle and be at 80 drones, with the terran army destroyed. If terran managed to destroy the fourth with their timing it would usually be a much more interesting game but even then zerg could slowly add infestors to critical mass as opposed to making 20 at once and ending it earlier.
I STILL get upset when an unloaded dropship is stopped by 4 queens.
edit: some people may disagree with my analysis of the imbalanced queens, but everyone who says zerg wasnt stupidly imbalanced at the end of wol is a flat-earther in my mind.
While the end of WOl with bl/corr/infestor was obviously overpowered, all the races have had their period. Terran dominated for the longest time to where GSL was literally called GOMTvT. Everyone has had to deal with bullshit. I don't think that was the worst change, I think the worst change that Blizzard ever did was refuse to nerf Bl/corr/infestor and buff zerg to compensate until hots. Even if bl/corr/infestor was balanced, it still should have been nerfed and Zerg buffed in a different area.
But that was a long time ago and has nothing to do with these new design changes now.
Which is why I didn't want to get into that discussion. Although I don't recall Protoss having their time in the sun. Sure in Hots there was a lot of bullshit, but WoL was generally abysmal for Protoss aside from specific timings that MC liked to abuse to great effect.
The reason I decided to post that is to whine about queens more than anything. I don't think infestor broodlord for TvZ would be all that bad if zerg was vulnerable in the first 12 minutes of the game.
I would undo that range change even today, but removing medanks from the game brings me a lot of joy and I should not be greedy.
I remember gomtvt as well, but I was just discovering esports at that time so I lacked the wisdom to fully grasp how stupid it was. I mean we had boxer and mma. Even if their strats were OP they were exciting. It probably also helped that TvT was by FAR the most enjoyable mirror to watch/play. Everyone hated pvp/zvz.
On August 19 2016 13:26 ROOTFayth wrote: the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out
There was a significant difference between how the BW builds played out and how the BL/Infestor build played out, though.
The BW builds tended to be devastatingly strong for one of three reasons: 1. They hit an aggressive timing 2. They hit a greedy timing 3. They took advantage of a given map to do 1 or 2
What happened to mix up the BW builds, then, was: 1. Bisu, iloveoov, or Jaedong figured out a build to hold the timing 2. Bisu, iloveoov, or Jaedong figured out a build to punish the greed 3. The map rotated out
As for specific examples of all these: 1. Jaedong's adjusted 3hatch build against Neo Bisu Build 2. Bisu Build against sAviOr's super-greedy expansion play 3. Katrina rotating out, making 2base Carrier more or less obsolete
So, then, BL/Infestor was an example of 2. It was established pretty quickly that there was no way of beating it once you got into lategame, with the exceptions of the Archon toilet (which was swiftly countered by baiting the Protoss) and mass Ghost (which was immediately nerfed out of existence). Therefore, the only answer was a timing attack. Soul Train did that pretty well, but it wasn't 100% (and it answered other Zerg game plans just as well, meaning it wasn't even an answer to BL/Infestor). Terran had nothing, and Protoss didn't have anything outside of a generalized timing attack that was still best answered by BL/Infestor.
The reason why BL/Infestor was so crazy was twofold. First, it was the ultimate in lategame, with no progress available for either player after that point. It was basically the equivalent of playing What-If-I-Had-Infinite-Science-Vessels in BW TvZ, only more gross. BL/Infestor generated as much unit advantage as you pleased for as long as you liked, and since no units could properly engage with them, there was no proper answer. Spine/Spore Crawlers and the instant remax potential made things even worse: the Zerg could effectively go far over 200/200, and there was no way of stopping it.
The next part of the problem was Zerg's ironclad defenses. The reason why those defenses were so good was the Queen. Queens meant that a Zerg no longer had to choose between economy and defense: the Queen did both better than anything else! So long as you had enough Queens, you'd have as many larva and Drones as you needed, and your opponent would have no way to safely harass. Preparing for a timing attack took no clever build adjustment, because all you had to do was make sure you had the right tech building ready and pause on Drone production for as long as you needed. As for scouting the build and the attack? Zerglings, Overlords, and creep spread meant you could never be caught off-guard.
So yeah, that's what was wrong. The only way that BL/Infestor was going to be countered was by finding a timing that countered literally everything Zerg could ever do. It was pretty obvious that was never going to happen, and if it somehow did, Zerg would then never be able to win the game. As a matter of fact, that did happen once in SC2 history, with 5rax Reaper being literally impossible for Zerg to counter (they kited and killed every Zerg unit available at that stage and could run around static defenses). There's only been one BW build ever to look that strong, and it's one currently being used: Late Mech in TvZ. Flexible Terran openers make it next to impossible for Zerg to be aggressive and punish, and then the lategame composition can't be properly answered. Sound familiar?
In any case, I guess this is a roundabout way of saying: yeah, sometimes we can see very easily that there isn't ever going to be a counter.
On August 19 2016 13:26 ROOTFayth wrote: the same thing happened in broodwar where people would use the same build for a year straight, then someone came up with a new way of playing and everybody followed.... the broodlord/infestor era lasted a few months... and then expansion came out
So you can't say for certain either. Perhaps someone would have broken the broodlord/infestor meta given more time, but we will never know.
Regardless, the point of my discussion with TT1 is that we want different things from SC2. I'm not going to get into another discussion about the state of SC2 at the end of WoL.
I haven't made a snark post for a while. Here goes:
You won't discuss it because everyone knows zerg at the end of WoL was pants-on-head retarded.
After the 5 range queen patch the only thing zergs needed to worry about was the soul train and zvz. From time to time a terran or protoss would find a cool new way to damage the zerg before they reached 80 drones, but that timing or strategy would simply be incorporated into the zerg knowledge base and a prescripted response would be developed within a couple of weeks. Didn't matter if you were bomber with the 2-2 mass marine tank timing at 13:00, or oz with the wonky fast third nexus on daybreak. Zergs were figuring out how to deal with everything and then eventually get to mass infestor broodlord.
5 years and counting and I still think the queen 5 range patch was the single worst update to sc2. Early attacks was stopped mostly by queens, then mid-game attacks were useless because zerg would have 60 drones to the terrans 40-50 and know the predetermined timing to start making units to crush the wave. Then they'd have one more larva cycle and be at 80 drones, with the terran army destroyed. If terran managed to destroy the fourth with their timing it would usually be a much more interesting game but even then zerg could slowly add infestors to critical mass as opposed to making 20 at once and ending it earlier.
I STILL get upset when an unloaded dropship is stopped by 4 queens.
edit: some people may disagree with my analysis of the imbalanced queens, but everyone who says zerg wasnt stupidly imbalanced at the end of wol is a flat-earther in my mind.
While the end of WOl with bl/corr/infestor was obviously overpowered, all the races have had their period. Terran dominated for the longest time to where GSL was literally called GOMTvT. Everyone has had to deal with bullshit. I don't think that was the worst change, I think the worst change that Blizzard ever did was refuse to nerf Bl/corr/infestor and buff zerg to compensate until hots. Even if bl/corr/infestor was balanced, it still should have been nerfed and Zerg buffed in a different area.
But that was a long time ago and has nothing to do with these new design changes now.
Which is why I didn't want to get into that discussion. Although I don't recall Protoss having their time in the sun. Sure in Hots there was a lot of bullshit, but WoL was generally abysmal for Protoss aside from specific timings that MC liked to abuse to great effect.
Protoss had a few moments, usually when a new timing attack or method of fast expanding was figured out. They never lasted, though, and I think it all comes down to SC2 having some pretty major design flaws right down to the core which proceeded to spread out from there. The macro mechanics coming so early, Warp Gate showing up at t1.5, addon swapping, unit collision size, Forcefields, the Roach... those problems just snowballed out of control.
In the end, these changes are a huge step in the right direction, though I explained how much the Siege Tank needed a buff... at the start of the HOTS Beta...
The power of Mech should not come from the Widow Mine, it should come from the Siege Tank. The Siege Tank should hit hard, not the Widow Mine. If Siege Tanks do enough damage then Mech will work. If they don't, then we'll constantly be looking for something that will do big damage and that we can combine with Siege Tanks so we can say "See Siege Tanks work when you use them with X!" X being the very hard hitting Warhound that was removed or Widow Mine. And in both cases, the Widow Mine and Warhound are better used alone or with other Terran play styles, than in conjunction with Siege Tanks in TvP.
It is fun to quote yourself... and right now X is the Liberator.
So all of this just feels like way too little, way too late. I don't get it, why didn't they see that at the end of WOL? The Siege Tank was so strong at the start of the WOL... but then they nerfed it before they decided to make maps massive, and it never recieved a change... it died on the vine due to huge maps. And we've known that for years.
And I know exactly where all this is going now too... the Viper has to be nerfed. It has to be, it is way too strong versus positional units. Abduct and Blinding Cloud are most powerful against immobile units. Just give it sometime, Terrans will look great until the Viper clicks right through their formations, it is a harder counter than Immortals were to me (and to toot my own horn again, I said hardened shields needed to be removed in that post too, and that only took them until LOTV...).
Sadly, Blizzard can't see this because they literally don't understand basic game design. So I'll make sure to cite this post in a year or two when the Viper gets nerfed because it is trashing Mech.
2 base low econ swarmhost play feels viable and fun against terran if they don't open banshee. There is a legit low-econ, not all-in option for zerg and that excites me.
Battlecruisers are really fun to use.
Protoss changes are meh. New Tempest ability is very strong, but kind of clunky.
Interesting perspective, TT1. For the sake of argument, like, when we say "spells" do we specifically means active ones you need to cast for something to happen (unlike medic heal,) ? Or are we including all special effects on attack effects like splash from reavers and firebat, swarm host bullshit, and all that jazz?
I might be down for less spells overall, but they'd have to be different ones, I don't think I would be a fan of playing with the WoL kit of spells for years on end.
On August 19 2016 15:40 lestye wrote: Interesting perspective, TT1. For the sake of argument, like, when we say "spells" do we specifically means active ones you need to cast for something to happen (unlike medic heal,) ? Or are we including all special effects on attack effects like splash from reavers and firebat, swarm host bullshit, and all that jazz?
I might be down for less spells overall, but they'd have to be different ones, I don't think I would be a fan of playing with the WoL kit of spells for years on end.
Activatable abilities such as the voidray charge, turning an oracle on/off, revelation, laying a stasis mine, forcefield, adept shade, disruptor shots, the immortal barrier, storm, blink, hallucination, guardian shield, graviton beam (phoenix lift), timewarp, the future tempest ability, dt blink.. see what i mean? And that's just for protoss.
I'm not saying unit abilities are a bad thing.. they just have to be sprinkled in, they're not supposed to overpower a game.
For example, in BW you had zealots/goons/archons/hts as your main army comp vs zerg, the only unit in that mix that has an ability (which is micro based) is the templar (storm). The interaction between lurkers and how protoss had to engage them created micro tho. Zerg didn't have any micro based ability until the lategame when they got defilers out, the micro element for them was how well they could dodge against storms.
Although I agree with TT1, the macro mechanics of SC:BW are not really needed. They did well for that time and that game, but if you look at W3:FT they have mass building selections, worker rallies and people tend to make like 3 groups of units. Yet the game is still good and a lot of things are going on. Just watch some W3 from Grubby on the weekends(he is gone until end of august however) or Happy is pretty good too.
SC2 is a design fail and continues to spiral downwards with every big balance patch: People use mass of some unit => Blizzard no like, Blizzard remove from game.
I also agree with TT1, during LotV beta they tried some economy changes for LotV that were supposed to slow down unit production a bit and make managing economy less irritating and they gave up on it. I gave up on LotV at that point. After that it got even more insane, maybe it is more fun to watch, but it is not fun to play.
What I will be doing instead is get and play Broodwar HD and probably even try it online after 15 years
Something I think is interesting .. what if there were units or buildings that require a certain iteration of a building or unit to acquire. e.g. requirement 4 barracks. Or units that combine similarly to archons but on a larger scale. There were buildings in Sim City that took forever before you could even have the choice build one as your economy grew to a very large scale. For me, that seems like a nice late-game touch.
I also feel that the adept would be more attractive if their attack somehow related to their shade ability. or the ravager being more like a spine crawler that attacks air as well but that can miss the way corrosive biles may
Anyways, this is a fun process. Keep up the good work
Both wol and lotv have great vision of how sc2 should be, though they are both completely different. For me hots was the worst and suffered from severe identity crisis. It was like the worst from both worlds.
I've read so many posts in TL of people complaning about worker lines being gone in a matter of seconds. I can imagine many ragequitting the game and some of them even uninstalling it because of widow mines clearing mineral lines without even a warning. Not everyone can have great map awareness.
Since the list of main harassment offenders was already long enough before, and they are now adding vikings, ravens and tempests too... Why not just let those units be, and instead increase the hp of all workers (maybe add 1 armor even?) so they don't get rekt so fast.
Could also change widow mines to not be able to target workers while they are at it
This Cyclone is F****** retarded. I Dont know how to play vs Terran Mech as Protoss! They go Hellion & Cyclone (Push) or Trade units (Stalkers get REKT so hard by Cyclones and Hellions Kill my Zealtos/Adepts if i hold a banshee comes in to finish me off (cause no or few Stalkers)
Any Ideas?
edit: this is all before i can get enough either Stargate units (Phoenix/Voids) or Robo (i have like 1-2ish Immortals)
So after playing a few more games vs Mech i can Say Phoenix is the best opener if they lack Missle turrets Terran gets rekt and if they move out i can scout it easy. And go into more Stargates and Skytoss Tempest Are okish but i prefer newer Carrier now
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
Except its the wrong kind of hard and it spews into volatility. When you have so much freely available damage the game stops becoming a game about who can consistently control his units best and more about who doesn't have a 1 second lapse in concentration that leads to the loss of his game.
Its not normal for entire economies or armies to be vaporized in seconds, it makes the game too volatile. Slowing down the game by reducing damage numbers in some way will actually benefit the game because:
1st The better player will lose less in those small intervals where their concentration falters. 2nd The better player will have less of those moments of inattention. 3rd The better player, will have more time to recover in the long run.
Adding more abilities to all units is also not a very interesting way to make the game harder, it just promotes more spamming on the units itself instead of more interesting micro like pulling back weakened units, splitting, stutter-stepping, dodging etc.
I agree that the game should be hard, but this isn't the right way to do it.
Edit: And don't tell me the pros don't have lapses in concentration and moments where they make mistakes, that's not a valid argument since they are still humans, they make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.
And as proof when a mistake happens at the pro level and its expertly punished we get those sort of games that end anticlimactically after one major battle or successful harass.
