|
On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ?
I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP.
I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall.
|
On October 08 2016 19:12 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ? I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP. I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall.
How can an unit that one shoots everything in such a radius ever be in a good and stable place ? The mere concept of dealing so much instant damage makes little sense. Hence why I think the more situational the disruptor is, the better.
|
On October 08 2016 19:16 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 19:12 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ? I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP. I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall. How can an unit that one shoots everything in such a radius ever be in a good and stable place ? The mere concept of dealing so much instant damage makes little sense. Hence why I think the more situational the disruptor is, the better.
Should be careful when trying to go for such general concepts, by being too general, they end meaning not much at all.
Imho disruptors are fine, it's not because Neeb won won KeSPA cup that they're suddenly op in PvP, they are counters and alternatives and, overall, their strength is kinda minor compared to the fact that Neeb simply outplayed Trap.
That's the kind of units I like : their strength is directly linked to the skill gap between players, they're like baneling in ZvT : you can rekt a whole marine army with 2 banelings if your opponent is bad, or do no damage at all if your opponent targets like ByuN.
|
I tend to have high opinion of the dev team, but I can't help to think that whoever thought nerfing the cyclone AA and buffing the raven was a good is an idiot.
|
On October 08 2016 20:29 Gwavajuice wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 19:16 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 19:12 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 19:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:On October 08 2016 18:50 Elentos wrote:On October 08 2016 18:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Disruptor is fine in PvZ / PvT but should be toned down in PvP. I find it really bad against Terran honestly. As a Terran I much rather play against disruptors than colossi or storm. So I'm not sure I'd call it "fine". I don't think it needs to be any better. What's wrong if colossi and storm are the aoe P should gear for in PvT ? I don't know. It's bad against Terran (frankly I find even gateway/immortal armies stronger than armies with disruptors), it's kind of okay against Zerg. And then every so often it switches between not used and way too strong in PvP. I don't think the disruptor is in a good and stable place overall. How can an unit that one shoots everything in such a radius ever be in a good and stable place ? The mere concept of dealing so much instant damage makes little sense. Hence why I think the more situational the disruptor is, the better. Should be careful when trying to go for such general concepts, by being too general, they end meaning not much at all. Imho disruptors are fine, it's not because Neeb won won KeSPA cup that they're suddenly op in PvP, they are counters and alternatives and, overall, their strength is kinda minor compared to the fact that Neeb simply outplayed Trap. That's the kind of units I like : their strength is directly linked to the skill gap between players, they're like baneling in ZvT : you can rekt a whole marine army with 2 banelings if your opponent is bad, or do no damage at all if your opponent targets like ByuN.
it's not really comparable to banelings because banelings provide way more predictable outcomes in battles.
if you have 50 banelings with zergling support vs 50 marines the banelings will always trade somewhat reasonably even if dream is splitting the marines.
With 10 banelings vs 50 marines the banelings will always die without doing any damage.
for disruptors however the outcome is way more binary.
1 disruptor could kill 30 supply of marine marauder while 5 disruptors could possibly not even kill a single unit.
|
On October 09 2016 05:42 Lexender wrote:
I tend to have high opinion of the dev team, but I can't help to think that whoever thought nerfing the cyclone AA and buffing the raven was a good is an idiot.
I haven't had a reason to have a high opinion of the development team for a long time, and buffing the Raven turrets and nerfing Cyclone AA does nothing to make me change my stance that David Kim is quite simply, incompetent.
|
On October 08 2016 18:59 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 13:17 Exquisite7 wrote:On October 08 2016 09:07 FLuE wrote:
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing. You are so far away from being correct. This type of transparency is exactly what is needed in this community. It is awesome to see that they are revealing their thoughts and opinions very often. It's six years in, they've pissed away 90% of their players, the community of pro gamers has "downsized" which is "healthy", and they still don't know how to make units/mechanics introduced in WoL work. I think it's very safe to say they don't know what they're doing.
Hopefully they will piss away you too 
|
The Nexus no longer has a kill counter.
 why would they remove this
|
On October 09 2016 13:03 Exquisite7 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 18:59 Probe1 wrote:On October 08 2016 13:17 Exquisite7 wrote:On October 08 2016 09:07 FLuE wrote:
I hate these updates all it does is reaffirm they have no idea what they are doing. You are so far away from being correct. This type of transparency is exactly what is needed in this community. It is awesome to see that they are revealing their thoughts and opinions very often. It's six years in, they've pissed away 90% of their players, the community of pro gamers has "downsized" which is "healthy", and they still don't know how to make units/mechanics introduced in WoL work. I think it's very safe to say they don't know what they're doing. Hopefully they will piss away you too
More dev team apologists I see?
