|
I'm not playing much lately, but from watching the pros I think the game improved a lot and with these changes might become even more diverse. This shows that blizzard is more ready to make changes now.
I hope they will finally listen and remove the stupid msc early-defense hero unit concept. I seriously dont know why they stick to it, it has barely any meaning besides early defense and drop defense, for which a better solution should and, I am sure, could be found.
About the other macro mechanics/boost.. i dont think their effect is too terrible, except for terrans not really carrying about worker losses, but that sort of became part of the game.
The idea of boosting hatchery larva generation more and weakening larva injection sounds good too.
I really love the new siege tanks, infestors and dts though.
Just really want to see the MSC go (and the mothership too). We are the proud and noble protoss, not some generic earth invading alien race with their one big mothership.
|
On August 21 2016 02:08 Aesto wrote:
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.
Pretty solid points!
Mech can be changed to require more skill. Not sure how it fits the current meta of changes but in general I propose to
a) reintroduce the siege mode upgrade
b) increase siege/unsiege times
with stronger tanks.
The skill in playing mech accrues from tanks being very strong when in position but can be punished easily when out of position and too many unsieged at the same time. The mech style with stronger tanks should leave enough window for opponents to counter and be slowed down through this.
Good mech play should rely on precision instead of speed. The exact distances and positions of sieged tanks, when exactly to siege and unsiege and how many at the same time, to have the perfect composition against what your opponent is planning to do through transitions always in time, etc.
|
I think the patch changes will adress a lot of the community's concerns about tvz. The removal of tankivacs is a large blow to a lot of the 2 base pushes that follow up 16 marine drop builds. This combined with the bane buff should help high level Korean Zerg preform better on the other hand viable mech play could make Terran who are not the top 10-15 Korean terran's in the world preform better by giving Terran a less micro intensive composition that can function well in the late game and can deal with 8 armor ultra. The raveger nerf could further improve the state of the foreign meta were roach raveger is very common and very strong.
|
On August 22 2016 17:20 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 02:08 Aesto wrote:
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. Pretty solid points! Mech can be changed to require more skill. Not sure how it fits the current meta of changes but in general I propose to a) reintroduce the siege mode upgrade b) increase siege/unsiege times with stronger tanks. The skill in playing mech accrues from tanks being very strong when in position but can be punished easily when out of position and too many unsieged at the same time. The mech style with stronger tanks should leave enough window for opponents to counter and be slowed down through this. Good mech play should rely on precision instead of speed. The exact distances and positions of sieged tanks, when exactly to siege and unsiege and how many at the same time, to have the perfect composition against what your opponent is planning to do through transitions always in time, etc.
a) The entire point about mech is supposed to be positional play, right? Making sm an upgrade slows mech's expansion timing down (something DK described as a problem last patch already)/prolongs mech's timing when they are weak. I'm not sure that's desirable.
b) is what I'd propose too. Make basic tanks weaker and buff siege mode setup time, so when tanks are unsieged you really can catch them with their pants down. Force terran to either march very slowly, making them vulnerable to harass/attacks on their base, or risk getting hit badly if they don't scout where your army is.
I agree that Mech needs a mineral dump outside of hellions. Either make tanks more expensive or make cyclones more min heavy. Their defense should come from some tanks, building placement and a few turrets. Not dozens of turrets and PFs that make attacking their base suicide.
If we'd be in the alpha I'd propose a turret/pf cap.
|
I think if you want to play Mech, you have to switch to "Dropzone".
Playing the oldschool "cancer Mech" style where you turtle to ultimate army...well you earn 11 Minute 3-3-3-3-3-3 Broodlord ultralisks and Corruptors that run arround and NUKE CCs left and right.
Everything Ground you start to mass up...well against Air it is useless, because other races air does not need to be combined with ground units anymore.
Go AIR > Massing units fast > Combining units the right way.
|
On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
I think that they could keep some mechanics in the game, but only if they make them not a must-have. I posted a suggestion a while ago that was approximately like this:
Terran:
- MULE removed.
- Calldown supplies being more usable (upgrades also bunkers individually, but provides less supply buff and is more spammeable).
-Terran gets a nerfed version of Techreactors, that can't research and can only produce one massive unit at a time, maybe at Armory tech level (or Armory + Shadow Ops). Or just an upgrade to reactor marauders.
- Maybe another ability at Orbital.
Terran has been given a ton of reactored units in LotV that intend to be core units, so a semi-Tech reactor makes relative sense. A semi-lategame Tech reactor makes bio less dependant on mules (Reactored Marauders) and is a big buff to mech, although several iterations need to be tested. With the removal of MULES, building Orbitals is noticeably optional, and once the supply limit is reached there's no reason to build more of them.