On August 19 2016 18:45 WhosQuany wrote: This Cyclone is F****** retarded. I Dont know how to play vs Terran Mech as Protoss! They go Hellion & Cyclone (Push) or Trade units (Stalkers get REKT so hard by Cyclones and Hellions Kill my Zealtos/Adepts if i hold a banshee comes in to finish me off (cause no or few Stalkers)
Any Ideas?
edit: this is all before i can get enough either Stargate units (Phoenix/Voids) or Robo (i have like 1-2ish Immortals)
1 base 5 gate 2/3 adept or zealot to tank and stalker ( you micro them when they get target ) and or siege the terran early with photon or overcharge to force a tank.
On the other mater As a plat I like the fast pace of the game, and the worker vulnerability, it force me to always be map aware, to improve builds, improve timings, improve base design, have good scout. I dont mind loosing because [Im greedy or uncarefull. ( and I dont mind short game ) It force mind game and multi front.
On August 19 2016 14:11 Thaniri wrote: The reason I decided to post that is to whine about queens more than anything. I don't think infestor broodlord for TvZ would be all that bad if zerg was vulnerable in the first 12 minutes of the game.
This is classical "don't let they get there" which is terrible game design. The game should be winnable at all points. The queen patch was necessary. It was necessary for zerg to be able compete in midgame. Whether the game continued in fun way or turtling is completely unrelated to the patch. If zerg didn't have unbeatable lategame and had strong midgame, the queen patch would called good. It's funny that some people still consider queen the cause.
On August 19 2016 18:45 WhosQuany wrote: This Cyclone is F****** retarded. I Dont know how to play vs Terran Mech as Protoss! They go Hellion & Cyclone (Push) or Trade units (Stalkers get REKT so hard by Cyclones and Hellions Kill my Zealtos/Adepts if i hold a banshee comes in to finish me off (cause no or few Stalkers)
Any Ideas?
edit: this is all before i can get enough either Stargate units (Phoenix/Voids) or Robo (i have like 1-2ish Immortals)
1 base 5 gate 2/3 adept or zealot to tank and stalker ( you micro them when they get target ) and or siege the terran early with photon or overcharge to force a tank.
On the other mater As a plat I like the fast pace of the game, and the worker vulnerability, it force me to always be map aware, to improve builds, improve timings, improve base design, have good scout. I dont mind loosing because [Im greedy or uncarefull. ( and I dont mind short game ) It force mind game and multi front.
Maybe I'm naive, but many people complain about worker harass and how it's too easy to destroy economies by killing many workers 'suddenly', but then I read a lot of complaints about mothership core and queens, which are the main units used to defend vs worker harass.. why is that? Do you have a different kind of 'defence' vs worker harass in mind?
I tried the blink DTs in the test map but honestly I don't find them very strong, the time to get them out is super long (shrine + research) and the blink cooldown is quite long. It adds something to the unit, but I don't see how it could be broken.
In general, I really like the direction they took with these changes
I wouldn't mind (I play protoss) a small adept nerf, but in this case they would need to buff something else (P doesn't seem so dominating right now)
On August 19 2016 14:11 Thaniri wrote: The reason I decided to post that is to whine about queens more than anything. I don't think infestor broodlord for TvZ would be all that bad if zerg was vulnerable in the first 12 minutes of the game.
This is classical "don't let they get there" which is terrible game design. The game should be winnable at all points. The queen patch was necessary. It was necessary for zerg to be able compete in midgame. Whether the game continued in fun way or turtling is completely unrelated to the patch. If zerg didn't have unbeatable lategame and had strong midgame, the queen patch would called good. It's funny that some people still consider queen the cause.
Btw good points TT1 and Destruction.
Well, a thing most people like to forget is that Zerg players didn't manage their creep very well back then and thus couldn't see an attack coming as early as they could later on when 4-6 Queen play was promoted due to the patch.
I dont play lotv , just a few games here and there when Im very tired. Game just feels so away from a traditional RTS that it doesnt interest me.
I been saying since hots expansion that adding new units and abilities was not needed. They should of made the established units have improved interesting interactions. Blizzard design/balance team have no vision, just the vision of making money and trying to appear that adding units is a 'good thing', when it just makes the game more of a mess.
The proposed changes are like shifting a few chairs around, thegame will still be a mess and have too many units that overlap and most abilties are just auto-cast which again takes away from skill-based play.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
Except its the wrong kind of hard and it spews into volatility. When you have so much freely available damage the game stops becoming a game about who can consistently control his units best and more about who doesn't have a 1 second lapse in concentration that leads to the loss of his game.
Its not normal for entire economies or armies to be vaporized in seconds, it makes the game too volatile. Slowing down the game by reducing damage numbers in some way will actually benefit the game because:
1st The better player will lose less in those small intervals where their concentration falters. 2nd The better player will have less of those moments of inattention. 3rd The better player, will have more time to recover in the long run.
Adding more abilities to all units is also not a very interesting way to make the game harder, it just promotes more spamming on the units itself instead of more interesting micro like pulling back weakened units, splitting, stutter-stepping, dodging etc.
I agree that the game should be hard, but this isn't the right way to do it.
Edit: And don't tell me the pros don't have lapses in concentration and moments where they make mistakes, that's not a valid argument since they are still humans, they make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.
And as proof when a mistake happens at the pro level and its expertly punished we get those sort of games that end anticlimactically after one major battle or successful harass.
There is no such thing as the 'wrong kind of hard'. Hard is just a relative position on a spectrum that starts from easy and ends in near impossible.
This '1 second lapse' pushes SC2 into the boundaries of very hard. However, your opponent is also within the same boundaries. You also have the same opportunity to vaporize his army or economy. Slowing the game down only serves to place the game within the easier spectrum.
I agree that if a game is placed on the harder end of the spectrum, things can get a little more volatile, but its this volatility that will separate the better player from the best of the best. All that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd means that the better player will be harder to discern. If we slow down the game or reduce the damage output, all we are doing is making the game easier. If its easier, player skill level will normalize.
Yes pros make mistakes and they are punished, but there are pros that recover from the mistakes and end up winning the battle. These games are the greatest to watch, and I want SC2 to create more of those players and games. Sure many games end up anticlimactic due to a small mistake that snowballed.
Interesting, several of these changes were ones I envisioned, like the cyclone being an anti-armor counterpart to the hellion. Some of them, like the siege tank and zealot changes, pretty much everyone wanted. Yet despite this long list of changes, the game still has a lot of problems. The HOTS units are still pretty bad. The mothership is still an empty shell.
I could make a similarly long list of suggestions but I'm going to limit to just this one. With the siege tank changes, I imagine zerg will have a hard time breaking tank pushes. Why did protoss get compensation in the tempest"disruption sphere," but zerg got nerfs to ravagers and brood lords?
Meanwhile the swarm host is still pretty useless. I propose changing the swarm host to be focused on breaking turtles and tank lines. Change them so that locusts cannot be controlled by the player, and buff as needed. They'll just a-move to the target area and clear it out. The opponent can run away but the locusts cannot be commanded to chase. So when locusts are sighted you'll need to make a quick decision on whether to run or fight.
Personally I'd like to see swarm hosts spawn larger waves of weaker units to make them more swarmy, maybe make them an energy-based caster like with infested terrans, but it doesn't matter as long as zerg has some way to deal with the new and improved tank lines.
I remember in broodwar there were a lot of games where I managed to come back after taking pretty bad damage to my economy early on just because I was quite a bit better than my opponent, in SC2 it's just not a thing
On August 19 2016 14:11 Thaniri wrote: The reason I decided to post that is to whine about queens more than anything. I don't think infestor broodlord for TvZ would be all that bad if zerg was vulnerable in the first 12 minutes of the game.
This is classical "don't let they get there" which is terrible game design. The game should be winnable at all points. The queen patch was necessary. It was necessary for zerg to be able compete in midgame. Whether the game continued in fun way or turtling is completely unrelated to the patch. If zerg didn't have unbeatable lategame and had strong midgame, the queen patch would called good. It's funny that some people still consider queen the cause.
Btw good points TT1 and Destruction.
Well, a thing most people like to forget is that Zerg players didn't manage their creep very well back then and thus couldn't see an attack coming as early as they could later on when 4-6 Queen play was promoted due to the patch.
creep spread was buffed man.... at the end of hots or during lotv beta I'm not sure
I think the opposite is true and Starcraft 2 is too easy. Think about it this way: Macro is quite easy in Sc2 and at the top level, everyone has quite similar level of macro and skill ceiling is also almost reached, there isn't much that you can improve on. But people always make mistakes at some point. So when you play and your macro is 95% perfect, any big mistake or negligence of macro will put you much further behind if your opponent plays at 90% perfect macro but didn't make a mistake at the crucial moment. If macro is easy and everyone plays at similar level, then micro becomes more important factor and any micro mistakes will also punish you more, because you cannot put yourself ahead by having better macro. Playing better has less value then not making mistakes, so game is being decided by mistakes more often and this is the reason why the game feels volatile.
Imagine 2 guitar hero players of 2 different skill levels playing on normal mode. Let's say that the better player is 20% better. But on normal mode, they can both hit most notes and get 4x multiplier. You can't get any better then that, so the thing that is more important to winning is not making a mistake, which would force you to build up the multiplier from 1 and lose you a lot of points. But if they play on hard mode, the worse player will suddenly hit a lot less notes then the better player, and game stops being decided by mistakes, and starts being decided by better play.
Imo, Starcraft 2 should have harder macro. This way you could recover from micro mistakes through better play much more often, and game would be less volatile.
On August 19 2016 14:11 Thaniri wrote: The reason I decided to post that is to whine about queens more than anything. I don't think infestor broodlord for TvZ would be all that bad if zerg was vulnerable in the first 12 minutes of the game.
This is classical "don't let they get there" which is terrible game design. The game should be winnable at all points. The queen patch was necessary. It was necessary for zerg to be able compete in midgame. Whether the game continued in fun way or turtling is completely unrelated to the patch. If zerg didn't have unbeatable lategame and had strong midgame, the queen patch would called good. It's funny that some people still consider queen the cause.
Btw good points TT1 and Destruction.
Well, a thing most people like to forget is that Zerg players didn't manage their creep very well back then and thus couldn't see an attack coming as early as they could later on when 4-6 Queen play was promoted due to the patch.
creep spread was buffed man.... at the end of hots or during lotv beta I'm not sure
Creep buff has nothing to do with the fact that before the Queen patch hit in WoL players tended to have less Queens which directly resulted in worse creep spread compared to post-Queen patch. Of course, over time players improved their mechanics also resulting in better creep spread.
On August 19 2016 23:32 ROOTFayth wrote: I remember in broodwar there were a lot of games where I managed to come back after taking pretty bad damage to my economy early on just because I was quite a bit better than my opponent, in SC2 it's just not a thing
Comebacks are a thing in SC2, its just a lot harder due to volatility. I've seen Polt, Zest, and a number of great players make amazing comebacks through crisp execution and great decision making.
We are expecting SC2 from different POV.
You are viewing it from the player's perspective, and want to play the game in a certain fashion.
I am viewing it from the spectator's perspective, and want to watch games played out in a different fashion.
By referencing BW, I feel you want SC2 to be similar to BW. I'm sorry but that train left a long time ago. These two games are similar only in lore.
On August 19 2016 22:14 VHbb wrote: Maybe I'm naive, but many people complain about worker harass and how it's too easy to destroy economies by killing many workers 'suddenly', but then I read a lot of complaints about mothership core and queens, which are the main units used to defend vs worker harass.. why is that? Do you have a different kind of 'defence' vs worker harass in mind?
Yeah, regular units and ... static defense. But as of now there are just ridiculously many options to harass (and they're adding even more it seems). For me personally, this creates one of the main points in why the game is too difficult.
Also gotta agree with what TT1 said on the last few pages.
On August 20 2016 00:10 ROOTFayth wrote: volatility is ok to a degree but it's far too high in SC2, I mean there's already poker if people want to gamble, they can make SC2 more skill based
also what you want as a spectator won't fly if players don't want the same thing, they will just quit and you will have nothing to watch
I don't see Neeb quitting or Scarlett or Nerchio. I don't see lesser players like Winter, Neuro, or Lowko quitting.
You assume players will quit, and perhaps some will, but the ones that truly deserve my attention are those that strive to be better. Also, I don't care about the quitters. I care about the ones that want to be better, regardless of the volatility, despite the challenges of SC2. These are the ones that I want to watch play.
good job on mentionning the very few players who did not quit haha, want me to list those who quit? it feels like you're being a bit delusional at this point, we all want starcraft 2 to be better, for more people to play it.... you clearly stated you don't give a crap if players don't enjoy the game, what you care about is enjoying watching those games
On August 20 2016 00:24 ROOTFayth wrote: good job on mentionning the very few players who did not quit haha, want me to list those who quit? it feels like you're being a bit delusional at this point, we all want starcraft 2 to be better, for more people to play it.... you clearly stated you don't give a crap if players don't enjoy the game, what you care about is enjoying watching those games
No because as I mentioned before, I don't care about them.
edit: In what way am I delusional? And I never said I don't care if players don't enjoy the game. I just don't think your idea that players will quit in droves will happen. If I am wrong, and these changes Blizzard implements will be the downfall of SC2 due to no one playing, than you can hold it over me until forever.
But until then, try to keep an open mind to these changes. Don't dismiss them because SC2 is too volatile; isn't BW; doesn't focus on macro; or whatever personal reason you have. And if you truly want to have an effect on it's development, play the test map. Give Blizzard feedback and let them know how you feel about the changes. Just don't try to lobby for changes that will never happen (e.g. back to BW)
About BroodWar, we always talk about come back, but I'd be surprised if you called it come back if BW had the same observing tools as SC2. Now with SC2 we see them less often because we always now how far ahead/behind the players are, we know which tech has just been unlocked and so on.
On August 19 2016 23:32 ROOTFayth wrote: I remember in broodwar there were a lot of games where I managed to come back after taking pretty bad damage to my economy early on just because I was quite a bit better than my opponent, in SC2 it's just not a thing
Comebacks are a thing in SC2, its just a lot harder due to volatility. I've seen Polt, Zest, and a number of great players make amazing comebacks through crisp execution and great decision making.
We are expecting SC2 from different POV.
You are viewing it from the player's perspective, and want to play the game in a certain fashion.
I am viewing it from the spectator's perspective, and want to watch games played out in a different fashion.
By referencing BW, I feel you want SC2 to be similar to BW. I'm sorry but that train left a long time ago. These two games are similar only in lore.
