|
On August 21 2016 00:35 ihatevideogames wrote:
Am I the only one who feels the Liberator AG is basically redundant with the tank buff?
I would love for the lib's AG to be massively nerfed and the unit remade as a mostly anti-air option. Maybe tech-labbed with 6 damage? So we can actually push with mech before we have 12 turrets and 5 thors.
I actually think that the game needs to evolve a bit after they start testing the tank change to evaluate what do they want to do with Liberators. Air siege with 90 DPS is fucking dumb.
|
The role of the cyclone in the balance patch overlaps with the tank a bit, what mech needs is a reliable anti-air unit other than the expensive thor. My suggestion, in the spirit of the roach-hydra suggestion that was made awhile ago, it's time for the goliath riding on the back of the hellion, we can call it the goliath-hellion (Kappa).
User was warned for this post
|
On August 21 2016 00:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:Completely Changing the Fundamentals of the GameShow nested quote +We’ve seen some international feedback requesting that we make drastic, sweeping changes to how the game functions. Though this isn’t representative of the feedback we’re seeing most often, we wanted to make it clear that our goal is to keep StarCraft II similar to the game it is now, while making big improvements within it.
We strongly believe that the worst thing we can do to StarCraft II is make changes that turn it into a completely different type of game. Therefore, we’d like to ask everyone to keep focused on keeping the core fun of StarCraft II while making improvements within the game. See this is so vague, what are "drastic changes" really? Would be a high ground advantage already fall under that definition? New pathing probably would i guess. The problem i have with this is that it basically means that blizzard is 100% happy with the basis of sc2, nothing will ever change in that regard. It's actually quite disappointing to me because i don't think that the basis is as good as it could be.
when i get sick and tired of half of all my units being harvesters and sick of spending too much time managing my economy i just play some Red Alert 3 instead. in that game i spend less than 5% of my time managing my economy and most of the time i've got 2 or 3 harvesters.. hell there is a viable way to play with 1 harvester. Sc2 ain't changin'... C&C damn sure ain't changin'.. and both have their strengths and weaknesses as games.
yelling and screaming on forums about it being Blizzard's responsibility to initiate a radical change to the Starcraft economy won't give me what i want.
|
On August 21 2016 01:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 00:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:Completely Changing the Fundamentals of the GameWe’ve seen some international feedback requesting that we make drastic, sweeping changes to how the game functions. Though this isn’t representative of the feedback we’re seeing most often, we wanted to make it clear that our goal is to keep StarCraft II similar to the game it is now, while making big improvements within it.
We strongly believe that the worst thing we can do to StarCraft II is make changes that turn it into a completely different type of game. Therefore, we’d like to ask everyone to keep focused on keeping the core fun of StarCraft II while making improvements within the game. See this is so vague, what are "drastic changes" really? Would be a high ground advantage already fall under that definition? New pathing probably would i guess. The problem i have with this is that it basically means that blizzard is 100% happy with the basis of sc2, nothing will ever change in that regard. It's actually quite disappointing to me because i don't think that the basis is as good as it could be. when i get sick and tired of half of all my units being harvesters and sick of spending too much time managing my economy i just play some Red Alert 3 instead. in that game i spend less than 5% of my time managing my economy and most of the time i've got 2 or 3 harvesters.. hell there is a viable way to play with 1 harvester. Sc2 ain't changin'... C&C damn sure ain't changin'.. and both have their strengths and weaknesses as games. yelling and screaming on forums about it being Blizzard's responsibility to initiate a radical change to the Starcraft economy won't give me what i want.
I think this is the first time that blizzard actually kinda defines which changes they are willing to make and which not. IIRC they actually said "big changes" are a thing in the next few years, or that they are at least willing to do these. Now we know that "big" apparently doesn't mean "fundamental changes". It's still kinda vague but i feel have a better understanding now and thus can better deal with it, even though it's frustrating that they aren't willing to try these things the community asked for since day 1.
|
Here's why I am skeptical about Mech being viable:
1. It requires far less APM than Bio.
2. It just takes less skill than bio in general (Less micro because no splitting/stutter-stepping, less macro because units are more expensive and build more slowly, less multi-tasking because no/fewer drops).
3. Minerals are not nearly as important, which means Mech players can plaster their bases with Planetary Fortresses and Turrets, which only exacerbates the defensive playstyle and makes it even harder to harass them. It also means that harassment against Mech is not as effective, and that a Mech player risks next to nothing when he's harassing because his harassment units (Hellions/Hellbats) are essentially free.
