| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
beentheredonethat
2934 Posts
What I want to express is: Ultralisks feel very strong and I know that their numbers have been tweaked a lot with LotV. I hope this gets adressed in the big patch that was announced. Then again: I played one single game. I am by no means an expert or anything  . | ||
|
VHbb
692 Posts
On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote: I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. Well the fact that BCs are also underused doesn't mean that Carriers cannot be made more viable.. and they *are* an iconic unit, come on, they represent the ultimate protoss weapon.. when I play SC2 I want to be able to use Carriers  it wouldn't feel like StarCraft otherwise At my level the cost tweak doesn't have a huge impact (diamond), I'm sure they are pretty much as viable as before, but I like to see top level games with capital ships, Carriers and BCs, etc. etc. ... If they can find a good interceptor cost between 5 and 25, that allows for the Carriers to be more viable, than that's good for me | ||
|
Senkii
Hungary37 Posts
Otherwise good points. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 21 2016 09:15 VHbb wrote: Well the fact that BCs are also underused doesn't mean that Carriers cannot be made more viable.. and they *are* an iconic unit, come on, they represent the ultimate protoss weapon.. when I play SC2 I want to be able to use Carriers it wouldn't feel like StarCraft otherwise At my level the cost tweak doesn't have a huge impact (diamond), I'm sure they are pretty much as viable as before, but I like to see top level games with capital ships, Carriers and BCs, etc. etc. ... If they can find a good interceptor cost between 5 and 25, that allows for the Carriers to be more viable, than that's good for me The problem is that the carrier seems to be an a move unit atm. It's not all that interesting to watch the gameplay. You have to fix that, there needs to be a massive efficiency gap between Stats using carriers and some random master player using carriers. I am only talking about the actual usage here, not how to get there, etc. | ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote: At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer. The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote: The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which lets you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote: Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote: avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Making the game "fun" is a laudable goal, but the community has neither the ability nor the power nor the will to do so. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 21 2016 11:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Making the game "fun" is a laudable goal, but the community has neither the ability nor the power to do so. The community has the power to voice their opinion on design decisions which might be bad for the fun part. If blizzard listens? Who knows. But atm it's mostly talking about balance here and balance there. Is the carrier too strong? Probably. The more interesting point of discussion would be: Even if it would be perfectly balanced, would it be fun to use/play against ? Almost nobody is trying to come from that direction though, which is sad imo. It's also the reason people don't talk about other things anymore, because pros don't use it or it isn't in the current meta. So yes you are right that people have no power over the actual game, but TL is a discussion forum and the more productive/interesting discussion would be design/how to make the game fun/satisfying to play instead of trying to argue about balance which is never going to be perfect anyway (because perfect balance is only achieved when we get closer to mirror matchups) | ||
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Blizzard "tried" to make Avilo mech "viable", and look at what we have now, an even more boring game. We're talking about someone who blames every single loss on imbalance and hacks, even accusing progamers of hacking. This is exactly the kind of person we should NOT listen to. Also, SC2 community is garbage. How did people respond to SC2 being a bad game? By buying Overwatch. Why would Blizzard ever put an effort to make the game fun if they can just push their customers around? All we can expect are this "whatever" changes. So, are are people going to point out what's clearly retarded in the game right now, or give their opinions based on the weekly 10 games they play on gold league? | ||
|
Mahanaim
Korea (South)1002 Posts
| ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote: Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which lets you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) I stand by my original statement | ||
|
fx9
117 Posts
On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote: I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote: "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. | ||
|
icesergio
Italy31 Posts
On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote: I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic. | ||
|
icesergio
Italy31 Posts
On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote: I don't understand why you ask to revert interceptors to 25minerals.. - carriers were NEVER used before the patch - 5min is too low, I agree - why not a middle ground?? 10min?15min? why should we either go too low or too high? Carriers are COOL units, I want to see them more in the game ! A part from this, I really like the approach of small changes, from the last IEM tournament I think the game is in a very nice state And if you want to have a laugh you can just tune to Avilo stream and see him play toss/zerg to show they are imbalanced, and lose to mech terran, it's pretty sweet  This, nuff said | ||
|
icesergio
Italy31 Posts
On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 21 2016 12:17 icesergio wrote: Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about? There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall. | ||
|
icesergio
Italy31 Posts
On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote: There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall. Robotics Bay: Warp Prism HP has been reduced, immortal drops aren't really a thing and one can't just say "I'm going robo!" besides, if a protoss scouts two gases in a terran base early in the game the toss MUST open robo to get an observer and be ready for any kind of banshee, cyclone, widow mine, liberator or any other shenanigans a terran might be cooking up. Twilight council doesn't carry into the lategame, ever tried walking blink stalkers or glaived adepts into a siege tank line? Not a good idea. Stargate: in the last post you JUST said that even though Carriers weren't used that doesn't imply that there should have been a buff, alright fair enough, but what do you expect to build out of stargates if carriers aren't a good option? Mass void rays? That might work in bronze league, doubt it'll work in Diamond. Carriers got a needed buff, maybe too much? Yes, I agree, but that doesn't mean that because people can't adapt to this new carrier play (which was never seen since brood war) the carrier should be tossed again into the void of forgotten units. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