I don't want to turn this into an "SC2 vs BW" nightmare, both games have their strong points, but BW's strong point is definitely from the spectator's perspective. I still have a blast watching BW, but playing is challenging to say the least. SC2 is more fun to play, but abysmal to watch. So I'm not sure how your reasoning plays out.
I do want to say that I love that Blizzard is making bold and interesting changes. I particularly love the siege tank change. I hope they continue to shake things up whenever they see stagnation.
I am so excited that they actually are aiming for such big changes.
I mean, not sure how it will all balance out, and blink Dark Templar scare the fuck out of me, but it shows Blizz still wants to invest in the game in a big way.
ALSO HOLY FUCK 70 DAMAGE TANKS :D Might switch to terran, the powerful siege tank from SC1 was one of my favourite things.
On August 19 2016 23:32 ROOTFayth wrote: I remember in broodwar there were a lot of games where I managed to come back after taking pretty bad damage to my economy early on just because I was quite a bit better than my opponent, in SC2 it's just not a thing
Comebacks are a thing in SC2, its just a lot harder due to volatility. I've seen Polt, Zest, and a number of great players make amazing comebacks through crisp execution and great decision making.
We are expecting SC2 from different POV.
You are viewing it from the player's perspective, and want to play the game in a certain fashion.
I am viewing it from the spectator's perspective, and want to watch games played out in a different fashion.
By referencing BW, I feel you want SC2 to be similar to BW. I'm sorry but that train left a long time ago. These two games are similar only in lore.
I don't want to turn this into an "SC2 vs BW" nightmare, both games have their strong points, but BW's strong point is definitely from the spectator's perspective. I still have a blast watching BW, but playing is challenging to say the least. SC2 is more fun to play, but abysmal to watch. So I'm not sure how your reasoning plays out.
I do want to say that I love that Blizzard is making bold and interesting changes. I particularly love the siege tank change. I hope they continue to shake things up whenever they see stagnation.
I'm trying to avoid that discussion as well.
Regarding 'abysmal to watch' I think there are some games that fall into that category, but there have been so many games played that you can't dismiss the ones that were 'pure joy to watch'.
On August 19 2016 14:11 Thaniri wrote: The reason I decided to post that is to whine about queens more than anything. I don't think infestor broodlord for TvZ would be all that bad if zerg was vulnerable in the first 12 minutes of the game.
This is classical "don't let they get there" which is terrible game design. The game should be winnable at all points. The queen patch was necessary. It was necessary for zerg to be able compete in midgame. Whether the game continued in fun way or turtling is completely unrelated to the patch. If zerg didn't have unbeatable lategame and had strong midgame, the queen patch would called good. It's funny that some people still consider queen the cause.
Btw good points TT1 and Destruction.
Well, a thing most people like to forget is that Zerg players didn't manage their creep very well back then and thus couldn't see an attack coming as early as they could later on when 4-6 Queen play was promoted due to the patch.
creep spread was buffed man.... at the end of hots or during lotv beta I'm not sure
I think they made creep spread and recede faster in the LotV beta
On August 20 2016 00:24 ROOTFayth wrote: good job on mentionning the very few players who did not quit haha, want me to list those who quit? it feels like you're being a bit delusional at this point, we all want starcraft 2 to be better, for more people to play it.... you clearly stated you don't give a crap if players don't enjoy the game, what you care about is enjoying watching those games
i've quit playing SC2 at least 30 times in the past 6 years. when i get bored i quit. i don't think there is any magic formula Blizzard can come up with to make me never get bored. People on here make it sound like Blizzard owes them a lifetime of non-stop entertainment because they spent $140. They don't. Taking this attitude i'm a happier player. David Kim does not owe me happiness. That's up to me. For me the game is a hobby and when i get bored i just play something else.
Pros sign on for turning their hobby into a job. If you have a relative in the NHL, MLB, NBA or NFL. Or even in the dNBA, MiLB, or AHL you'll know how that goes. YOu are a piece of meat and a vehicle for the club owners to make cash. Lots and lots of players love their game as a hobby and hate it as a job.
go on national TV and tell the world that you hate your job and all it entails. See how fast you get signed as a free agent after you are fired. A very large # of these pro players bullshit about loving the game and the league. They have to.. their livelihood depends on it.
to all those pros who hate the MLB, NHL, NFL and GSL. "Get a haircut and get a real job". George Thorogood, 1993.
On August 20 2016 00:24 ROOTFayth wrote: good job on mentionning the very few players who did not quit haha, want me to list those who quit? it feels like you're being a bit delusional at this point, we all want starcraft 2 to be better, for more people to play it.... you clearly stated you don't give a crap if players don't enjoy the game, what you care about is enjoying watching those games
No because as I mentioned before, I don't care about them.
edit: In what way am I delusional? And I never said I don't care if players don't enjoy the game. I just don't think your idea that players will quit in droves will happen. If I am wrong, and these changes Blizzard implements will be the downfall of SC2 due to no one playing, than you can hold it over me until forever.
But until then, try to keep an open mind to these changes. Don't dismiss them because SC2 is too volatile; isn't BW; doesn't focus on macro; or whatever personal reason you have. And if you truly want to have an effect on it's development, play the test map. Give Blizzard feedback and let them know how you feel about the changes. Just don't try to lobby for changes that will never happen (e.g. back to BW)
I'm not dismissing any changes I'm just hoping for even more changes that will possibly make SC2 a bit less volatile, like removing tankivacs is one of them
On August 20 2016 01:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i've quit playing SC2 at least 30 times in the past 6 years. when i get bored i quit. i don't think there is any magic formula Blizzard can come up with to make me never get bored. People on here make it sound like Blizzard owes them a lifetime of non-stop entertainment because they spent $140. They don't. Taking this attitude i'm a happier player. David Kim does not owe me happiness. That's up to me. For me the game is a hobby and when i get bored i just play something else.
While burrowed, auto spawns Locusts on the current CD. Able to manually spawn Locusts when not burrowed. Locusts cost 25 minerals/2 supply.
Net result - Swarm Host acts as a mobile Hatchery. Able to siege enemy bases and reinforce quickly. No supply wasted when Locusts are on cooldown. No locusts available when at 200/200 supply. Able to use Locusts to quickly remax an army in combat, at the cost of delaying standard macro production.
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
I have played less than 10 TvZs on this map, maybe 30 games total. It is very different than any form of mech I have played vs Zerg in the last 6 years, so yes I'm going to be a bit slower while I work out the kinks. I think it's WAY too early if you haven't played at least 100 games in a matchup to say that you think you understand any of the real consequences of these changes.
That. Not only for swarm hosts, just for all units for all races. Until maxed, supply doesn't mean anything at all, and at 200/200 it just serves as catch-up feature. Same for upgrades, no need to stop at +3.
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
I have played less than 10 TvZs on this map, maybe 30 games total. It is very different than any form of mech I have played vs Zerg in the last 6 years, so yes I'm going to be a bit slower while I work out the kinks. I think it's WAY too early if you haven't played at least 100 games in a matchup to say that you think you understand any of the real consequences of these changes.
Where you playing with people you knew? Because if you were searching for open games chances are the majority of the games your opponents were also way below your skill level.
On August 20 2016 00:24 ROOTFayth wrote: good job on mentionning the very few players who did not quit haha, want me to list those who quit? it feels like you're being a bit delusional at this point, we all want starcraft 2 to be better, for more people to play it.... you clearly stated you don't give a crap if players don't enjoy the game, what you care about is enjoying watching those games
i've quit playing SC2 at least 30 times in the past 6 years. when i get bored i quit. i don't think there is any magic formula Blizzard can come up with to make me never get bored. People on here make it sound like Blizzard owes them a lifetime of non-stop entertainment because they spent $140. They don't. Taking this attitude i'm a happier player. David Kim does not owe me happiness. That's up to me. For me the game is a hobby and when i get bored i just play something else.
Pros sign on for turning their hobby into a job. If you have a relative in the NHL, MLB, NBA or NFL. Or even in the dNBA, MiLB, or AHL you'll know how that goes. YOu are a piece of meat and a vehicle for the club owners to make cash. Lots and lots of players love their game as a hobby and hate it as a job.
go on national TV and tell the world that you hate your job and all it entails. See how fast you get signed as a free agent after you are fired. A very large # of these pro players bullshit about loving the game and the league. They have to.. their livelihood depends on it.
to all those pros who hate the MLB, NHL, NFL and GSL. "Get a haircut and get a real job". George Thorogood, 1993.
What is it about the new patch that you hate so much?
TvZ is still awkward 25 games in. TvP I'm still finding people to play.
I really hope for a second iteration away from blink DTs and hydra-core armies with porting infestors defending harass for incredible late midgame eco. There's potential here to go in a good direction.
On August 20 2016 03:45 Nathanias wrote: I think it's WAY too early if you haven't played at least 100 games in a matchup to say that you think you understand any of the real consequences of these changes.
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
I have played less than 10 TvZs on this map, maybe 30 games total. It is very different than any form of mech I have played vs Zerg in the last 6 years, so yes I'm going to be a bit slower while I work out the kinks. I think it's WAY too early if you haven't played at least 100 games in a matchup to say that you think you understand any of the real consequences of these changes.
Of course, only time will tell ! It's more a "fear" that I have rather than a prediction. I might be a minority but I really love the game as it is right now, and I have a really bad experience playing, and watching MechVzerg. Maybe turtle play won't be viable at pro level, but if I face it every TvZ in my ladder experience...
On August 20 2016 00:24 ROOTFayth wrote: good job on mentionning the very few players who did not quit haha, want me to list those who quit? it feels like you're being a bit delusional at this point, we all want starcraft 2 to be better, for more people to play it.... you clearly stated you don't give a crap if players don't enjoy the game, what you care about is enjoying watching those games
i've quit playing SC2 at least 30 times in the past 6 years. when i get bored i quit. i don't think there is any magic formula Blizzard can come up with to make me never get bored. People on here make it sound like Blizzard owes them a lifetime of non-stop entertainment because they spent $140. They don't. Taking this attitude i'm a happier player. David Kim does not owe me happiness. That's up to me. For me the game is a hobby and when i get bored i just play something else.
Pros sign on for turning their hobby into a job. If you have a relative in the NHL, MLB, NBA or NFL. Or even in the dNBA, MiLB, or AHL you'll know how that goes. YOu are a piece of meat and a vehicle for the club owners to make cash. Lots and lots of players love their game as a hobby and hate it as a job.
go on national TV and tell the world that you hate your job and all it entails. See how fast you get signed as a free agent after you are fired. A very large # of these pro players bullshit about loving the game and the league. They have to.. their livelihood depends on it.
to all those pros who hate the MLB, NHL, NFL and GSL. "Get a haircut and get a real job". George Thorogood, 1993.
What is it about the new patch that you hate so much?
i'm happy with it... and i'm happy with the non-ladder things they've done as well.
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
I have played less than 10 TvZs on this map, maybe 30 games total. It is very different than any form of mech I have played vs Zerg in the last 6 years, so yes I'm going to be a bit slower while I work out the kinks. I think it's WAY too early if you haven't played at least 100 games in a matchup to say that you think you understand any of the real consequences of these changes.
Of course, only time will tell ! It's more a "fear" that I have rather than a prediction. I might be a minority but I really love the game as it is right now, and I have a really bad experience playing, and watching MechVzerg. Maybe turtle play won't be viable at pro level, but if I face it every TvZ in my ladder experience...
Watch some ZvT late game BW to see what mech can be if done correct.
how many jobs out there can you really enjoy? Not many. How many people have time for hobbies? Not many. Id say something you can simply put up with is plenty for a profession.
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
I have played less than 10 TvZs on this map, maybe 30 games total. It is very different than any form of mech I have played vs Zerg in the last 6 years, so yes I'm going to be a bit slower while I work out the kinks. I think it's WAY too early if you haven't played at least 100 games in a matchup to say that you think you understand any of the real consequences of these changes.
Of course, only time will tell ! It's more a "fear" that I have rather than a prediction. I might be a minority but I really love the game as it is right now, and I have a really bad experience playing, and watching MechVzerg. Maybe turtle play won't be viable at pro level, but if I face it every TvZ in my ladder experience...
Watch some ZvT late game BW to see what mech can be if done correct.
BW is completely another game, with other units, other stats, other IA, other UI, other pathing. I find it irrelevant to compare it to Starcraft2.
On August 17 2016 16:43 Vanadiel wrote: I did watched nathanias stream for a bit, in one in particular he did not crossed the map once in the first 12 minutes and had 6 or 7 CCs, while the Zerg could not do anything against it and had no hope to put pressure. Roach seemed completely useless and hydra / infestor while hoping for good neural parasite seemed to be the only non Hive tech to survive when the mech army push. In general I try to keep an open mind and hope to be proven wrong, but it was a lot of turtle and boring play to me.
I have played less than 10 TvZs on this map, maybe 30 games total. It is very different than any form of mech I have played vs Zerg in the last 6 years, so yes I'm going to be a bit slower while I work out the kinks. I think it's WAY too early if you haven't played at least 100 games in a matchup to say that you think you understand any of the real consequences of these changes.
Of course, only time will tell ! It's more a "fear" that I have rather than a prediction. I might be a minority but I really love the game as it is right now, and I have a really bad experience playing, and watching MechVzerg. Maybe turtle play won't be viable at pro level, but if I face it every TvZ in my ladder experience...
Watch some ZvT late game BW to see what mech can be if done correct.
BW is completely another game, with other units, other stats, other IA, other UI, other pathing. I find it irrelevant to compare it to Starcraft2.
You can get a sense of what positional units can be if the game is designed correctly. Also if you think pathing is what makes positional play with lots of army trading viable your very wrong. You watch other games, you figure out the differences and try and identify the factors that makes for a better/worse gameplay.
That's how you get better at understanding game design. Just saying "X is different, therefore we cannot learn from it in anyway" is pretty dumb.
Well...they took the risk to make this sc2 feels unique from BW but didn't work out too well. I agree mechanics of this game need address but don't make it looks like BW ver 2
Stalker Blink and Adept shade need to be taken a look at. When you can ignore proper army positioning without any drawback or costs, it violates one of the most fundamental principles of RTS games.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
Except its the wrong kind of hard and it spews into volatility. When you have so much freely available damage the game stops becoming a game about who can consistently control his units best and more about who doesn't have a 1 second lapse in concentration that leads to the loss of his game.
Its not normal for entire economies or armies to be vaporized in seconds, it makes the game too volatile. Slowing down the game by reducing damage numbers in some way will actually benefit the game because:
1st The better player will lose less in those small intervals where their concentration falters. 2nd The better player will have less of those moments of inattention. 3rd The better player, will have more time to recover in the long run.