This is the reason SC2 is in the state it's in, people being in denial and not holding the team accountable.
|
So, it will not be up to the players, with settings options, whether they want to always show worker/army supply, show when moused over or never show? How troublesome would that be to implement ?
On another topic: What if you had two spawn larvae abilities on the queen? One that is only auto-cast or not cast at all, while the other is manually cast. The auto-cast ability is less efficient, while the manually cast is more efficient. The player gets to choose if they want more larvae or if they want to divert their attention to something else. This would give the zerg players a choice for their macro mechanic.
|
On October 08 2016 18:26 weikor wrote:
I think the game would be a lot more fun if there were less options. Macro mechanics fall into the category of "not fun, but make the game harder"
Think of a hypothetical game where you can only build a gateway and a Nexus.
A lot of now unseen strategy in Sc2 would evolve and players would become exceptionally good at zealot control.
Micro, positioning, building placement, unit positioning, attack times, flanking, expansion timings, multi pronged attacks, proxies- all of them would play a huge role in winning.
So even with just one unit in the game that only melee attacks - there would be an elite, a "pro player" would still go to blizzcon and sweep the floor with everyone. Theres less to do so maybe he pulls off a 5 sided attack.
Of course, thats just an example - but the point is, remove shit that isnt fun, make the game easier to control and casuals and pros will love it.
In its current version - a lot of the strategy is hidden behind 200-400 apm of optimal base management. All the strategy gets lost in lower leagues (advice i often hear "you should just focus on making marines contantly and A move them to your opponent") - why should that be fun in any way?
You do realize it's like that for your opponents too right? Terran focuses on their in base production managementioned with making their production buildings while spending money in unit cycles, protoss does similar but in focused bursts with warpgate that forces them to take their eyes off to nearby pylon or prism while building productions and chronoboost,and zero is macro heavy race with map vision, creep, inject and optimal drone to army management
Auto inject would be getting rid of a huge macro cycle of zerg and also denying the works of players who tend to focus on such aspect of game in midst of battle and pressure. One whole aspect denied
|
Canada33091 Posts
I'm also super confused by why the Nexus doesn't need a kill counter.
It gets kills with its Nexus cannon thing, right? :/
|
On October 11 2016 02:08 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'm also super confused by why the Nexus doesn't need a kill counter.
It gets kills with its Nexus cannon thing, right? :/
Not sure if I am being trolled or not, but there is no Nexus cannon any more, only Pylon cannons.
So Pylons need a kill counter now instead of the Nexus.
|
Some people really need to get over themselves. So many baseless accusations.
|
On October 09 2016 14:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:
More dev team apologists I see?
This is the reason SC2 is in the state it's in, people being in denial and not holding the team accountable.
the genre is 25 years old and the state of technology is radically different. i'm happy with the job Blizzard is doing on the game. their good work on all their games, including SC2, is the reason Overwatch was an insta-purchase for me when i normally wait 1 year before buying any game.
the primary reason for my decline in SC2 playing time is Overwatch.
|
On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example
This was hard to me to read, because save the parts about units released in LOTV, all of that has been true in WOL and HOTS too.
With one exception: You could stop Mutalisks in WOL by whittling away at them with Blink Stalkers and Storm. The Regeneration bonus given in HOTS made that impractical, and the game became less strategically diverse as a result.
|
Concerning protoss, please nerf adepts, in one of the million ways possible. A zealot buff would be a possibility if you feel concerned about balance.
|
On October 11 2016 05:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2016 07:26 Turb0Sw4g wrote:In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with Protoss design - Stalkers and Zealots are too weak, Adepts are too strong
- Phoenix more or less mandatory in PvZ (to guard against heavy Muta play)
- Oracle harassment is too strong
- Mothership Core exists and is actually necessary for early game defense (and enables offensive pylon rushes)
- Void Ray only has a niche role
- Overlapping splash (Colossus, Disruptor, Psi Storm)
- Too many spells and abilities
So, just to name the change with the most potential for a positive impact: please try changing the Stalkers damage to flat 14 damage and in turn increase its cost. For example This was hard to me to read, because save the parts about units released in LOTV, all of that has been true in WOL and HOTS too. With one exception: You could stop Mutalisks in WOL by whittling away at them with Blink Stalkers and Storm. The Regeneration bonus given in HOTS made that impractical, and the game became less strategically diverse as a result.