4. Mech and Bio are essentially two different matchups to play against. A terran who plays Bio or Mech exclusively only has to learn one matchup per race. Other players have to learn two matchups against Terran, giving Terrans an inherent knowledge advantage.
|
On August 21 2016 02:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 01:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 21 2016 00:07 The_Red_Viper wrote:Completely Changing the Fundamentals of the GameWe’ve seen some international feedback requesting that we make drastic, sweeping changes to how the game functions. Though this isn’t representative of the feedback we’re seeing most often, we wanted to make it clear that our goal is to keep StarCraft II similar to the game it is now, while making big improvements within it.
We strongly believe that the worst thing we can do to StarCraft II is make changes that turn it into a completely different type of game. Therefore, we’d like to ask everyone to keep focused on keeping the core fun of StarCraft II while making improvements within the game. See this is so vague, what are "drastic changes" really? Would be a high ground advantage already fall under that definition? New pathing probably would i guess. The problem i have with this is that it basically means that blizzard is 100% happy with the basis of sc2, nothing will ever change in that regard. It's actually quite disappointing to me because i don't think that the basis is as good as it could be. when i get sick and tired of half of all my units being harvesters and sick of spending too much time managing my economy i just play some Red Alert 3 instead. in that game i spend less than 5% of my time managing my economy and most of the time i've got 2 or 3 harvesters.. hell there is a viable way to play with 1 harvester. Sc2 ain't changin'... C&C damn sure ain't changin'.. and both have their strengths and weaknesses as games. yelling and screaming on forums about it being Blizzard's responsibility to initiate a radical change to the Starcraft economy won't give me what i want. I think this is the first time that blizzard actually kinda defines which changes they are willing to make and which not. IIRC they actually said "big changes" are a thing in the next few years, or that they are at least willing to do these. Now we know that "big" apparently doesn't mean "fundamental changes". It's still kinda vague but i feel have a better understanding now and thus can better deal with it, even though it's frustrating that they aren't willing to try these things the community asked for since day 1.
i see your point about Blizzard's comments having low granularity.
i prefer for software designers, artists, and designers to create their own vision based on their own fundamental principles and their own internal vision of what they want the game to be. and once that is complete then they can tweak stuff in the final stages due to solid community feedback.
as an example. i like how Overwatch was made.
|
i totally agree with u a_flayer
|
i like that the lib gives siege from air giving terran more options for position compared to the tank. Maybe that opinion will change once i actually start playing with the new tank who knows
|
Swarm hosts are cool in the zerg arsenal now. Such a strong and interesting unit.
|
Completely remove the Mothership Core and make Protoss able to defend itself in the early game without this idiot band aid unit please, by far one of the most requested design changes in the game.
|
I totally agree with the removal of the heroic MSC/Mothership. Just give a speed buff to the zealot and a flat damage to the stalker, could be enough.
|
On August 21 2016 02:08 Aesto wrote:
4. Mech and Bio are essentially two different matchups to play against. A terran who plays Bio or Mech exclusively only has to learn one matchup per race. Other players have to learn two matchups against Terran, giving Terrans an inherent knowledge advantage.
You can make the same argument about every race. Playing vs roach/ravager is inherently much different than playing vs mute/ling/bling. In ZvT Zerg need only learn to play against bio, and how to rush ultra safely for an easy win, which is an advantage.
|
On August 21 2016 00:40 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 00:35 ihatevideogames wrote:
Am I the only one who feels the Liberator AG is basically redundant with the tank buff?
I would love for the lib's AG to be massively nerfed and the unit remade as a mostly anti-air option. Maybe tech-labbed with 6 damage? So we can actually push with mech before we have 12 turrets and 5 thors. I actually think that the game needs to evolve a bit after they start testing the tank change to evaluate what do they want to do with Liberators. Air siege with 90 DPS is fucking dumb.
Is it less or more dumb than an 8 armor unit?
|
They should just scrap the whole thing and redesign the 3 races from scratch. It would give SC2 massive hype and publicity.
|
lol 4 larvas u can't be serious
|
On August 21 2016 16:23 yolteotl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 00:40 JCoto wrote:On August 21 2016 00:35 ihatevideogames wrote:
Am I the only one who feels the Liberator AG is basically redundant with the tank buff?