Adding more abilities to all units is also not a very interesting way to make the game harder, it just promotes more spamming on the units itself instead of more interesting micro like pulling back weakened units, splitting, stutter-stepping, dodging etc.
I agree that the game should be hard, but this isn't the right way to do it.
Edit: And don't tell me the pros don't have lapses in concentration and moments where they make mistakes, that's not a valid argument since they are still humans, they make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.
And as proof when a mistake happens at the pro level and its expertly punished we get those sort of games that end anticlimactically after one major battle or successful harass.
There is no such thing as the 'wrong kind of hard'. Hard is just a relative position on a spectrum that starts from easy and ends in near impossible.
This '1 second lapse' pushes SC2 into the boundaries of very hard. However, your opponent is also within the same boundaries. You also have the same opportunity to vaporize his army or economy. Slowing the game down only serves to place the game within the easier spectrum.
I agree that if a game is placed on the harder end of the spectrum, things can get a little more volatile, but its this volatility that will separate the better player from the best of the best. All that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd means that the better player will be harder to discern. If we slow down the game or reduce the damage output, all we are doing is making the game easier. If its easier, player skill level will normalize.
Yes pros make mistakes and they are punished, but there are pros that recover from the mistakes and end up winning the battle. These games are the greatest to watch, and I want SC2 to create more of those players and games. Sure many games end up anticlimactic due to a small mistake that snowballed.
Wrong! Because of how fast paced SC2 and punishing the game is the better player doesn't always win because he isn't afforded a chance to come back. That 1 moment of intention where you lose your economy or army is all that it takes.
Its the same thing as forcing players to play a BO1 style format, we can all agree that its volatile, boring and there isn't actually much skill to it as you could potentially have the reigning champion knocked out just because of 1 weird cheese.
You also severely underestimate what kind of an impact slowing the game down will have, instead of making the game easier, quite the opposite will happen, the game will become harder.
Think about it, if combat takes longer, players have a bit more time to do more of everything else, harass, macro, etc.
Since combat is slower now, economies don't die as fast to a single or small groups of units.
Since the economy is now more resilient, to be able to gain the benefits of one attack you should, perhaps do many more attacks across multiple bases.
Since the combat is slower you now have more time to do more multi-pronged attacks/harass.
Since the combat is slower, your adversary also has more time to do more multi-pronged harass and defense.
And that's how a perfect little dance of micro, macro and multi-tasking occurs.
If the pacing is done just right, no one move is enough to kill one player and it takes several fights worth to do it.
SC2's pacing now is just wrong since the fate of either player can be decided in 1 second, where as in a game like Warhammer Dawn of War 2, or BW or Company of Heroes, the game gives the player time to recover.
as good as cyclone changes look, more and more I play balance test map, it doesn't really feel like it adds anything and that it actually isnt that good
it nigh unmicroable with its 0.07 attack, scales ridiculously hard with upgrade, even more so than BC, and while it does heavy damage vs ground armored (stalkers in particular), it doesnt really excell at anything else.
Making double cyclone with reactor vs protoss is death sentence as 2 cyclones cannot kill oracle even if reacted as soon as you can and is a huge investment early on. It also doesn't trade well vs adepts, which is big problem when you are going tank mech vs protoss (because shading on top of tanks) and it rather gets destroyed by adepts, especially with new redesign
I mean, does mech need another stationary anti-armor unit?
Not only that, heavy armor damage is a role already filled with tank. What mech really lacks is anti air and I feel like cyclone should be able to fill in that instead. Nerf its ground and make it bit more mediocre and give it a good anti-air is my idea, especially with blizzard pushing viper-hydra style with new zerg vs mech and carriers.
I'm extremely skeptical that David Kim will let any of these changes pass. Last time he promised a siege tank buff, it was completely scrapped.
I feel like this is just a publicity stunt to generate hype for the game, and then once the patch day comes, we get extremely watered down versions of these changes that make almost no difference to core designs.
The main problem i see with the cyclone is that it was filling a role that mech really needed : the ability to chase an army and force an engage. If you had a mech army and you win a fight, if the ennemy starts to back you can unsiege and lock on with cyclones to assure the destruction of some of the units running away. You can also, with the lock, lure an ennemy into siege tank fire. Also, because mech is so suceptible to fake engages, forcing tank siege and slowing down a move out, the cyclone was very cool because it punished reckless fake engages by assuring some damage. Stalkers moving in, sniping a tank or two, then blink out as soon as the tanks start to siege? A scan allowed the cyclones to lock and kill as much stalkers as they are cyclones to punish this kind of strategy.
What i would like to see for the cyclone : - little better movespeed - AG toned down from 3+3 every 0,07 secs (42/84 dps) to 3+1 every 0,07 seconds (42/56 dps) - lock is able to target air and ground, and deals 200 dmg in 10 seconds (20 dps)
This way, auto attack would be better for fights, but against air, and to chase ennemy units, you could lock on. Because the auto attack is so crappy as a chase option (because it's very fast, it requires the unit to stand still so exploit the full dps), lock on would allow the cyclone to deal less than half its dps in exchange for some chasing power.
On August 20 2016 15:50 jinjin5000 wrote: as good as cyclone changes look, more and more I play balance test map, it doesn't really feel like it adds anything and that it actually isnt that good
it nigh unmicroable with its 0.07 attack, scales ridiculously hard with upgrade, even more so than BC, and while it does heavy damage vs ground armored (stalkers in particular), it doesnt really excell at anything else.
Making double cyclone with reactor vs protoss is death sentence as 2 cyclones cannot kill oracle even if reacted as soon as you can and is a huge investment early on. It also doesn't trade well vs adepts, which is big problem when you are going tank mech vs protoss (because shading on top of tanks) and it rather gets destroyed by adepts, especially with new redesign
I mean, does mech need another stationary anti-armor unit?
Not only that, heavy armor damage is a role already filled with tank. What mech really lacks is anti air and I feel like cyclone should be able to fill in that instead. Nerf its ground and make it bit more mediocre and give it a good anti-air is my idea, especially with blizzard pushing viper-hydra style with new zerg vs mech and carriers.
No,cyclone's design is fine it just needs more tweak to be able to fight better against adepts.Watching avilo gets rekt left and right by adepts and cyclones take 4ever to kill them,he couldn't do anything outside the map and let protss take the whole map.I think mech really needs an answer for protoss's most common harrassment.Zealot should be the only unit can counter cyclones alone and sentry+ immortal/archon are key units can gain cost effect trade against non-tank mech army. About protoss tier 3 counter,they should let BCs do the job cause its awesome as fuck and for the first time bcs have a role versus protoss. And due to tier 3's clunkiness.Both terran and protoss need ground army anyway to defend against harrasment.
On August 19 2016 11:44 TT1 wrote: SC2 failed because theres too much shit going on in the game, theres way too many units and way too many abilities. WoL was the most successful version of the game because it was simple, there were fewer units, fewer activatable abilities etc. These future changes follow the same balance philosophy, don't expect anything to change.
If they really wanted to fix the game they'd have to do something about warpprism warpins (maybe even warpins in general), speedvacs etc. The pace of the game needs to be slowed down, theres alot of different ways that could be achieved.
Here is my interpretation:
I want SC2 with less stuff going on, less units to manage, and less abilities. I think WoL was successful because it was not complicated. I want it to be easier. Its too fast to play. I can't adapt to change.
I'm not being rude, and I respect your opinion, but when I read your comment it feels like you want the game to be easier. I have to totally disagree with you. SC2 should be harder. There should be units with great impact to the game. There should be abilities that are meaningful and fun to use. It should stretch your ability to manage and pay attention to everything on the map. Reaching the skill ceiling should be incredibly difficult, nay near impossible.
I feel this will result in exciting battles with awesome comebacks.
Of course this is coming from a spectator. I would imagine from a pro player this is not something to look forward to. Akin to if NFL decided the field should be 200 yards long.
Except its the wrong kind of hard and it spews into volatility. When you have so much freely available damage the game stops becoming a game about who can consistently control his units best and more about who doesn't have a 1 second lapse in concentration that leads to the loss of his game.
Its not normal for entire economies or armies to be vaporized in seconds, it makes the game too volatile. Slowing down the game by reducing damage numbers in some way will actually benefit the game because:
1st The better player will lose less in those small intervals where their concentration falters. 2nd The better player will have less of those moments of inattention. 3rd The better player, will have more time to recover in the long run.
Adding more abilities to all units is also not a very interesting way to make the game harder, it just promotes more spamming on the units itself instead of more interesting micro like pulling back weakened units, splitting, stutter-stepping, dodging etc.
I agree that the game should be hard, but this isn't the right way to do it.
Edit: And don't tell me the pros don't have lapses in concentration and moments where they make mistakes, that's not a valid argument since they are still humans, they make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.
And as proof when a mistake happens at the pro level and its expertly punished we get those sort of games that end anticlimactically after one major battle or successful harass.
There is no such thing as the 'wrong kind of hard'. Hard is just a relative position on a spectrum that starts from easy and ends in near impossible.
This '1 second lapse' pushes SC2 into the boundaries of very hard. However, your opponent is also within the same boundaries. You also have the same opportunity to vaporize his army or economy. Slowing the game down only serves to place the game within the easier spectrum.
I agree that if a game is placed on the harder end of the spectrum, things can get a little more volatile, but its this volatility that will separate the better player from the best of the best. All that 1st, 2nd, and 3rd means that the better player will be harder to discern. If we slow down the game or reduce the damage output, all we are doing is making the game easier. If its easier, player skill level will normalize.
Yes pros make mistakes and they are punished, but there are pros that recover from the mistakes and end up winning the battle. These games are the greatest to watch, and I want SC2 to create more of those players and games. Sure many games end up anticlimactic due to a small mistake that snowballed.
Wrong! Because of how fast paced SC2 and punishing the game is the better player doesn't always win because he isn't afforded a chance to come back. That 1 moment of intention where you lose your economy or army is all that it takes.
Its the same thing as forcing players to play a BO1 style format, we can all agree that its volatile, boring and there isn't actually much skill to it as you could potentially have the reigning champion knocked out just because of 1 weird cheese.
You also severely underestimate what kind of an impact slowing the game down will have, instead of making the game easier, quite the opposite will happen, the game will become harder.
Think about it, if combat takes longer, players have a bit more time to do more of everything else, harass, macro, etc.
Since combat is slower now, economies don't die as fast to a single or small groups of units.
Since the economy is now more resilient, to be able to gain the benefits of one attack you should, perhaps do many more attacks across multiple bases.
Since the combat is slower you now have more time to do more multi-pronged attacks/harass.
Since the combat is slower, your adversary also has more time to do more multi-pronged harass and defense.
And that's how a perfect little dance of micro, macro and multi-tasking occurs.
If the pacing is done just right, no one move is enough to kill one player and it takes several fights worth to do it.
SC2's pacing now is just wrong since the fate of either player can be decided in 1 second, where as in a game like Warhammer Dawn of War 2, or BW or Company of Heroes, the game gives the player time to recover.
The better player shouldn't always win though, unless of course they are leagues better. The better player should win majority of the time, and the larger the skill discrepancy the more they should win.
Is SC2 too fast? Perhaps it is, but its designed that way to force mistakes. Mistakes need to happen for the game to be competitive. If we slow it down, less mistakes will occur. If less mistakes occur, it will be an easier game.
I get your point. You want the pace slowed down enough so players have more time to do things. But that just isn't SC2. Its a fast paced game that requires all your attention; split second reaction; and quick decision making. That will truly separate the good from the great.
Slowing down the game only serves to normalize skill level and lowers skill ceiling, thus making it easier to play, and harder to discern the better player.
Honestly, I don't play SC2 anymore. I quit because it's too hard to play. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed playing it, and occasionally will boot it up. Its just not the game for me.
However, I truly love watching it. I am in awe of Innovation, MC, Neeb, Scarlett, Bomber, etc. They continually amaze me with their impeccable timing, quick decision-making, fast reaction time. I don't want SC2 to be slower just because it will be easier for me to play the game. I want it harder so the truly great can rise from the mediocre and show me awesome games.
This is the same discussion I had with someone else on this thread, and we are viewing SC2 from different lenses. You want it slower as a player. You want to have more time to do things. You don't want to lose your army because you had to scratch your head. You can't accept the truth though. A slower game is an easier game overall.
I like the pace of SC2. I like how hard it is to play, because I enjoy watching the pros do it.
And don't give me the bullshit argument that players will quit if its too hard. If that were the case, SC2 would truly be a dead game. But it isn't. Its still surviving, with many people that love the challenge it offers.
If SC2 is too hard for you, I suggest you just quit also. Start enjoying the pros play. However, if you truly want to continue playing, quit worrying about the pace of the game.
I agree that the cyclone looks good on paper. But after a decent number of games I played, I have to say its bad in almost every aspect. Its an expensive 150/100 resources for decent damage output on armored units. anything else is just bad on this unit. Its clumping, slow and has not good dps on its cast. It can be reactored but this is not affordable is a way to get out good supporting units.
The old hots marauder, was for 100/25 much better. I played a tvz today. 5 cyclones kill a hatchery faster than the queen standing beside this hatchery.... its rediculus.
I was thinking about some nice synergies with hellions, marines, vikings or hellbats and tanks. You die to quickly to mutas. One cannot afford thors while building some cyclones and liberators suck now against mutas.
What I don't think you are grasping as a concept is that SC2 is a game above all else. Sure, it's a spectator's esport and more people probably watch than play. But that sort of environment has a limited shelf life. Once current pros that you claim everyone should enjoy spectating retire due to lack of funding/popularity of events, the professional scene will in theory die because new pros are so few and far between. In order to successfully sustain and nurture growth at all levels, especially the professional level, the game needs to be more accessible and less punishing.
Your arguments against changing the pace of the game are misguided as well. While you say the game would be "easier", I argue the opposite. While you say the better player shouldn't win every time, sure that's not a realistic expectation, but a better player should not be brutally punished by one misplay, where the game should promote and reward a higher ratio of good plays vs. Bad plays. A better player will essentially have less bad plays than good, thus rewarding them and putting them in a better place in the long run as a game/series goes on.
Changing the pace of the game will also allow better players differentiate themselves from others through deeper aspects of macro, micro, and harass. Slowing the game down even slightly will provide opportunities for players to locate weaknesses before, during, and after battles, as well as allow a player who loses a certain battle or takes heavy damage to come up with a way to mitigate their current resources to accommodate.