Zerg:
- Inject Larva removed, replaced with an ability that increases the morph speed of building hatcheries and zerg cocoons nearby.
- Hatcheries can bank 4 larva (but produce them at the same speed), Lairs and Hives have slightly increased larva production speed and Larva limit.
With baseline buffs to larva Production, an ability that enchances the building speed of Hatcheries would make a ton of sense, and it would have exactly the same feeling and micro than Injecting Larva. Increasing the building speed of Zerg units is not as broken as it is to other races, because Zerg is highly dependant on the production speed of Larva, not the morphing speed of them. THe morph speed buff to Zerg cocoons is just a buff in defensive situations, for example when you have a push knocking the door.
Protoss: The easiest.
- Chronboost requires energy again, but it has a high energy cost (75-100)and is oriented towards long-term rewards, for example with 60s-80s duration, 50% speed buff. Cannot target nexuses, pylons or cannons, only production and reasearch buildings.
- Some defensive ability is given to nexus, like Pylon Overcharge (with balance adjustements) it costs energy too (50), and has limited cast range (2-3 bases long MAX)
- Both abilities and maybe the energy regeneration of Nexus require CyberCore.
- MSC reworked.
This balances the small early game advantage that protoss has in terms of Workers, has an interesting strategic choice on energy usage of Nexuses, and Chronoboost is mostly tech oriented as it is in LotV. Removes the need of a unit to cast a core defensive ability
|
On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game.
They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs.
So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose 
|
On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose
I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution.
|
Ok then I'll adress your post. I still think that for Blizzard the topic is closed after the macro mechanics patch and that Blizzard wants boring macro units/mechanics in the game that just eat apm up.
Terran
I doubt blizz is gonna remove the mule for reasons listed above. And tbh I'd rather have the very limited strategic possibilities mule provides than having to spam supply drop at the speed I spam mules.
I think your techreactor is directed at countering Ullis with marauders? I don't see the big advantages of it anyways because most of your buildings are in place when you build an armory. And afterwards people would only build techreactors for their other buildings, because why not?
Zerg
Your inject change takes apm out of the game, inject would become mainly a warpin mechanic whenever your unit building finishes. While I think that that's an interesting approach, I covered earlier why I don't think that Blizz is gonna implement something similar.
Also massive macro changes that would be a massive nerf for Zerg and they'd need a big rebalancing as a result. Also prepare for muta switches being on a whole new level.
Protoss
Chrono would take way less APM. I prefer your chrono to the one in game, but I doubt blizz sees it the same way.
Also despite all the hate I think that MSC is valuable for the game for scouting.
TLDR:
If we want to talk about changing macro mechanics, I think adding situational utility is a more promising way. Blizz likely won't change their basic behavior, else they'd have likely taken out or redesigned the macro mechanics during the lotv beta.
F.e. make spines morph out of creep tumors instead of larvae, adding tumor placement as a strategic component. Or transfuse can add hp to a building that isn't finished so it finishes faster. Make units chronoable, f.e. reducing cd or build time in the case of the carrier.
|
On August 22 2016 22:43 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution.
I think I've read your proposed solutions before and I found them terribly vague and incomplete. And I still think that. Much like mine, except in different ways.
I was really just venting with my original post because I can't be arsed to play the game in the way Blizzard seems to want the game to be played. I wasn't trying to start a discussion or even expecting people to agree with me, lel.
|
On August 22 2016 23:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 22:43 JCoto wrote:On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution. I think I've read your proposed solutions before and I found them terribly vague and incomplete. And I still think that. Much like mine, except in different ways. I was really just venting with my original post because I can't be arsed to play the game in the way Blizzard seems to want the game to be played. I wasn't trying to start a discussion or even expecting people to agree with me, lel.
Can totally relate to that, was a random plat/diamond player in wol and feel the same about macro mechanics (although I couldn't test it cause I got no beta key). One of the reasons I stopped playing was because Sc2 was for me too much RT and too little S. But the macro mechanics resolution made pretty clear that Blizz wants to keep it that way, or at least keep APM a major factor.
|
Just wanted to post that I love the direction that you are going with this Blizzard.
Given the apparent high level issues that you are trying to address with this new game design, I believe that one of the top priority items must be to look at Factory based ground-to-air options. At the present time, they still appear to be lacking in their current form.
