| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Charoisaur
Germany16061 Posts
I hope they focus now on reapers and carriers. Also auto-turrets and burrow-fungal should be adressed imo. @Nerchio: increasing feedback energy cost would make it harder to defend drops in pvt since you won't be able to reactively warp-in templar and feedback the medivacs anymore. | ||
|
Nerchio
Poland2633 Posts
On January 24 2017 05:35 Charoisaur wrote: Good change, hopefully that will be enough to balance tvp. I hope they focus now on reapers and carriers. Also auto-turrets and burrow-fungal should be adressed imo. @Nerchio: increasing feedback energy cost would make it harder to defend drops in pvt since you won't be able to reactively warp-in templar and feedback the medivacs anymore. Maybe although it doesn't happen that often in Lotv I think | ||
|
todespolka
221 Posts
It is very dangerous to weaken the liberator, because it could bring back the old sc2, where you can't defend big armies, where a deathball is all you need, where comebacks are impossible and where protoss only has to a move. Lotv has finally so much in common with bw, i would lose hope if we turtle back. | ||
|
Alchemik
Poland7124 Posts
looks fun | ||
|
Solar424
United States4001 Posts
| ||
|
usopsama
6502 Posts
| ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
If further changes are needed, we will take action on them as well. Which means nothing in the end. What is needed to change can be entirely subjective, and with blizzards view on things nothing will change pretty much if we go on how they have done this before. | ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary407 Posts
that way lings would not be able to kill the shade, but banes and roaches could? so noobs like me would not suck _that_ hard against a competent toss. | ||
|
Gheizen64
Italy2077 Posts
| ||
|
hiroshOne
Poland425 Posts
On January 24 2017 06:30 Gheizen64 wrote: +1 armor on hydras would make much more sense as a buff instead of raw hp. Would make the unit usable in ZvT and not buff it too much in ZvP where it's already good. I don't think any buff to hydra will give them more appearance in ZvT because of one simple reason- Marine and BIO overall is much more powerful than in Broodwar. They wreck hydras and 10 hp more will not change that. Actually in broodwar u could fight Hydra/ling vs Marine/medic. In sc2 BIO is super strong with stim and much more mobile i feel. It would not work. Hydras are actually present in ZvT but only vs mech. But I would happily see some love for hydras indeed :-) | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On January 24 2017 05:46 todespolka wrote: This was not necessary, because nobody should engage liberators head on. It is the purpose of the unit to zone out and to create safe haven, where other weaker units can retreat. It is very dangerous to weaken the liberator, because it could bring back the old sc2, where you can't defend big armies, where a deathball is all you need, where comebacks are impossible and where protoss only has to a move. Lotv has finally so much in common with bw, i would lose hope if we turtle back. that should be the purpose of the tank. liberators are already more mobile than tanks, it makes sense then that they should be weaker. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
On January 24 2017 06:43 hiroshOne wrote: I don't think any buff to hydra will give them more appearance in ZvT because of one simple reason- Marine and BIO overall is much more powerful than in Broodwar. They wreck hydras and 10 hp more will not change that. Actually in broodwar u could fight Hydra/ling vs Marine/medic. In sc2 BIO is super strong with stim and much more mobile i feel. It would not work. Hydras are actually present in ZvT but only vs mech. But I would happily see some love for hydras indeed :-) hydras are awful vs marine medic in bw since they do half damage to light units. the instant a single medic is out they start trading inefficiently. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On January 24 2017 05:12 NonY wrote: and you can keep saying it however much you want. you have no way of checking for the alternative I can check for the alternative, because it happened. This is about qualitative analysis (even though quantity of their poor balance history is pages long). Take any of those issues where Blizzard was too slow... say Hellbats on release in HOTS. A lot of people, including myself, saw the obvious that Hellbats had the potential to become BFH all over again for TvT (and I can go into why BFH was broken if need be). It should not have happened, it was disgraceful to repeat that. But precisely that happened. So the alternative was to make the change by looking at the game and realizing similarities. And the alternative happened, but it happened way too late, we had to live thru BFH 2.0 again. It didn't take a rocket scientist, people like me were posting why Hellbats needed a nerf long before the release of HOTS. While it never should have been balanced like that in the first place (and that is very telling in itself that it was balanced like that), once it was Blizzard should have been able to look at the game and realized the similarities before they released HOTS. But they were unable to do just that, which is something so basic. So players were unnecessarily frustrated before it was patched, and it had to be patched out, wasting time and resources for Blizzard. Thus, if you analyze their decision making qualitatively, you see the incompetence, especially if you compare that to the decision making of Riot. And sadly, that isn't the only example of Blizzard literally repeating history and being clueless. On January 24 2017 05:25 Nerchio wrote: In the last couple of tournaments progamers were talking about getting together to talk to balance team of SC2. Most of us agree that we would like to see a lot of small changes like you see in this community feedback. Last community