For example, let's take a 200 vs 200 battle between a Terran and Protoss. In the current state of the game, all focus basically needs to be on the battle for the terran or they lose. They need to focus on things like EMP, viking target fire on colossus/tempests, Bio stutter step, storm dodging, concaving, etc. That is a lot to do in the 1 sec it takes to decide the battle. If you take that one sec and slow the pace down by .25 (exemplifying a 25% damage or speed reduction of the game) that allows a better player to find weaknesses and even use their other aspects of the game to take advantage (expand, backstab, reinforce, etc). While that .25 seconds in the moment might not seem to be much, that .25 sec over time allows for both players to use their skills to attack in different locations, micro, and test their skills. From the Protoss perspective, this allows for more micro in stalker blinks, Templar splitting/storms, tempest spreading/targeting, and colossus target fire and pulling back the ones weakened by the Viking target fire, while at the same time also allows for macro opportunities like chronoboost (imo they should bring back old chrono) as well as warp prism harass, DT harass, etc.
This sort of dynamic will stray the game away from "whoever wins the big battle wins the whole game" and brings it more towards "okay player A won the battle but player B took advantage through macro and harass so Player A can try to go for an attack and potentially lose to the defense, thus putting them slightly behind thus player B is still in the game". More opportunities for a player to use every mechance available to them at any given point will differentiate themselves.
The current iteration of SC2 and it's battles are severely underwhelming to play, and allowing for even a shred more variety/opportunity for the main aspects of the game (macro, micro, harass) will only make the game more fun to play. And if the game is more fun to play, more players will stay, more good players will arose, and the game will experience innovations similar to BW. The more eyes/minds that are working with the game, the more potential depth can be found within the game. And that can ONLY be done through experimentation, not through spectating or theorycrafting.
Personally, here are the changes I'd make to the game.
General:
To encourage active scouting and flanking, vision ranges have been reduced for all units across the board.
All mining bases will now have six 2000 mineral nodes, and two 750 mineral nodes. This means that bases will take longer to mine out, but you will mine from them less efficiently, encouraging additional bases without punishing turtle or defensive strategies as hard.
Terran:
Orbital Command:
Calldown MULE has been removed.
NEW ABILITY: SCV Drop. For 50 Energy and 1 Supply, you can drop a free SCV at any location where you have vision.
Yes, this is basically the ability that Terran has in Starbow, minus the additional 50 Mineral cost. It will allow Terran to more easily make proxy buildings later in the game and up their worker counts in a more unique way. Let's face it, MULEs are stupidly broken value for money and discourage scan usage because of how much value they give.
Reaper:
Can now see up cliffs from lower ground.
Now requires a Tech Lab to produce.
NEW ABILITY: Stagger - The Reaper does not take direct damage from attacks, but will instead stagger the damage from any weapon or spell hit it takes. The Reaper now takes 9 damage over 3 seconds whenever it is struck by an attack or spell. This effect stacks.
Combat Drugs now trigger whenever the Reaper is not staggering damage.
KD8 Charge has been removed.
The Reaper has been redesigned as a scout unit, designed to scout enemy bases and positions. While they lose their ability to drop KD8 Charges, they can now see up cliffs. In addition, Adrenaline will allow them to shrug off powerful hits, i.e. siege tank fire, while still making them vulnerable to fast hitting units or large armies.
Siege Tank
Attack cooldown in Siege Mode increased to 3.15 seconds, from 2.
Now deals 35 (+35 vs Armored) damage in Siege Mode.
Now costs 2 Supply, 150 Minerals and 100 Gas.
Will now revert to Tank Mode if picked up while in Siege Mode.
This change to the Siege Tank still allows players to micro tanks out of danger, but will prevent the Siegeivac drop strategies you'd normally see in every TvX game.
The supply, attack speed and gas cost reductions are also to bring the Siege Tank in line with its Brood War counterpart.
Widow Mine
Removed from the game
The Widow Mine is a rather broken idea for a unit. On one hand, it heavily punishes players into build order losses for not having detection, while on the other hand, it's practically replaced the Siege Tank in most aspects. Instead, I'd like to bring back an old unit into the game...
Hellion/Hellbat
Infernal Pre-Igniter has been removed.
Hellbats no longer require an Armory to produce or morph.
NEW ABILITY: Spider Mine - Hellions can now drop Spider Mines, which will burrow into the ground and target nearby ground units (excluding workers) and explode. Hellions can hold a maximum of 3, and can construct more for 25 Minerals at a time.
NEW UPGRADE: Neosteel Shielding - Hellbats gain +3 Armor. Costs 150 Minerals and 150 Gas to research.
Removing Infernal Pre-Igniter in favour of bringing back Spider Mines is a good thing for the late game usefulness of this unit. In addition, the ability to morph into a Hellbat and gain an extra 3 Armor will help them perform the same function that Firebats did back in Brood War.
Medivac
Ignite Afterburners has been removed.
This change is necessary. There were no problems with the viability of drop strategies back in Brood War or Wings of Liberty, because players generally relied on both the element of surprise and outmultitasking their opponent to make their drops work.
Stimivacs and the mobility they give to Terran aggressive plays are simply too overpowered, to the point where units such as Blink Stalkers and the Mothership Core are mandatory just to survive against them.
Cyclone
Now costs 125 Minerals and 50 Gas to produce.
No longer requires a Tech Lab to produce.
Now deals 6 damage (down from 18 damage)
Can only target ground units with its weapon attack.
Lock On can now only target air units, and deals 14 damage per second (affected by weapon upgrades and armor) to its target until it either dies or moves out of range.
Cyclones have been redesigned as a Mech anti-air unit, because Terran needs a worthy successor to the Goliath.
Raven
Seeker Missiles will no longer fizzle out if the target moves beyond 13 range of the projectile.
Seeker Missile now costs 75 Energy, down from 125.
Seeker Missiles move 25% faster, and take less time to lock on.
Unlike Irradiate, Seeker Missile is a shit tier, underpowered ability that is almost impossible to successfully land on any players with competent micro. By preventing the projectile from fizzling out, this will now force players to micro and split their units to minimise the amount of damage that Seeker Missile's splash can do.
Also, reducing the cost to 75 Energy puts it in-line with more reliable splash damage abilities like Psionic Storm and Fungal Growth.
This change also allows the Raven to be useful alongside bio forces, creating an SC2 equivalent to SK Terran.
Ghost:
Steady Targeting can now target all units, not just Biological.
Steady Targeting now has a range of 12, up from 10.
This change makes Steady Targeting easier to aim and makes the Ghost feel more like a sniper. It allows them to slowly pick off siege tank lines in the blind spot between the Siege Tank's vision range and maximum attack range.
Also, being unable to snipe non-biological units like the Archon, Thor, Battlecruiser and Siege Tank is quite bullshit. Do any of you recall Yoko Litner from Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann going up against huge mecha robots?
Protoss:
Sentry
Forcefield has been removed
NEW ABILITY: Shield Battery - Restore 40 Shields to all units within the targeted area. 9 range, 25 Energy.
Forcefields either broke the game outright, or were useless in the case where Ravagers or any Massive unit existed. So I thought... let's bring back shield regeneration, since it's led to so many sick plays back in Brood War.
Dark Templar
Dark Templar can now use Blink (when researched from the Twilight Council.)
Dark Templar now temporarily de-cloak for 4 seconds after attacking.
Dark Templar are now Detectors, and can see cloaked units.
The Dark Templar is too much of an all-in unit. It lacks mobility or any form of escape cooldown, but at the same time its permanent cloaking abilities lead to cheap build order losses. It's one of those units that either wrecks when detection isn't out, or is useless when detection is out.
By giving them Blink for increased mobility, but at the same time de-cloaking them when they attack to allow players without detection to fight against them, two major flaws with the unit have been fixed.
Making them Detectors also increase their scouting capabilities, which is only a good thing for Protoss.
Archon
Is now an Armored unit.
There is no reason for the Archon to not be considered Armored. Back in Brood War, it was considered a Large unit, and therefore took full damage from units that did explosive damage, like Siege Tanks.
In SC2, this isn't the case, and the Archon currently takes 11 hits to kill, unlike the 6 it took in BW. This needed to change.
Carrier
Release Interceptors has been removed.
Release Interceptors was too powerful as an ability, but at the same time Carriers do not deserve a cost reduction to spawning Interceptors, because they're already a good unit.
Adept
Shields reduced to 60, from 70.
The Adept is currently one of the most ridiculously powerful units in the game. In almost every single matchup, it has replaced the Zealot for its increased mobility, its status as a ranged unit, and its equal amount of effective HP. Hence, the Adept needs a survivability nerf in order to make the Zealot relevant again.
Warp Prism
Can no longer pick up units from range.
This is another one of those necessary dropship changes. Drop aggression needs to be nerfed across the board, and where better to continue addressing this issue than with a nerf to the Warp Prism.
Tempest
Supply cost increased to 6, from 4.
Attack range reduced to 12, from 15.
All the Tempest really needs is a supply cost increase, and a significant attack range reduction. It doesn't need a splash damage ability that outclasses Psionic Storm in almost every single way.
Colossus
Is no longer considered an Air unit, and therefore cannot be hit by anti-air attacks.
Base range increased to 9, from 6.
Movement speed reduced to 0.75, from 3.15
Now deals 18 (+17 vs Armored) x2 damage.
Attack cooldown increased to 3.7 seconds, from 1.07
The Colossus has been overhauled into a long range Siege unit. Its weapon now has a longer range that almost compares to the Siege Tank with a max range of 12 when upgraded. However, it now moves much more slowly, requiring a Warp Prism to effectively micro it, just like how Reaver/Shuttle micro was so integral to Brood War. This also allows Colossus to be shut down more easily with flanks.
Disruptor
Removed from the game.
With the Colossus now performing its role as a long range, immobile siege unit, the Disruptor is no longer needed.
Zerg:
Queen
Ground attack range reduced to 3, from 5.
Air attack range reduced to 7, from 8.
The attack range increases to the Queen back in Wings of Liberty and more recently in Legacy of the Void have outright broken the balance of the game.
If anybody recalled the Patch 1.4.3 Balance Update, the Queen change alone single-handedly broke Wings of Liberty and turned the meta into a zerg-dominated mess which Blizzard didn't even address until Heart of the Swarm. You could hold virtually all aggressive builds with just Queens - and therefore no larvae or gas commitment to units - alone while you mass produced drones, got to 3 bases, and then teched into an unstoppable Infestor Brood Lord army by the 14 minute mark.
The same goes for the Queen's ability to attack air units. With dropships becoming less powerful, there is no reason for the Queen to have 8 air attack range. It just kills build diversity.
Infestor
Fungal Growth's damage has been increased to 36 (+12 vs Armored) damage over 3 seconds.
Fungal Growth's projectile now moves 10% more slowly
Neural Parasite can now be used while burrowed.
This change accomplishes two things. Firstly, it increases the Infestor's DPS to 12 (or 16 vs Armored units) and makes the Infestor better overall while simultaneously making Fungal Growth a bit easier to (partially) dodge. It is also a reversal of a previous Wings of Liberty nerf back when Fungal Growth was instant and not projectile-based.
Secondly, it makes Neural Parasite relevant again by allowing players to use it while burrowed, adding an element of surprise that only detection can counter.
Ravager
Now considered an Armored unit.
Corrosive Bile damage has been reduced to 40 (+30 vs Biological)
The damage of Corrosive Bile is already too damn high against everything other than Lurkers - and with Ravagers now becoming Armored, the Lurker is going to make mincemeat of it even more.
Therefore, the damage of Corrosive Bile has been reduced against everything except for Biological units. For Bio units, they actually deal 10 more damage, making the Ravager a more effective soft-counter against Lurkers.
Hydralisk
Ground and air attack deals +2 damage to Biological units.
Now moves faster on and off creep when Muscular Augments has been researched.
This change improves the effectiveness of Hydralisks against Terran Bio (where Roach Hydra Ravager already gets crushed), against Zealots, against Adepts, and against Mutalisks. It also makes them more relevant in ZvZ.
Ultralisk
Chitinous Plating now increases Ultralisk armor by 2, down from 4.
I'm sorry but this change is absolutely necessary because of the complete lack of damage that Terran bio does to the Ultralisk.
Overlord
Mutate Ventral Sacs now requires a Lair.
Allowing Zerg to perform drops with a scouting Overlord without a commitment into Lair tech is stupid game design. This is also another one of the changes designed to rein in a harassment-heavy meta.
Changing the pace of the game will also allow better players differentiate themselves from others through deeper aspects of macro, micro, and harass. Slowing the game down even slightly will provide opportunities for players to locate weaknesses before, during, and after battles, as well as allow a player who loses a certain battle or takes heavy damage to come up with a way to mitigate their current resources to accommodate.
It will still be too fast for some player, so its an endless problem, if you want more time to think you can play turn base games.
I like the speed of the game in lotv as it allows you to play way more games.
I think the game lack of players due to the fact it is label as hard but there is not so much contents up to date .
Also players needs to get in a totally different mindsets than other games : you have to accept you will "loose" a lot, while its not really "loosing" its learning something you didnt know.
You have to not care about your rank, you have to accept there is a lot of people above you that will beat you with no chance for you to win until you learn more.
The rewarding thing of sc2 is learning and then progressing. Thats why I like this new pace, you have a lot more time outside of the game to learn. Pro games are faster, you can check your replay faster etc... it produce a lot more of experiences to learn.
But this is absolutely not taught to new players. Instead People are obsessed with ranks and playing macro games like pro when their early game is bad.
Also an important thing to learn to new players is, even if you have a main races you should learn the other races to play better against them.
The adept's ridiculous strength is showing itself more and more. Insane mobility, insane damage vs light coupled with insane sturdiness. You can do things with mass adept that just shouldn't be possible for the cost. If anything should be nerfed, it is the adept. I've never liked it, and I hate how it practically has replaced the zealot. It is just way too beefy for the way it functions. In terms of both balance and design, it needs a serious health/shield nerf.
With a significant nerf to health, I wouldn't even mind a buff to the shade ability. Just to make it so that it can be an effective harassment tool if left unhindered, but slaughtered if met with combat units or similar cost.
On August 21 2016 01:12 vult wrote: What I don't think you are grasping as a concept is that SC2 is a game above all else. Sure, it's a spectator's esport and more people probably watch than play. But that sort of environment has a limited shelf life. Once current pros that you claim everyone should enjoy spectating retire due to lack of funding/popularity of events, the professional scene will in theory die because new pros are so few and far between. In order to successfully sustain and nurture growth at all levels, especially the professional level, the game needs to be more accessible and less punishing.
Your arguments against changing the pace of the game are misguided as well. While you say the game would be "easier", I argue the opposite. While you say the better player shouldn't win every time, sure that's not a realistic expectation, but a better player should not be brutally punished by one misplay, where the game should promote and reward a higher ratio of good plays vs. Bad plays. A better player will essentially have less bad plays than good, thus rewarding them and putting them in a better place in the long run as a game/series goes on.