So long as there is a broad "hard counter" to the Factory - we will see Terran having to keep the investment in Factories very minimal, and phase out very quickly. Mech will still be dead because of the race to build mass air. Perhaps some relatively minor changes to the Thor would be the best solution (not sure exactly what they should be, but as noted by many, the unit is very slow and "clunky" in dealing with massed air threats).
|
On August 20 2016 08:43 WeddingEpisode wrote:
Golly, this game is so technical; perhaps that's the type of game people really want?
I would do the following: enlarge bounding box parameters (units can't squeeze together so tightly, causing Massive Units to single-file down some corridors).
Enlarge maps and create real open spaces; asymmetrical shapes to a lot of the map;
and make it harder to get to Tier 2 and 3.
Those are the things that will most help, not unit balance.
This is something I'd really like to see tested that isn't brought up much. I think there is too much clumping in this game compared to BW and often makes it hard to watch at times
|
On August 23 2016 03:05 Yogurt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 08:43 WeddingEpisode wrote:
Golly, this game is so technical; perhaps that's the type of game people really want?
I would do the following: enlarge bounding box parameters (units can't squeeze together so tightly, causing Massive Units to single-file down some corridors).
Enlarge maps and create real open spaces; asymmetrical shapes to a lot of the map;
and make it harder to get to Tier 2 and 3.
Those are the things that will most help, not unit balance.
This is something I'd really like to see tested that isn't brought up much. I think there is too much clumping in this game compared to BW and often makes it hard to watch at times
Starbow has custom pathfinding, have you seen that?
https://www.youtube.com/user/Isaksen85/videos has some games if you're curious
|
On August 22 2016 17:20 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 02:08 Aesto wrote:
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. Pretty solid points! Mech can be changed to require more skill. Not sure how it fits the current meta of changes but in general I propose to a) reintroduce the siege mode upgrade b) increase siege/unsiege times with stronger tanks. The skill in playing mech accrues from tanks being very strong when in position but can be punished easily when out of position and too many unsieged at the same time. The mech style with stronger tanks should leave enough window for opponents to counter and be slowed down through this. Good mech play should rely on precision instead of speed. The exact distances and positions of sieged tanks, when exactly to siege and unsiege and how many at the same time, to have the perfect composition against what your opponent is planning to do through transitions always in time, etc.
i'm a low APM terran player and if i sense i'm up against a guy whose APM is 30% or more higher than me i go mech... i feel its my only chance... when the game is 3+ bases i'm much better at spending all my money when i've got 5+ factories as opposed to a dozen Rax... its just less clicking... it doesn't sound like much but it adds up. your macro cycle is much longer when u go Mech. Queue up 2 Thors or 2 Tanks and you don't have to revisit that factory forever.
i think Mech deserves to be weaker than Bio. How much weaker? i'm not sure.. that can be debated forever. But I dont thnk pure Mech and Bio and Bio/Mech should be equal in strength.
I'm probably going to have my membership in the Avilo fan club revoked for these blasphemous comments. then i'll be branded a heretic.
i love C&C .. i love having 349538947 Tanks .. and Sieging someone's ramp and watching the infantry fly through the air and scream as they die.. but i just gotta tell it like it is man.
I dont thnk pure Mech and Bio and Bio/Mech should be equal in strength. Whatever requires the most skill should be the strongest.. and i don't think pure Mech requires the most skill.
I can't get more granular than the comments i've offered. Guys who know way more about the game can give a more precise measure on the skill differences required to handle Pure Mech, Bio/Mech, and Bio. Its based on these measures that the strengths of these 3 techniques should be decided.
sry Avilo.
On August 22 2016 23:12 Blackfeather wrote:
Ok then I'll adress your post. I still think that for Blizzard the topic is closed after the macro mechanics patch and that Blizzard wants boring macro units/mechanics in the game that just eat apm up.
Terran
I doubt blizz is gonna remove the mule for reasons listed above. And tbh I'd rather have the very limited strategic possibilities mule provides than having to spam supply drop at the speed I spam mules.
I think your techreactor is directed at countering Ullis with marauders? I don't see the big advantages of it anyways because most of your buildings are in place when you build an armory. And afterwards people would only build techreactors for their other buildings, because why not?
there is a tension between SCANS and Mineral Collection on the energy in your Orbital Command. THat is what makes the MULE interesting and not "boring".