Sorry, bro. But yeah, most of this has been true since WOL. They never fixed the Gateway dilemma: if Gateway units are being buffed Warpgate tech becomes too powerful; less powerful Gateway units implies reliance on gimmicks (Photon Overcharge), one-sidedly overpowered units (Oracle, Disruptor) and impossible to balance spells (Force Field).
The best suggestion to fix this imo is to
- buff gateway units a little (to make them more all-round)
- redesign warpgate tech (by flipping Warpgate and Gateway production rate)
I think this change alone would make it possible to remove the Mothership Core. The stalker change is a good starting point. Let's hope they'll actually go through with it and let us test it.
|
I wish they'd look at chrono and warp ins. Channeling chrono is a little clunky to use, and varying warp in speed based on pylons proximity to nexus/warpgate just feels so gross.
I mean, getting run over by a gateway all in frusterated me as much as the next person, but it wasn't broken. Now it's just super gross and clunky instead of being simple, without rules.
|
On October 11 2016 22:01 InfCereal wrote:
I wish they'd look at chrono and warp ins. Channeling chrono is a little clunky to use, and varying warp in speed based on pylons proximity to nexus/warpgate just feels so gross.
I mean, getting run over by a gateway all in frusterated me as much as the next person, but it wasn't broken. Now it's just super gross and clunky instead of being simple, without rules.
Agreed 100%, to the point where I think warpgate is what has hurt this game more than anything else. Because it goes against the core mechanics of the game, where there should be more cost/benefit and the mechanic allowing units to warp in anywhere just makes no sense in an RTS game like this. It has led to the reason gateway units have had to be soft, instead of strong as protoss units are suppose to be.
And as you mention, the current mechanic is confusing and makes little sense. New players struggle with it, and creates a layer of difficulty placing buildings that really doesn't add to the game. Is my pylon touching the nexus or not? Am I warping in at which color pylon? It just isn't seamless integration for what should be a simple part of the game.
I'd love to see a test map where the following is done:
1 - Remove warpgate. Make gateway units across the board stronger, and if needed slightly faster. Produce units just like they do now with a gateway.
2 - Add a new upgrade to Cyber Core - Warp Prism Unit Warp upgrade. This upgrades any warp prism to allow for a 4 second warp in of any gateway unit. The cost is 50 energy per warped in unit(plus the standard unit cost), as the warp prism will now have energy similar to any other energy based unit. You can warp in up to 4 units(assuming save up 200 energy) but then would need wait to get energy back. The drop aspect of the prism works the same, without the upgrade. You can only warp in gateway units that you have access too via proper tech structures.
- Reason for this: 1 you can still use to drop/harass/warp in as before. But now it limits it to 4 units instead of 12+ lategame or however many gates you have. It is ridiculous someone can just warp 20 units into your base. If you want to invest in 2 warp prisms and save up 200 energy and also put 4 units into each prism, go for it. But this should make it more in line with harassment instead of just flooding someone's base or expansion.
Second, you could choose to park a warp-prism at each of your expansions and use to defend drop play as needed. Buy time till you can get more units there. Now you could see issues with people rushing out 2-3 warp prisms and getting a push of units, but keep in mind they would have to wait for energy to build up plus the upgrade. So you'd still need plenty of gateways. This makes more sense for defending than shooting pylons. So for defense I could put in Warp Prism mode a prism at each base, costs me some supply but if I have a pylon or two I can then instantly get a few units there assuming I've saved the energy. This also means I'm not screwed if I just happened to do a big warp in across the map and then a drop comes. Makes the game make more sense to a casual. If you can imagine a situation where you keep your 1-2 warp-prism at home patrolling for drops and then warp in at the base needed. I think would be a cleaner solution all around.
3 - Get rid of shooting pylons. Instead for 25 energy you can power a pylon to release healing energy for 20 seconds. Any unit standing in this will have their shield healed at an increased rate(rate can be tested). This would allow for a defender advantage where you can either fight in that sphere(figure a bit bigger than sentry shield) or micro your units where you pull them back into the healing and then push forward.
I think these 3 changes would make protoss more playable, easier to understand, and then other races could better be balanced going forward. Right now the warpgate mechanic breaks the game, and causes weak gateway units, that in turn have to have micro mechanics to make them more viable to try and offset the weakness. It is just so complicated, I liked in BW it was like "make dragoons. They can kill things." Protoss felt strong, but expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