Changing the pace of the game will also allow better players differentiate themselves from others through deeper aspects of macro, micro, and harass. Slowing the game down even slightly will provide opportunities for players to locate weaknesses before, during, and after battles, as well as allow a player who loses a certain battle or takes heavy damage to come up with a way to mitigate their current resources to accommodate.
For example, let's take a 200 vs 200 battle between a Terran and Protoss. In the current state of the game, all focus basically needs to be on the battle for the terran or they lose. They need to focus on things like EMP, viking target fire on colossus/tempests, Bio stutter step, storm dodging, concaving, etc. That is a lot to do in the 1 sec it takes to decide the battle. If you take that one sec and slow the pace down by .25 (exemplifying a 25% damage or speed reduction of the game) that allows a better player to find weaknesses and even use their other aspects of the game to take advantage (expand, backstab, reinforce, etc). While that .25 seconds in the moment might not seem to be much, that .25 sec over time allows for both players to use their skills to attack in different locations, micro, and test their skills. From the Protoss perspective, this allows for more micro in stalker blinks, Templar splitting/storms, tempest spreading/targeting, and colossus target fire and pulling back the ones weakened by the Viking target fire, while at the same time also allows for macro opportunities like chronoboost (imo they should bring back old chrono) as well as warp prism harass, DT harass, etc.
This sort of dynamic will stray the game away from "whoever wins the big battle wins the whole game" and brings it more towards "okay player A won the battle but player B took advantage through macro and harass so Player A can try to go for an attack and potentially lose to the defense, thus putting them slightly behind thus player B is still in the game". More opportunities for a player to use every mechance available to them at any given point will differentiate themselves.
The current iteration of SC2 and it's battles are severely underwhelming to play, and allowing for even a shred more variety/opportunity for the main aspects of the game (macro, micro, harass) will only make the game more fun to play. And if the game is more fun to play, more players will stay, more good players will arose, and the game will experience innovations similar to BW. The more eyes/minds that are working with the game, the more potential depth can be found within the game. And that can ONLY be done through experimentation, not through spectating or theorycrafting.
what? no mention of the lib? Watch any recent TvP whether korean or foreign and tell me that this unit is fine.
There is no reason for the Archon to not be considered Armored. Back in Brood War, it was considered a Large unit, and therefore took full damage from units that did explosive damage, like Siege Tanks.
In SC2, this isn't the case, and the Archon currently takes 11 hits to kill, unlike the 6 it took in BW. This needed to change.
Only if archons will get 53% attack speed buff to match their SC1 counterparts. Blizzard massively nerfed their attack speed in SC2. Instead they got extra durability due to lack of armor type so they could absorb more damage, but overall archons in SC1 were better.
On August 20 2016 11:50 Destructicon wrote: SC2's pacing now is just wrong since the fate of either player can be decided in 1 second, where as in a game like Warhammer Dawn of War 2, or BW or Company of Heroes, the game gives the player time to recover.
interesting that you characterize SC2 pacing as "wrong". in my view .. it simply "is". like a bishop moves diagonally on a chess board.
the gods at Blizzard have made their decisions on what SC2 will be. DK announced no drastic changes. It appears my strategy for dealing with SC2 pacing for the past 5 years has been more effective than providing "feedback" to the SC2 team.
Here is my 3 point solution.
when i'm in the mood for a faster pace than SC2 i play RA3. when i'm in the mood for a slower paced game i play Company of Heroes 1. when i'm in the mood for an SC2 paced game i play SC2.
RA3, CoH1, and SC2 all have a slightly different slant on RTS. I prefer the variety and I'm glad DK is going to keep SC2 exactly where it is as far as pacing goes. Furthermore, i'm glad LotV is substantially different economy-wise than HotS. This offers consumers further choice.
i'm all about having multiple choices because i can pick the game that suits my mood of the day.
if you're in the mood to play a game paced like Brood War or CoH1 .. why not just play those games? they're fun.
On August 20 2016 11:50 Destructicon wrote: SC2's pacing now is just wrong since the fate of either player can be decided in 1 second, where as in a game like Warhammer Dawn of War 2, or BW or Company of Heroes, the game gives the player time to recover.
interesting that you characterize SC2 pacing as "wrong". in my view .. it simply "is". like a bishop moves diagonally on a chess board.
the gods at Blizzard have made their decisions on what SC2 will be. DK announced no drastic changes. It appears my strategy for dealing with SC2 pacing for the past 5 years has been more effective than providing "feedback" to the SC2 team.
Here is my 3 point solution.
when i'm in the mood for a faster pace than SC2 i play RA3. when i'm in the mood for a slower paced game i play Company of Heroes 1. when i'm in the mood for an SC2 paced game i play SC2.
RA3, CoH1, and SC2 all have a slightly different slant on RTS. I prefer the variety and I'm glad DK is going to keep SC2 exactly where it is as far as pacing goes. Furthermore, i'm glad LotV is substantially different economy-wise than HotS. This offers consumers further choice.
i'm all about having multiple choices because i can pick the game that suits my mood of the day.
if you're in the mood to play a game paced like Brood War or CoH1 .. why not just play those games? they're fun.
Thank you JJR. That's the point I was hoping to get across. Blizz designed SC2, it was their intention for the pace to be exactly what it is. If people don't like it, don't play SC2.
Changing the pace of the game will also allow better players differentiate themselves from others through deeper aspects of macro, micro, and harass. Slowing the game down even slightly will provide opportunities for players to locate weaknesses before, during, and after battles, as well as allow a player who loses a certain battle or takes heavy damage to come up with a way to mitigate their current resources to accommodate.
It will still be too fast for some player, so its an endless problem, if you want more time to think you can play turn base games.
I like the speed of the game in lotv as it allows you to play way more games.
I think the game lack of players due to the fact it is label as hard but there is not so much contents up to date .
Also players needs to get in a totally different mindsets than other games : you have to accept you will "loose" a lot, while its not really "loosing" its learning something you didnt know.
You have to not care about your rank, you have to accept there is a lot of people above you that will beat you with no chance for you to win until you learn more.
The rewarding thing of sc2 is learning and then progressing. Thats why I like this new pace, you have a lot more time outside of the game to learn. Pro games are faster, you can check your replay faster etc... it produce a lot more of experiences to learn.
But this is absolutely not taught to new players. Instead People are obsessed with ranks and playing macro games like pro when their early game is bad.
Also an important thing to learn to new players is, even if you have a main races you should learn the other races to play better against them.
I keep hearing a lot of people say "if the game pace is slowed down, the better player will win". When I read this, I interpret as "I was the better player, but I lost because the game is too fast paced. If it was slower I would have won that game"
I don't get why people just ask themselves, "why did I lose? what can I do to prevent it next time?" I understand the pace is fast, but that's the game they signed up to play.
I think Nony said something to that effect. Don't try to change the game, just try to get better.
It's not about not liking it, it's about not liking everything about the game for reasons we discuss here. You will never like 100% about a game or any work of art really. Discussing the design behind it, trying to understand why you don't like it and how it would be possible to change that, etc is incredibly fun and rewarding.
A lot of people would never ever play bw because it's as mechanically hard as it is. That doesn't mean that these people wouldn't enjoy the general pace, the units, the economy, the pathing (or rather what it does), etc.
In the end blizzard obviously has the last word, but that doesn't stop people from arguing about the topic, and that is a good thing imo. Are these discussions gonna change sc2? Maybe not, but it will change your understanding of the topic if there are enough people willing to make (good) points.
On August 22 2016 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's not about not liking it, it's about not liking everything about the game for reasons we discuss here. You will never like 100% about a game or any work of art really. Discussing the design behind it, trying to understand why you don't like it and how it would be possible to change that, etc is incredibly fun and rewarding.
A lot of people would never ever play bw because it's as mechanically hard as it is. That doesn't mean that these people wouldn't enjoy the general pace, the units, the economy, the pathing (or rather what it does), etc.
In the end blizzard obviously has the last word, but that doesn't stop people from arguing about the topic, and that is a good thing imo. Are these discussions gonna change sc2? Maybe not, but it will change your understanding of the topic if there are enough people willing to make (good) points.
every one should feel free to discuss every aspect of the game. Nothing is stopping some like minded people from creating their own SC2 league/clan/group that plays SC2 at a slower speed setting. if a group similar to Starbow forms around that kind of game .. that's awesome.
i prefer the author/designer create the heart and soul of the game and it merely gets tweaked and modified in small ways during beta and after release. Although i prefer that DK proved its not the only way to do things during the development of LotV. SC2 saw some monster changes at the start of the LotV beta with community input an integral part of DKs decision making. If other developers pull off what DK and Blizz did with LotV i'm open to changing my view..
On August 22 2016 05:43 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's not about not liking it, it's about not liking everything about the game for reasons we discuss here. You will never like 100% about a game or any work of art really. Discussing the design behind it, trying to understand why you don't like it and how it would be possible to change that, etc is incredibly fun and rewarding.
A lot of people would never ever play bw because it's as mechanically hard as it is. That doesn't mean that these people wouldn't enjoy the general pace, the units, the economy, the pathing (or rather what it does), etc.
In the end blizzard obviously has the last word, but that doesn't stop people from arguing about the topic, and that is a good thing imo. Are these discussions gonna change sc2? Maybe not, but it will change your understanding of the topic if there are enough people willing to make (good) points.
You can certainly discuss parts of the game you like/dislike, and I enjoy these discussions.
Will there be changes through our discussions? Maybe, maybe not. Hell I didn't think Avilo would get the mech buffs he's been lobbying for since forever, but eventually Blizz listened and he might get what he wants. I think he should change his name to Trumpvilo.
But asking for Blizzard to change the pace of the game is, in my opinion, a "drastic change", and they already stated that isn't going to happen.
Yeah that probably would be a "drastic change". It's really hard to tell though what "drastic" really means though. I mean in some cases it's obvious. Sc2 will never be more like wc3 with heroes and stuff, that is quite obviously "drastic". Would a high ground change already be drastic? Probably, it changes a fundamental aspect of how the game works. I am not 100% sure about it though.
I still hoped for blizzard to be open minded about a different pathing, obviously that would be a drastic change as well though. So yeah, i don't expect it. I will still argue for it though, just because i think the current pathing is one of the biggest "problems" in sc2. It creates deathballs (one thing blizzard always said they wanna address), it makes bio so strong that every other race is balanced around it, etc
It will never change, but i still think it's worth discussing, trying to understand if it's a problem, possible solutions, etc
PS: it's funny that you give avilo that much credit here
Why they didn't buffed the unsieged attack of the tank? Shouldn't it be stronger too? Additionally I think, the unsieged tank should be stronger against the ultralisk than the sieged mode and it would make more sense in my opinion... :D
On August 22 2016 06:14 The_Red_Viper wrote: PS: it's funny that you give avilo that much credit here
Its a very common argument here, whenever something they don't like is being changed in terran they just call "AVILO, AVILO!!" like if he actually holds that much power.
On the Avilo, I just use him because he has been incredibly vocal about mech buffs. I know he isn't the only one though.
About pathing, I'm not sure what can be done about it. The current pathing is an improvement from BW, but I kind of liked the stupid herp derp pathing in BW. It was a technological limitation that players overcame, and that showed in gameplay.
I don't think SC2 should have an artificial pathing difficulty just for the sake of difficulty.
I think pathing is in the realm of mapmaking than balance or design.
On August 22 2016 06:14 The_Red_Viper wrote: Yeah that probably would be a "drastic change". It's really hard to tell though what "drastic" really means though. I mean in some cases it's obvious. Sc2 will never be more like wc3 with heroes and stuff, that is quite obviously "drastic". Would a high ground change already be drastic? Probably, it changes a fundamental aspect of how the game works. I am not 100% sure about it though.
I still hoped for blizzard to be open minded about a different pathing, obviously that would be a drastic change as well though. So yeah, i don't expect it. I will still argue for it though, just because i think the current pathing is one of the biggest "problems" in sc2. It creates deathballs (one thing blizzard always said they wanna address), it makes bio so strong that every other race is balanced around it, etc
It will never change, but i still think it's worth discussing, trying to understand if it's a problem, possible solutions, etc
PS: it's funny that you give avilo that much credit here
early in WoL development DB had sort of a "stare down" with the community about the high ground issue. and in a nice but firm way said he would never revisit the issue. DB did the same thing with pathing .. stating in a very arrogant way ( and DB is very diplomatic so i was surprised by his message delivery) stated... "we're not making the pathing worse.... if this is how tthe game turns out.. that is how it will be.."
so i suspect a pathing change and a high/low ground damage percentage won't happen
- it's true that pathing and unit selections (to name just two) probably contributed in a strong way to made BW what it is, and to balance the game - I wouldn't like to have "outdated" pathing or unit selection just because it has been shown (in a *different* game) to balance the game
SC2 feels much better to control than BW, the units respond better and more accurately to my commands, and it's sooo much more easy and simple to be able to select my whole army without the 12-units limit. Both changes go in the direction of making the game easier to control and more natural to play. Blizzard can act on other handles to balance it, without going back to a more unnatural (*in my opinion and for my feeling*) way to control the units.
I understand their statement that they don't want to revisit the pathing drastically, I think that any new players that would buy the game and start to play it, finding a BW-like pathing (with stalkers wandering around like dragoons) would be negatively surprised and maybe this would be a big "no" for new players (at least when I bought SC2 - knowing nothing about the competitive scene etc. - I was *expecting* a much more modern game wrt BW, which I played when I was younger).
About pathing: i don't think the pathing has to be like bw to be better than it is now though. The "problem" i see is that the army stays incredibly close together while (a) moving. This nerfs defensive positions and it also makes deathball armies possible. One thing most people never mention is how it looks. Big armies fighting in sc2 looks (imo) not very good, something which is also very important to have an enjoyable experience. Not only the balance is important, i would even argue that aestethics are more important for the enjoyment (if we are in a somewhat reasonable balance position, completely broken stuff obviously changes this)
On August 22 2016 07:20 The_Red_Viper wrote: About pathing: i don't think the pathing has to be like bw to be better than it is now though. The "problem" i see is that the army stays incredibly close together while (a) moving. This nerfs defensive positions and it also makes deathball armies possible. One thing most people never mention is how it looks. Big armies fighting in sc2 looks (imo) not very good, something which is also very important to have an enjoyable experience. Not only the balance is important, i would even argue that aestethics are more important for the enjoyment (if we are in a somewhat reasonable balance position, completely broken stuff obviously changes this)
So you want units to have a larger collision radius so they spread out more? I can't predict what kind effect that change would have, but it would create problems around narrow pathways, and would be an indirect nerf to any unit that has an aoe or splash radius though
I want units to spread out more while moving, yes. That would buff defenders advantage (which is imo good) and nerf deathballs because you cannot have your insane dps on a small area anymore while attacking.