Devastate a Terrans SCV count and you know they can't scan as much... and u use that ur advantage in the game.
the labelling of all macro-mechanics as boring is a vast oversimplification and does a gross injustice to the decision-making Terrans must navigate through as they decide between a MULE and a SCAN. Also, if you MULE all the time you will mine out your base much faster. More tension and another factor that's part of the MULE/SCAN decision.
|
Protoss is by far the best designed race in LotV
Protoss is, by far, the worst designed race in the game, and has been since the release of WoL. Why? Because the entire faction is built around gimmicks that ignore the basic mechanisms of the genre and game. RTSes are, to my mind, ultimately built around the basic challenges of logistics - making enough stuff, acquiring and securing resources, getting the right stuff to the right place at the right time, and basic unit combat: That is, units that move around and make stuff go boom in interesting ways. Things moving around and threatening other things with damage creates interesting tensions that can be explored for months, sometimes years on end without being bored.
Protoss is a faction built to fuck over all that beautiful, nuanced, natural tension with all the subtlety of a jackhammer or an iron mallet. It's a menagerie of bad unit designs.
Warpgate probably needs no introduction. Low-cost, low-risk (your production is still at home so home's not defenseless), in the Warp Prism's case goddamn flying mobile proxies really brings in that nice sense of fairness. Especially if Sentries are involved.
Forcefields, likewise. The Protoss player can simply dictate what is a good engagement or what is not, and disengage relatively unilaterally by a quick edit to the terrain. This is a very different mechanism from threatening the area with damage (eg. AoE from Ravagers/Tanks/Disruptors/Liberators, building bunkers etc.), because you can gauge the threat and choose to dare the damage, which is pretty much how TvTs are won. An indestructible wall, not so much. Protoss is absolute, unilateral, binary. It lacks nuance.
The same trend continues with the Mothership Core. Photon Overcharge is, again, hilariously powerful to the point it invalidates many small harassment forces. There's something morbid to being deathly afraid of farms in an RTS. And the bad thing about is is, again, the lack of nuance. It has both huge range and insane dps which shuts down harassment. There's no tension there like with more normal methods of defense.
Recall is like that too. With other races, if you overcommit you're SOL. Your stuff is either going to die so bad, or suffer harsh losses on the retreat. In some situations even turbo-vacs can be chased down and punished for overcommitment. Toss, press a button. I don't mind that they have a retreat-easing mechanism. I mind how binary and unilateral it is.
I probably don't need to mention how hilarious such an early flier is against Zerg pokes.
Finally, the Adept. Who designed Shade, I don't know, but the ability is yet another milestone of no-commitment "I have the option to..." type design. Press a button, and you can threaten an army very good at killing workers in two places at once. The ability might be interesting if you couldn't cancel it or the adepts couldn't fight when shading, but no. You get the cake and get to eat it and decide if the shade is worth it at the last second. Meanwhile the opponent has to treat it as a serious threat all the time. Because you can always choose to let it go off, at which point it's not a single dodge. Overcommitted? Just shade out of the damn base while killing workers because the shades just happen to be that damn fast. Again, no tension. Just unilateral low-risk, low-commitment decisions by the Protoss player.
Thank goodness they had the sense to make Oracles shoot stuff instead of the forced rule-alterations they used to in the HotS beta. Even then, the damage is so insane idk what they were thinking. But it's still miles better than the mineral-boxing abomination we first saw.
The nasty thing is that all that dog**** is probably balanced enough. But goddamnit if it isn't boring to watch once you get what kind of jig is up. It's just a victim dealing with bullshit. There's nowhere near as much interesting, nuanced tension as there are in the more normal engagements you mostly see in TvT, TvZ and ZvZ, where things primarily work by movement speed and threat of damage.
I don't want to see toss suck. But as a primary stream monster it just sucks watching toss nowadays, and my inner game designer cries every time I watch a game of SC2 Protoss. I don't want that. I want to be excited for it, but I can't. Even broken versions of liberators are automatically more interesting than the dog**** that composes half the Protoss race because of the simple need to commit with a deployment.
I more or less loathe Protoss. I don't want to, but I can't help it because it's just so offensive both in terms of entertainment value and design sensibilities. There is, however, one exception that's a shining beacon of great unit design: The Disruptor. I love Disruptors to bits. They're a prime example of what a stellar unit design looks like: It's all about blowing stuff up in an interesting but simple way, and allows players to play tricks on each other. It works primarily by threat value like ravagers and siege tanks, but with some delicious potential for toying with your opponent and rewards for invested attention. Simple, tense, interesting, space control tool, rewards micro/attention. It's everything an RTS unit should be.
|
Terran plat here.
I just played vs zerg master player
I did a 2 reactored factory all in with cyclones and helions.
Pretty easy win. I guess the current version of the cyclone is imba.