feedback was disappointing but this shows a lot of potential. I think Blizzard should play with a lot of small changes that wouldn't break the game on either side. My small suggestions at the moment would be to: - Make feedback 75 energy. Would help zerg in PvZ late game and maybe would allow more caster usage. Wouldn't break anything else (maybe sometimes feedback vs mass phoenix in PvP but I am not an expert and doesn't happen too often) - If we change feedback then Carriers might not need to be nerfed that hard since vipers will be more playable. Still a small nerf would be neccessary. Maybe going back to 25 minerals for interceptors or something else. -1 interceptor max? I think those 2 are the most important at the moment but there is a lot more that could be played with without breaking the game. Examples: - Could buff stalkers a little bit like +1 or +2 damage against everything. - Adept shade cooldown could be 1/2 seconds longer so you need to commit more and can't jump between bases so easily. If people don't like it then could make the shade itself longer for the same amount. I could write more but there are more personal changes where I disagree with the design like medivac boost being free and should cost 10-15 energy but some people will not take this post serious I guess  The Viper is such a poorly designed unit that doesn't encourage counterplay, I'd hate to see it more often. I warned about Abduct on release because it is an all or nothing ability. In late game situations, either it can be landed without being countered easily and it is too strong, or it is too easy to counter and thus if Zerg is dependent on it, it creates a game balance issue if it can't be used effectively. | ||
|
I wasbanned fromthis
113 Posts
Thanks for continuing to work with us to make StarCraft II the best game that it can be! `murica! FUCK YAH! This bud is for you! Rabbit: A number one top gun, in the name of justice, John Q. Public can trust us. Hail to thee dear old Paroon, hail to thee. All: Hail to thee! Rabbit: Hail to thee! | ||
|
ILoveZest
9 Posts
| ||
NonY
8751 Posts
I can check for the alternative, because it happened ... So the alternative was to make the change by looking at the game and realizing similarities. And the alternative happened, but it happened way too late, we had to live thru BFH 2.0 again. I don't get it. You're not considering the alternative. You're just giving an example supporting what you're saying. Two ways I can think of to consider the alternative: #1 You point out times when the community was able to identify something as problematic and it ended up never being solved by players or by maps, so it never got solved until the game itself changed. But what about the times when the community identifies something and it does resolve itself without changes to the game itself? Doing your analysis in hindsight prevents you from testing yourself against this at all. Community feedback is like a shotgun blast and you focus on the pellets that hit the target and forget about all the ones that miss. The ones that miss are the alternative. #2 You never know when a problem is actually unsolvable. BW was played unchanged for so many years and radically new strategies were still being invented (that did not depend on new maps). When Blizzard doesn't change something for a long time, and then finally does change it, how do you know a player's solution wasn't right around the corner? Maybe Blizzard didn't wait long enough. So the alternative here lies in a hypothetical future. If Blizzard quickly changed the rules of the game, players are robbed of the opportunity to solve their problems strategically, which is the essence of the game. There's no point to a cycle of "play the game" -> "encounter an obstacle" -> "wait for patch to mix things up again". It's okay for MOBAs with 100 heroes and endless team comps but not okay for RTS with 3 races. You'd be creating situations where players encounter an obstacle and don't even try very hard to solve it, but rather they just bypass it. They can do some all-ins or make unusual compositions for that one matchup for this one season because next season they know it's going to be changed. | ||
|
SKN1995
Japan204 Posts
Hell, it's about time. Edit: Also, guy above me is speaking sense as per usual. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On January 24 2017 05:46 todespolka wrote: This was not necessary, because nobody should engage liberators head on. It is the purpose of the unit to zone out and to create safe haven, where other weaker units can retreat. It is very dangerous to weaken the liberator, because it could bring back the old sc2, where you can't defend big armies, where a deathball is all you need, where comebacks are impossible and where protoss only has to a move. Lotv has finally so much in common with bw, i would lose hope if we turtle back. Well with the tanks that creates a 13 zone you shouldn't go, and WM, and liberator, tanks/WM/liberators is a deathball vs Protoss ground. Also T used to siege their lib right in the face of Protoss army, and P only have blink stalkers vs Liberators. Still liberator will have 65.8 DPS, that's still pretty insane | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5529 Posts
| ||
|
chipmonklord17
United States11944 Posts
On January 24 2017 05:35 Charoisaur wrote: Good change, hopefully that will be enough to balance tvp. I hope they focus now on reapers and carriers. Also auto-turrets and burrow-fungal should be adressed imo. @Nerchio: increasing feedback energy cost would make it harder to defend drops in pvt since you won't be able to reactively warp-in templar and feedback the medivacs anymore. God forbid a protoss would need units in position ahead of time | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
hero vs YSC
Larva vs Shine
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
KCM Race Survival
The PondCast
WardiTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