Not sure what you mean with "problems" around narrow pathways tbh, imo it would actually make these meaningful. AOE as it is now would be nerfed, but at the same time you could actually have strong aoe again which kills stuff because it wouldn't be easy to hit that "great storm" or "beautiful fungal"
Do i want units to be as derpy as they were in bw? Not necessarily, but i want some of that pathing effect in sc2 because i think it would make the game better in some regards.
If that includes that people have to micro manage their units a bit more (as in unit placement during fights, not pressing ability buttons) that's also a plus for me personally. Again, 'more like' bw, not exactly as bw.
On August 22 2016 06:46 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: About pathing, I'm not sure what can be done about it. The current pathing is an improvement from BW, but I kind of liked the stupid herp derp pathing in BW. It was a technological limitation that players overcame, and that showed in gameplay.
I don't think SC2 should have an artificial pathing difficulty just for the sake of difficulty.
I think pathing is in the realm of mapmaking than balance or design.
Nothing should be done about it but I really wish people didn't always frame this topic this way. How units move in an RTS is as central to its gameplay as, say, how cars move in a racing game. How well the cars handle around corners, how fast they accelerate and so forth. If everyone thought that racing games with unwieldy cars were inherently worse it would really stifle the genre creatively... which is exactly where the RTS genre is right now. Imagine how interesting it would be to play an RTS with both units that move like SC2 zerglings and units that move like SC dragoons. It could be something to experiment but instead most of the genre's fans will write off anything outside of a narrow comfort zone as outdated, artificial difficulty, etc.
But that's way outside the scope of this discussion. SC2's swarm pathing was a core design choice that's shaped everything that came after. It would make more sense to question assumptions from SC1 that didn't necessarily carry over (for example, whether circular-AoE abilities should be as ubiquitous as they are) than it would be to change unit pathing to be more like SC1.
I agree nothing should be done about pathing, but Red Viper's concerns wasn't so much about pathing, but unit size and collision. He doesn't like how easily units clump together, thus encouraging deathballs that many players dislike. And he certainly doesn't want BW pathing implemented.
On August 22 2016 07:20 The_Red_Viper wrote: About pathing: i don't think the pathing has to be like bw to be better than it is now though. The "problem" i see is that the army stays incredibly close together while (a) moving. This nerfs defensive positions and it also makes deathball armies possible. One thing most people never mention is how it looks. Big armies fighting in sc2 looks (imo) not very good, something which is also very important to have an enjoyable experience. Not only the balance is important, i would even argue that aestethics are more important for the enjoyment (if we are in a somewhat reasonable balance position, completely broken stuff obviously changes this)
Very well said. I think that most people mentioning pathing as an issue in sc2 means that units tend to clump too much instead of "reintroducing dumb AI from BW".
but can't you always clump them up by clicking the center of the army instead of outside? or there will always be holes present eg. allowing lings to pass through?
On August 23 2016 18:07 mantequilla wrote: but can't you always clump them up by clicking the center of the army instead of outside? or there will always be holes present eg. allowing lings to pass through?
Yes you can, but only if you want to. There is a really old video showing a change in map editor and how it affects the unit movement and their formation: youtu.be
David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
On August 23 2016 18:31 ejozl wrote: David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
one thing is the split micro vs bunch up micro where it is debatable which is cooler and I can understand points for both sides. However the other thing is keeping formation. In current sc2 version units won't keep their formation and will clump up very fast which makes big armies look bad (what The_Red_Viper said) and also makes You have no choice but to "reformat" them again and again after every amove whereas with change like in the video you have a choice to keep your army in any formation you want, including both clumped formation and split formation which makes the difference.
On August 23 2016 18:31 ejozl wrote: David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
On August 23 2016 18:31 ejozl wrote: David Kim once said that he thinks split micro is cooler than bunch up micro. I agree with that statement, if you want less death ball I really just think AoE's should be stronger, or zoning tools like Liberators. LotV has been great with the amount of positional abilities it's introduced and will only be a lot better with proper 70 damage Tanks.
You and David Kim should never design video games.
I'm having trouble finding the test map in the arcade, the link to Launch the map from a battle.net webpage added a week ago has already expired. Any help?
Nevermind, it's in Custom games under multiplayer, not under Arcade.
when you click on the "SC2" logo thingie in the very top left hand corner of the SC2.exe main screen there used to be a "Latest News" area that showed up on the left side of teh screen. its now gone. that is how i entered the PTR map previously. i think it'll reappear soon .. i suspect Blizzard did something to fix Battle.Net because it was crappy earlier today. When they "fixed" BNet i think this "Latest News" area disappeared.
so now i get in via the BNet Desktop CLient through the "NEWS" `tab` at the top. Its not a "tab" any more because of all this Apple everyhting is invisibly floating every where bullshit. But that's what it is .. a "NEWS" tab. THe 3 tabs are "Games" "Shop" ,"NEWS".
Then Filter the "NEWS" by "SC2". Then find the article. then go to the circled red part and click.
here is a screen shot of where to go...
also, here is the LINK to get to the test map battlenet:://starcraft/map/1/277656
what a pain... if any one knows a faster way.. please post.
On August 22 2016 07:51 The_Red_Viper wrote: I want units to spread out more while moving, yes. That would buff defenders advantage (which is imo good) and nerf deathballs because you cannot have your insane dps on a small area anymore while attacking.
Not sure what you mean with "problems" around narrow pathways tbh, imo it would actually make these meaningful. AOE as it is now would be nerfed, but at the same time you could actually have strong aoe again which kills stuff because it wouldn't be easy to hit that "great storm" or "beautiful fungal"
Do i want units to be as derpy as they were in bw? Not necessarily, but i want some of that pathing effect in sc2 because i think it would make the game better in some regards.
If that includes that people have to micro manage their units a bit more (as in unit placement during fights, not pressing ability buttons) that's also a plus for me personally. Again, 'more like' bw, not exactly as bw.
There was a thread back in the time of WoL where someone made a mod or scenario (not sure right now) and posted in-game screenshots of exactly what SC2 armies would look like if that was implemented (much better!). You see, that idea has been floating around for ages, it still sticks because it makes absolute sense, and yet here we are. Somewhat sad.
Either way if you're interested you can do some digging and maybe find those pics I'm talking about so others can understand better.
I think they need to do more drastic things to differentiate SC2 from other RTS games and make it more interesting.
One thing I'd like to see is an Allied Commanders competitive 1v1 mode, where you can have matchups like Raynor vs Swann or Artanis vs Kerrigan.
Keep rebalanced versions of the existing Co-op upgrades, but incorporate them in a WoW/SC2 campaign style talent tree where you unlock new talents when you level up, and can switch between them between games.
On August 22 2016 07:51 The_Red_Viper wrote: I want units to spread out more while moving, yes. That would buff defenders advantage (which is imo good) and nerf deathballs because you cannot have your insane dps on a small area anymore while attacking.
Not sure what you mean with "problems" around narrow pathways tbh, imo it would actually make these meaningful. AOE as it is now would be nerfed, but at the same time you could actually have strong aoe again which kills stuff because it wouldn't be easy to hit that "great storm" or "beautiful fungal"
Do i want units to be as derpy as they were in bw? Not necessarily, but i want some of that pathing effect in sc2 because i think it would make the game better in some regards.
If that includes that people have to micro manage their units a bit more (as in unit placement during fights, not pressing ability buttons) that's also a plus for me personally. Again, 'more like' bw, not exactly as bw.
There was a thread back in the time of WoL where someone made a mod or scenario (not sure right now) and posted in-game screenshots of exactly what SC2 armies would look like if that was implemented (much better!). You see, that idea has been floating around for ages, it still sticks because it makes absolute sense, and yet here we are. Somewhat sad.
Either way if you're interested you can do some digging and maybe find those pics I'm talking about so others can understand better.
Starbow has this. It actually makes the game more bearable.
On September 03 2016 01:37 Clbull wrote: I think they need to do more drastic things to differentiate SC2 from other RTS games and make it more interesting.
One thing I'd like to see is an Allied Commanders competitive 1v1 mode, where you can have matchups like Raynor vs Swann or Artanis vs Kerrigan.
Keep rebalanced versions of the existing Co-op upgrades, but incorporate them in a WoW/SC2 campaign style talent tree where you unlock new talents when you level up, and can switch between them between games.
As much as I love your idea, and would love to see an RTS with a talent tree, the balance on that would be a tremendous endeavor. It's hard enough to balance SC2 with all its various units, but to incorporate a talent tree also would be nearly impossible.
I'm not sure if this is the right place but I would like to make a suggestion for a design change to the siege tank that i think is worth exploring.
I have always found it strange that the siege tank fire's at an angle, like a mortar or artillery, and yet the shell arrives instantly at the target.
In addition I believe that the unit design might be better with respect to gameplay, if the tank shell actually had some sort of parabolic flight. With a slight delay between firing and hitting the target, there will be the possibillity of overkill when using larger numbers of tanks close to each other. This means that the damage can be higher because the unit will scale less efficiently, making smaller numbers of tanks stronger than they are now.
Obviously I don't mean a flight time as long as a Ravager shot but more along the lines of an infestor fungal shot, maybe slightly shorter. I think the flight time just has to be big enough to allow for serious overkill, but short enough to still be able to hit moving targets that do not change their course(by automatically calculating how far in advance the shot will have to hit).
I believe such a change will give some new micro potential for both sides. The player who controls the tanks has to spread them out to get maximum value, and the other player can try to dodge a shots by changing course right after the shell has been fired. Maybe fully dodging a shell would be a bit to much but i think it would be cool if a player can time a change in unit direction in order to not recieve full damage. Another possible micro feature would be to allow for forced fire on some location. This way a tank can already shoot before an incomming target is in range, or a player can anticipate on the other player trying to dodge a shot and make a gues to which side the unit will evade.
Because this change will make friendly fire even more scary maybe a lategame upgrade can be added to the armory to reduce friendly fire by 75% or something, like in the wings of libery campaign.
On September 26 2016 20:03 Zwijn wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right place but I would like to make a suggestion for a design change to the siege tank that i think is worth exploring.
I have always found it strange that the siege tank fire's at an angle, like a mortar or artillery, and yet the shell arrives instantly at the target.
In addition I believe that the unit design might be better with respect to gameplay, if the tank shell actually had some sort of parabolic flight. With a slight delay between firing and hitting the target, there will be the possibillity of overkill when using larger numbers of tanks close to each other. This means that the damage can be higher because the unit will scale less efficiently, making smaller numbers of tanks stronger than they are now.
Obviously I don't mean a flight time as lang as a Ravager shot but more along the lines of an infestor fungal shot, maybe slightly shorter. I think the flight time just has to be big enough to allow for serious overkill, but short enough to still be able to hit moving targets that do not change their course(by automatically calculating how far in advance the shot will have to hit).
I believe such a change will give some new micro potential for both sides. The player who controls the tanks has to spread them out to get maximum value, and the other player can try to dodge a shots by changing course right after the shell has been fired. Maybe fully dodging a shell would be a bit to much but i think it would be cool if a player can time a change in unit direction in order to not recieve full damage. Another possible micro feature would be to allow for forced fire on some location. This way a tank can already shoot before an incomming target is in range, or a player can anticipate on the other player trying to dodge a shot and make a gues to which side the unit will evade.
Because this change will make friendly fire even more scary maybe a lategame upgrade can be added to the armory to reduce friendly fire by 75% or something, like in the wings of libery campaign.
no. That would be another bad design, like a shooting pylon. I don't think it should be possible to dodge tank shots.
The cast range for the tempest ability is something I think could be nerfed. Without friendly damage, it makes high Templar storms useless. Also, it's so easy to lock down entire mineral lines with this ability right now. In my opinion, the ability needs to be redesigned from scratch.
On September 26 2016 20:03 Zwijn wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right place but I would like to make a suggestion for a design change to the siege tank that i think is worth exploring.
I have always found it strange that the siege tank fire's at an angle, like a mortar or artillery, and yet the shell arrives instantly at the target.
In addition I believe that the unit design might be better with respect to gameplay, if the tank shell actually had some sort of parabolic flight. With a slight delay between firing and hitting the target, there will be the possibillity of overkill when using larger numbers of tanks close to each other. This means that the damage can be higher because the unit will scale less efficiently, making smaller numbers of tanks stronger than they are now.
Obviously I don't mean a flight time as lang as a Ravager shot but more along the lines of an infestor fungal shot, maybe slightly shorter. I think the flight time just has to be big enough to allow for serious overkill, but short enough to still be able to hit moving targets that do not change their course(by automatically calculating how far in advance the shot will have to hit).
I believe such a change will give some new micro potential for both sides. The player who controls the tanks has to spread them out to get maximum value, and the other player can try to dodge a shots by changing course right after the shell has been fired. Maybe fully dodging a shell would be a bit to much but i think it would be cool if a player can time a change in unit direction in order to not recieve full damage. Another possible micro feature would be to allow for forced fire on some location. This way a tank can already shoot before an incomming target is in range, or a player can anticipate on the other player trying to dodge a shot and make a gues to which side the unit will evade.
Because this change will make friendly fire even more scary maybe a lategame upgrade can be added to the armory to reduce friendly fire by 75% or something, like in the wings of libery campaign.
A very good suggestion worth exploring. Make it an ability with autocast by default instead of an attack in siege mode.
On September 26 2016 21:05 Alexcalibur1996 wrote: The cast range for the tempest ability is something I think could be nerfed. Without friendly damage, it makes high Templar storms useless. Also, it's so easy to lock down entire mineral lines with this ability right now. In my opinion, the ability needs to be redesigned from scratch.
It just needs to be removed as well the whole patch.
On September 26 2016 20:03 Zwijn wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right place but I would like to make a suggestion for a design change to the siege tank that i think is worth exploring.
I have always found it strange that the siege tank fire's at an angle, like a mortar or artillery, and yet the shell arrives instantly at the target.
In addition I believe that the unit design might be better with respect to gameplay, if the tank shell actually had some sort of parabolic flight. With a slight delay between firing and hitting the target, there will be the possibillity of overkill when using larger numbers of tanks close to each other. This means that the damage can be higher because the unit will scale less efficiently, making smaller numbers of tanks stronger than they are now.