I would love for the lib's AG to be massively nerfed and the unit remade as a mostly anti-air option. Maybe tech-labbed with 6 damage? So we can actually push with mech before we have 12 turrets and 5 thors. I actually think that the game needs to evolve a bit after they start testing the tank change to evaluate what do they want to do with Liberators. Air siege with 90 DPS is fucking dumb. Is it less or more dumb than an 8 armor unit?
That's dumb too. Well not THAT dumb if they actually had spent some time tweaking the marauder. Nevertheless 7 armor is more than enough.
The ultra needs some design upgrade too, terrible terrible damage everywhere.
|
On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I'm just going to throw some shit out there. I don't know what my icon says, but I've only been playing random on those rare occasions that I've played SC2 in the past 5 years or so. I started out as a Zerg player in WoL when I borderlined as a low-level master player (I've been in and out of masters during the first season).
Personally, I'm still upset that they didn't remove the macro mechanics. I just feel like it's detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. I never played as much SC2 as I did in that short time period where they reduced the need for macro mechanics. In addition to that, I feel like units such as the Queen and MSC detract from my freedom to pick and choose my strategies, both in offence (playing against those units) and defence (where they are basically 100% necessary to be built). Add to that the economic "defence" of the MULE (which allows Terran to sustain worker damage and recover from it), and we've covered all three races somewhat in this respect, I think.
Me too. I really hope they will at some point re-evaluate the macro mechanics removal. IMO, one of the major reasons of why they didn't keep this change was that it tipped balance against Terran. With the buffs to mech it may have played out otherwise.
From my experience, without macro mechanics your micro in battles became way more important if you played Protoss or Terran (inject was just toned down, so not much of a change for Zerg). I really enjoyed that.
On August 20 2016 19:50 a_flayer wrote:
I would like to see a SC2 where these units just aren't absolutely necessary in order to play the game and at the same time deal with my dislike for the macro mechanics.
Maybe increase the natural larvae spawn of hatcheries to the point where queens aren't necessary, or at least not quite as prolific. Remove the spawn larvae ability of queens or reduce it to 1 larva per inject to make it an optional boost if you want more zerglings for your strategy of choice and increase the cost of the queen (maybe 200/50?) and her abilities (50 energy?) so that maybe you'll just have one or two if you really want to spread creep fast or something.
Change the MULE into something where it can provide a boost to the Terran economy without making it necessary to be dropped constantly. Perhaps allow it to be dropped and convert into a building at a faster rate than normal SCVs build them instead of the harvest-resources-at-an-increased-rate ability.
I'm not sure how to handle the MSC at all. It just seems like such an incredible mess of a unit, as you absolutely 100% cannot go around this unit in any shape way or form when you are playing Protoss. I basically hated sentries throughout WoL and HotS for the same reason. Stuff like that just disgusts me as someone who likes to get a choice in where I invest my resources.
It's bad enough that we have to make all these workers all the time (joke!).
Ah well, it's never gonna happen, I guess.
I agree with this completely. Why are there units (other than workers) you basically must build regardless of your strategy? Queens, MULEs and Chrono Boost just add a mechanical barrier but very little strategic-wise.
|
On August 21 2016 00:40 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 00:35 ihatevideogames wrote:
Am I the only one who feels the Liberator AG is basically redundant with the tank buff?
I would love for the lib's AG to be massively nerfed and the unit remade as a mostly anti-air option. Maybe tech-labbed with 6 damage? So we can actually push with mech before we have 12 turrets and 5 thors. I actually think that the game needs to evolve a bit after they start testing the tank change to evaluate what do they want to do with Liberators. Air siege with 90 DPS is fucking dumb.
Did you watch Innovation vs Losira in today's Proleague? Innovation is certainly evolving the meta. He made mech work against a zerg player.
Granted Losira's build choice was a factor in his loss, but Innovation really made it seem like mech doesn't need a lot of changes.
|
The fast pace of the game makes Zerg the only race truly open to "techswitch". Protoss units are good all around, you´d never need more than 2 robos or 2-4 Stargates even in late late late late game, roll with a gateway backbone until you make air.
Terran Bio can just bulldoze through bases and non prepared armies, especially on an upgrade lead with many medevacs.
Reduce buildtime on mech. Make hellions kite Roaches again.
|
I'm quite tired of ... DK ?!? is him the... (don't really think so), so, got quite tired of Blizzard bait'n'switch behavior, promise Earth and the Sky, deliver .., i don't know .. seems like randomly generated stuff.
You , the one reading this post, take a moment and reflect upon the changes since WoL. Notice the moment DK got involved and every change that followed. Notice what happened before. Notice
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