While watching the replay, I realized that spines are armored. May be removing the armored tag + an increase between shots can do the trick. May be something between 0.08 - 0.1 s between shots.
I definately have to say I like the feel of the unit.
From other games, I would say that the air lock on could use soe sort of dmg increase though. May be a tech lab upgrade?
Edit: Before I forget it. Zerglings, Banelings and Hydras had no chance with against this.
I would think that speed banes might fare better, however, this hits way to early to allow for them to arrive in time.
|
On August 23 2016 00:12 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2016 23:22 a_flayer wrote:On August 22 2016 22:43 JCoto wrote:On August 22 2016 22:16 Blackfeather wrote:On August 21 2016 19:21 Turb0Sw4g wrote: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. While I agree and always thought that sc2 had too many inflexible elements that take the focus away from actual strategy (yay, macro apm, so interesting...), blizzard made clear that they want the game to be mechanical taxing and they want to keep their dog trainer parts in the game. They reemphasized this again @fundamental changes. I doubt we are going to see any macro changes that aren't +/-costs. So I guess talking about it really serves no purpose I think that what I prosposed above is not a bad solution. I think I've read your proposed solutions before and I found them terribly vague and incomplete. And I still think that. Much like mine, except in different ways. I was really just venting with my original post because I can't be arsed to play the game in the way Blizzard seems to want the game to be played. I wasn't trying to start a discussion or even expecting people to agree with me, lel. Can totally relate to that, was a random plat/diamond player in wol and feel the same about macro mechanics (although I couldn't test it cause I got no beta key). One of the reasons I stopped playing was because Sc2 was for me too much RT and too little S. But the macro mechanics resolution made pretty clear that Blizz wants to keep it that way, or at least keep APM a major factor.
I feel that, if you remove artificial macro mechanics, the excessive APM will simply be dedicated to more multi-pronged harassments & engaging the other player in combat instead of macroing. But maybe I'm crazy like that and people will still go for the 1a deathball while APM drops down to next to nothing cause its so easy in SC2 to do that.
|
I hate it when people treat the game as if APM is the sole indicator of skill. I can spam my ass off and shift-click 3 medivacs and a bunch of bio around the map, that doesn't make me good at the game.
Mech simply takes a different kind of skill than bio. While bio is arguably pure APM, mech is about positioning, composition and timing. It's so easy to die with mech, you get caught out of position and you're dead. It's also pretty hard to defend bases and expand. The wrong composition can also cost you the game.
In my opinion, a player who can defend his bases properly with the slow mech units, not get caught out unsieged and have the right composition to fight the lategame P/Z armies is not less skillfull than someone who shift-clicks medivacs all over the map.
I agree that turtle mech is bad for the game, and while i would argue that turtling and winning by mining the opponent out does take a certain degree of skill and game knowledge, it's not fun for either player. Mech players are forced into turtling because mech itself is so weak atm. Combine that with the fact that if you lose your army once you lose the game, and that's why you get turtle games when mech's involved. With the test map changes we're gonna see less turtle mech from the traditional mech terrans, quote me on that.
|
On August 22 2016 17:20 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 02:08 Aesto wrote:
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. Pretty solid points! Mech can be changed to require more skill. Not sure how it fits the current meta of changes but in general I propose to a) reintroduce the siege mode upgrade b) increase siege/unsiege times with stronger tanks. The skill in playing mech accrues from tanks being very strong when in position but can be punished easily when out of position and too many unsieged at the same time. The mech style with stronger tanks should leave enough window for opponents to counter and be slowed down through this. Good mech play should rely on precision instead of speed. The exact distances and positions of sieged tanks, when exactly to siege and unsiege and how many at the same time, to have the perfect composition against what your opponent is planning to do through transitions always in time, etc.
Good mech SHOULD also rely on speed, back in BW whereas mech was a very positional based play you still needed a ton of speed and good control, you needed to be constantly doing harass with vultures, to be always laying mine fields, to control goliaths to stop shuttles from zealot bombing/reaver dropping, to be always on top of EMP-ing arbiters. You couldn't just plaster a bunch of tanks and turrets and expected to win, you need to be on top of your game.
SC2 already has this, I think changing cyclones to be more microable than current test map (without being the awkward units they are in live game) and to make them better AA than vs ground is the way to go.
You will do harass with hellions and banshees (some thing already important in mech play in SC2), be on top of cyclones to stop drops and harass, control viking/other air units (something that is already pretty big in mech TvT play), constantly positioning and repositioning, etc.
Mech play has its way to require a ton of skill, APM and speed to execute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