Obviously I don't mean a flight time as lang as a Ravager shot but more along the lines of an infestor fungal shot, maybe slightly shorter. I think the flight time just has to be big enough to allow for serious overkill, but short enough to still be able to hit moving targets that do not change their course(by automatically calculating how far in advance the shot will have to hit).
I believe such a change will give some new micro potential for both sides. The player who controls the tanks has to spread them out to get maximum value, and the other player can try to dodge a shots by changing course right after the shell has been fired. Maybe fully dodging a shell would be a bit to much but i think it would be cool if a player can time a change in unit direction in order to not recieve full damage. Another possible micro feature would be to allow for forced fire on some location. This way a tank can already shoot before an incomming target is in range, or a player can anticipate on the other player trying to dodge a shot and make a gues to which side the unit will evade.
Because this change will make friendly fire even more scary maybe a lategame upgrade can be added to the armory to reduce friendly fire by 75% or something, like in the wings of libery campaign.
The problem is that only spells have to potential for overkill, just giving a slight delay between fire and missle hit won't change that (look at stalkers for example)
On September 26 2016 20:03 Zwijn wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right place but I would like to make a suggestion for a design change to the siege tank that i think is worth exploring.
I have always found it strange that the siege tank fire's at an angle, like a mortar or artillery, and yet the shell arrives instantly at the target.
In addition I believe that the unit design might be better with respect to gameplay, if the tank shell actually had some sort of parabolic flight. With a slight delay between firing and hitting the target, there will be the possibillity of overkill when using larger numbers of tanks close to each other. This means that the damage can be higher because the unit will scale less efficiently, making smaller numbers of tanks stronger than they are now.
Obviously I don't mean a flight time as lang as a Ravager shot but more along the lines of an infestor fungal shot, maybe slightly shorter. I think the flight time just has to be big enough to allow for serious overkill, but short enough to still be able to hit moving targets that do not change their course(by automatically calculating how far in advance the shot will have to hit).
I believe such a change will give some new micro potential for both sides. The player who controls the tanks has to spread them out to get maximum value, and the other player can try to dodge a shots by changing course right after the shell has been fired. Maybe fully dodging a shell would be a bit to much but i think it would be cool if a player can time a change in unit direction in order to not recieve full damage. Another possible micro feature would be to allow for forced fire on some location. This way a tank can already shoot before an incomming target is in range, or a player can anticipate on the other player trying to dodge a shot and make a gues to which side the unit will evade.
Because this change will make friendly fire even more scary maybe a lategame upgrade can be added to the armory to reduce friendly fire by 75% or something, like in the wings of libery campaign.
no. That would be another bad design, like a shooting pylon. I don't think it should be possible to dodge tank shots.
I just think it would be worth exploring a tank shell with non-zero flight time. Whether it should be possible to partly or completely dodge a shell depends on how this change would be implemented. Another variation could be some sort of guided shell that always hits the target. This way no evasion would be possible but there is still the potential for overkill.
I think we can improve some defender's advantage and spread out the gameplay if the miss rate when shooting uphill returns. And, since pathing is improved in Star2, we can even increase the miss chance by a bit. I would love to see an attempt with that
On September 26 2016 20:03 Zwijn wrote: I'm not sure if this is the right place but I would like to make a suggestion for a design change to the siege tank that i think is worth exploring.
I have always found it strange that the siege tank fire's at an angle, like a mortar or artillery, and yet the shell arrives instantly at the target.
In addition I believe that the unit design might be better with respect to gameplay, if the tank shell actually had some sort of parabolic flight. With a slight delay between firing and hitting the target, there will be the possibillity of overkill when using larger numbers of tanks close to each other. This means that the damage can be higher because the unit will scale less efficiently, making smaller numbers of tanks stronger than they are now.
Obviously I don't mean a flight time as lang as a Ravager shot but more along the lines of an infestor fungal shot, maybe slightly shorter. I think the flight time just has to be big enough to allow for serious overkill, but short enough to still be able to hit moving targets that do not change their course(by automatically calculating how far in advance the shot will have to hit).
I believe such a change will give some new micro potential for both sides. The player who controls the tanks has to spread them out to get maximum value, and the other player can try to dodge a shots by changing course right after the shell has been fired. Maybe fully dodging a shell would be a bit to much but i think it would be cool if a player can time a change in unit direction in order to not recieve full damage. Another possible micro feature would be to allow for forced fire on some location. This way a tank can already shoot before an incomming target is in range, or a player can anticipate on the other player trying to dodge a shot and make a gues to which side the unit will evade.
Because this change will make friendly fire even more scary maybe a lategame upgrade can be added to the armory to reduce friendly fire by 75% or something, like in the wings of libery campaign.
The problem is that only spells have to potential for overkill, just giving a slight delay between fire and missle hit won't change that (look at stalkers for example)
But stalkers can have overkill right? Maybe not that significant, but this can be more with the siege tank's longer range and AOE. The exact speed can be tweaked to achieve this I think.
I just think it would be worth exploring a tank shell with non-zero flight time. Whether it should be possible to partly or completely dodge a shell depends on how this change would be implemented. Another variation could be some sort of guided shell that always hits the target. This way no evasion would be possible but there is still the potential for overkill.
It would also allow in extreme cases to micro the targeted unit away, like how it's down with units targeted by raven's bomb.
I think the tank is currently in the perfect spot stat-wise, it enables much more aggressive mech play and the zone control needed to defend the greater number of bases that you need in LotV. I would like to redirect the debate towards more realistic changes again like the horribly underpriced swarmhost, and early game dominance of cyclones.
On September 26 2016 22:03 VonComet wrote: I think the tank is currently in the perfect spot stat-wise, it enables much more aggressive mech play and the zone control needed to defend the greater number of bases that you need in LotV. I would like to redirect the debate towards more realistic changes again like the horribly underpriced swarmhost, and early game dominance of cyclones.
How can we now the new tank stats are perfect? I think the new tanks may already be too strong in large numbers. I am a bit afraid that the tank in its current design form will always be either too strong if massed or too weak in low numbers. Therefore I think a design change that lets tanks scale less efficiently is needed to allow the tank to be useful in both situations without being overpowered.
You mentioned defending a greater number of bases, which means your tanks will have to spread out anyway. If they are strong enough to be used like this I fear they will always be too strong when put together(in the current design).
I disagree with most of what you said. Sitting back and massing tanks is a terrible idea since air units will be made to counter them (and counter them they will). I think you also might be underestimating the effect of medivac pickup removal when thinking of these arguments.
Another change I'm concerned about is the raven turret buffs since those could cause the "too strong in large numbers" effect, and a severe one at that.
On September 27 2016 04:56 VonComet wrote: I disagree with most of what you said. Sitting back and massing tanks is a terrible idea since air units will be made to counter them (and counter them they will). I think you also might be underestimating the effect of medivac pickup removal when thinking of these arguments.
Another change I'm concerned about is the raven turret buffs since those could cause the "too strong in large numbers" effect, and a severe one at that.
The turret buff alone drove me away from the test map. 5 mass Raven turtle mech games later and I'm like yea fuck this, not fun to play against, not fun to watch, terrible change, probably the worst in the entire patch.
Why not just make the Raven a utility based caster and end the free damage with energy thing? It's just shit design, call it like it is.
I feel like all these changes are going to create new problems as much as solving old ones. And to be honest, except for the tank change I really don't see anything here that makes the game significantly different or better or more playable or even less playable
On September 27 2016 05:50 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: I feel like all these changes are going to create new problems as much as solving old ones. And to be honest, except for the tank change I really don't see anything here that makes the game significantly different or better or more playable or even less playable
+1 More like even less playable everything is just so imba you can die to anything at anytime without a perfect read
On September 26 2016 22:03 VonComet wrote: I think the tank is currently in the perfect spot stat-wise, it enables much more aggressive mech play and the zone control needed to defend the greater number of bases that you need in LotV. I would like to redirect the debate towards more realistic changes again like the horribly underpriced swarmhost, and early game dominance of cyclones.
How can we now the new tank stats are perfect? I think the new tanks may already be too strong in large numbers. I am a bit afraid that the tank in its current design form will always be either too strong if massed or too weak in low numbers. Therefore I think a design change that lets tanks scale less efficiently is needed to allow the tank to be useful in both situations without being overpowered.
You mentioned defending a greater number of bases, which means your tanks will have to spread out anyway. If they are strong enough to be used like this I fear they will always be too strong when put together(in the current design).
They should reintroduce brood war's overkill. But tbh asking about this is just like asking about adding damage reduce in diablo 3 PvP. It takes forever for them to listen.
On September 27 2016 05:50 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: I feel like all these changes are going to create new problems as much as solving old ones. And to be honest, except for the tank change I really don't see anything here that makes the game significantly different or better or more playable or even less playable
As a Terran I have to say it's a nice change to no longer feal like my whole game plan revolves around doing critical damage with my first drop and than game ending damage with the follow up. If this is "unfun" how do you propose fixing the poor state of tvz where due to tankivacs/bane target fire Terran aggression can be to strong but due to ultras Terran has no options but to comit to these few to strong timings the outcome of which solely decide the game.
Mabey this is fun the first few times but I'm tired of every tvz I play being nearly the same, with very very little variety in viable approaches to the game from the Terran side and games being decided solely on controlling the same exact queen ling vs marine medivac interaction at the same timing correctly..
My first impression would be ask for bliz to nerf ultras but than you realize That Zerg needs some kind of huge late game tempo swing vs bio that gives them a window to attack after being the defender for most of the game. So to fix the mu bliz gave Zerg a queen buff but that does not change the mu. T must still do critical damage before hive, it just makes this critical damage harder to do, perhaps to hard see the brutal losses of Innovation and Maru to Nerchio. So Terran needs an alternative stratagey than, kill them before they get there. But also one that's not op. That's what bliz changes may be moving towards. That's why I think that these changes although not perfect are in the right direction. Hopefully the game can move towards the ballance(at the high level) that tvp has where both sides have sizable windows where there composition is good and both sides have oportunities to attack and defend at varouse points in the game.
On August 20 2016 11:28 Loccstana wrote: Stalker Blink and Adept shade need to be taken a look at. When you can ignore proper army positioning without any drawback or costs, it violates one of the most fundamental principles of RTS games.
I knew shit was going bad, when I saw him add that dumb Mortal Combat "Get Over Here!" ability to the Zerg Viper, it wasn't game ending or even OP in any sense, it just didn't fit in Starcraft or a balanced RTS -- it was some real gimmicky MMO/WoW ability garbage, it had no place in Starcraft, yet he added it, and continued further with similar gimmicks all over.
This guy David Kim is retarded.
On August 19 2016 14:07 JackONeill wrote: The main issue with queens, and MSC in some regard, is about the "how much at home?" syndrome.
Lemme explain.
When protoss pushes out, or goes for a drop, he only has to keep a MSC at home to summon 4 immobile thors on his pylons. A single unit left at home does that. When zerg pushes out, and even with F2, he has queens at home, that deal with most early agressions quite easily. Terran, on the other hand, can't do that : if you leave home with a mine drop and an oracle comes in, you have no defensive unit that "counter most agressions".
That the main issues, i think : "how much do i leave at home?" and "how early and how snowbally is my defensive unit(s)?" For protoss it's easy, just leave the MSCore and warp if you get backstabbed. You have MSC early, and defensive warp snowballs throughout the game. For zerg, just have your queens in a control group and amove on the minimap if a minedrop/adept drop comes in, and the more queens you have the better your defense is; Terran doesn't have a unit/units that are excellent polyvalent defensive units. If the raven was able to transform terran supplies into defensive structures (this is not a proposition, it'd be terrible), terran would build a defensive raven and push with other units much more freely.
However the design of a defensive unit(s) that's so accessible and, by gaining energy, gets better and better at dealing with agressions is terrible. Terran can't have such a unit because most terrans units are very good at defending : however, you don't have the easy choice protoss or zerg have, where defensive at-home units are very easy to identify. I'm not complaining terran doesn 't have such a unit, i'm just saddened that protoss and zerg do because it prevent agression by doing the same defensive mandatory stuff every single game. And seeing your drop getting killed by 4 queens or your oracle destroyed by 2 POs is just sad to play and watch.
Blame moron David Kim for adding a gimmick unit instead of fixing the problems with Protoss, I quit after WoL when seeing all the gimmicks in HotS. Trying out LotV now and it's gimmicks galore.
As a Protoss only player, I was barely able to handle the gimmick of "Warp Gate", it should have been removed from the game as it killed the fun of Multiplayer maps -- 1 pylon defends/reinforces rushes, that was like the whole point of big multiplayer maps likw BGH/Hunters in Broodwar. They killed the entire fun of the bulk population of Starcraft players for what...some stupid gimmick to make Protoss unique. I played Broodwar Toss for 10 years it was playable -- I played Toss in SC2 for 3 years, it was agonizing dealing with the developers. All they have to do is remove warpgate, and they fix so many damn issues, but myopic mindset will do this to you -- brain dead David Kim.
I'm not convinced that ranked 1v1 is the future as well. But I can see 2v2 or 3v3 f.e. work if it's done well, gets rid of most of the old remnants that slow the game down unnecessarily and still provide some atmosphere. DoW 1 is a still a lot of fun on LAN-parties.
I still don't like their macro mechanics and terrible terrible damage systems, but I doubt they'll change the game that much.
Again, will never happen until they remove Warpgate from my race, or at least put super far down the tech tree, think about why BGH/fastest maps so popular in BW(on top of Ladder), that most casual players played even I played with my casual friends -- didn't translate into SC2: WoL and onwards?? It wasn't a map design issue, it could be replicated, it was because warpgate kills rushes when you spawn in weird spots and surrounded by enemy, it created tricky scenarios in BW that often got wild as heck but it was fun -- now queue in "unique defining ability it must stay WarpGate" and all of that goes out the door. I know this cause I only play Protoss for entire BW/SC2 history, it's not that hard to fix -- remove it rebalance the units. But I know this will never happen. I'm surprised so few understand this.
On August 17 2016 12:42 ecnahc wrote: Gimmick means protoss in the sc2 community
Please tell Blizzard to remove Warpgate then, I'd take any nerfs to Protoss after they remove Warpgate--it at least forces them to rebalance Gateway units, return to a more balanced Tier1 units across the races in terms of Def/Off Advantage.
Less gimmicks the better please. Like seriously, the Oracle...I saw that and MSC in HotS and booked it. The hell are they doing to Protoss.
EPT
)
Blink DTs will also be very interesting^^
![[image loading]](http://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/blog_header/vv/VVKA6LVZUA0Y1448482273038.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://s10.postimg.io/j2in0g7g9/My_Screen_Shot.jpg)
