EPTCommunity Feedback Update - February 10 - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
starkiller123
United States4029 Posts
| ||
|
operwolf
United States324 Posts
| ||
|
FrostedMiniWheats
United States30730 Posts
Still, the dream is an overhaul of Zerg AA, starting with swapping the hydralisk with the roach at tier 1 and giving the SH scourge. | ||
|
Kafka777
361 Posts
You have not heard much about Hydra buff change as you would have expected - well who cares about a change that will not change anything? Who cares really? Its a move in the right direction as the unit is too fragile in relation to technology and cost required and does not fulfill the function it should have - well maybe it counters mutalisks. You are fixing TvP but you are ignoring TvZ as if that is a perfect MU, it is not - look at GSL. Look at the games. I cannot believe you are totally ignorant of the problems. Try to make the game competitive and balanced in a sport-like manner like chess. Similar apm - similar advantage. Similar early game harass and scouting options. Balanced early, middle game and late game power. Make maps irrelevant. Otherwise there is something wrong with the whole philosophy and vision behind the work. Be brave with changes and make them more frequently - as it is it is a big mess. | ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
Whatever, I'll stick to dota 2 I guess. Who knows, maybe someone someday will make another good RTS. | ||
|
billynasty
United States260 Posts
| ||
Mizenhauer
United States1798 Posts
| ||
|
Mizenhauer
United States1798 Posts
On February 11 2017 06:03 Kafka777 wrote: I see the patching is done as if everything is almost perfect and just a minuscule change will fix the current issues. Well I do not think this is the case. I can understand that Blizz wants to wait with mine nerf - as the liberator change is very significant and the state of TvP balance might not be bad now. But the mine is too powerful - this is bad design and this applies to many units - like disruptors, reapers, swarmhosts, carriers etc. making the games being won on random basis by random players. I especially despise very strong early game units that cannot be truly countered on many maps. I disagree with the logic of balancing the game with maps, but I guess too many changes would have to be applied to fix this. You have not heard much about Hydra buff change as you would have expected - well who cares about a change that will not change anything? Who cares really? Its a move in the right direction as the unit is too fragile in relation to technology and cost required and does not fulfill the function it should have - well maybe it counters mutalisks. You are fixing TvP but you are ignoring TvZ as if that is a perfect MU, it is not - look at GSL. Look at the games. I cannot believe you are totally ignorant of the problems. Try to make the game competitive and balanced in a sport-like manner like chess. Similar apm - similar advantage. Similar early game harass and scouting options. Balanced early, middle game and late game power. Make maps irrelevant. Otherwise there is something wrong with the whole philosophy and vision behind the work. Be brave with changes and make them more frequently - as it is it is a big mess. If every game was played on overgrowth I would be so happy. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
I've just completely lost track of this game because of these updates. So has David Or they are trying to keep the game somewhat realistic. Air control is imperative in modern warfare but would suddenly stop being so valuable and powerful in space battles? Yea I understand that, but the reason air control isn't the only thing that matters in modern warfare is because ground forces still have powerful options against most air fighters | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Just look at the carrier interactions in sc2 compared to bw (yes again bw as an example boo-hoo) and while it wasn't perfect in bw either, it was at least way better. A Nony video from back then explaining a bit (some of it iirc got added in sc2, but the interactions simply aren't comparable still edit: i think retargeting got added?) | ||
|
Clonester
Germany2808 Posts
Then just release this redesign without any "community discussion" aka "cancerish 1 playstyle only players trying to be the loudest so the game gets pushed in their direction" shittalks dont matter and then bring out one or two patches for the most imbalanced numbers and leave it. | ||
|
Elentos
55456 Posts
On February 11 2017 03:34 The_Red_Viper wrote: I never liked the widow mine one shotting units like the oracle tbh And I don't like the fact that widow mines are the only Terran units that have a realistic chance of killing an oracle the Protoss is paying attention to for the first 10 minutes of a game. But that's the world we live in, you're stuck with widow mines that one-shot oracles and I'm stuck with cyclones that couldn't defend my base from overlords, much less kill actual air units. | ||
|
Boggyb
2855 Posts
On February 11 2017 08:08 jpg06051992 wrote: Yea I understand that, but the reason air control isn't the only thing that matters in modern warfare is because ground forces still have powerful options against most air fighters The only reason air control hasn't been the sole deciding factor in modern warfare is the modern wars have been fought in jungles or against people not wearing uniforms who surround themselves by civilians. In a true army in the field modern war fought directly between world powers, air control would be decisive. Hell, assuming anti-ballistic missile protection systems don't exist, those could decide things without a shot being fired from a conventional weapon. As to Starcraft 2, a Battlecruiser or a Carrier would absolutely have defense systems capable of stopping anything deployed from a mobile weapon system regardless of its type. Stationary defense might have weapons capable of breaking through that and to defend itself, but armies definitely shouldn't. One Battlecruiser or Carrier should completely invalidate any and all ground armies, so air in SC2 is significantly under powered. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
Buffing Corruptors buffs ZvT as well as ZvP, and ZvT is about as close to perfect as it can ever get, in terms of balance. Makes no sense to destabilize other matchups when Carrier range, or attack speed, or interceptor build time, or anything else, could just be nerfed. As far as mines go, perhaps removing (+shield) splash bonus completely and buffing Ghosts as a replacement? | ||
|
bulya
Israel386 Posts
Blizz are on the right track lately. TvP is addressed, and obviously they can't push another terran nerf before checking how did the previous one did (released less then 2 weeks ago). It takes time for players realizing that Stalkers are a soft counter to libs now, unlike 2 weeks before, and use them in a more decisive way vs Libs. So regarding the widow mine change lets see where the lib nerf leads us now. Corruptor buff is a good thing in my opinion, as unlike P or T zerg don't have AA air units that can do that much, and the corruptor's weak link is its speed. I don't think it will make a huge change in ZvT, even though corruptor ling bane can turn into a thing ones the corruptors are buffed. It is a style which is hard to play now, medivacs can run away from them (can even escape mutas), so buffing corruptors can be a thing. Will help zergs vs skyterran, which is a state in the game where the zerg struggles. Another solution can be modifying the HT feedback energy cost, as hydras don't do that well vs carriers because HTs are underneath them and can easily feedback vipers which can abduct carriers so that the carriers will be in a decent range for the hydras. I don't think the feedback energy nerf will affect other areas of the game apart for vipers abducting protoss power units. A counter can be a few tempests shooting these vipers from a far. But going for some tempests over carriers will make the carrier number low enough so the zerg can fight it. In case a corruptor buff will happen then a hydra buff is not necessary and can even break PvZ. Regarding the mech issue, then there are ways of playing mech in TvZ. What you can't do is start camping until you build an unbeatable army. And in case the later was possible the game and the match-up would have been broken. There are more mobile mech units now, which can make mech work in the early game, and mines is the way to go in the later stage of the game, as they shut down both anti mech hard counters (swarm hosts and vipers). I think mech players didn't really adjusted to the new patch, and didn't accept that the camping mech style isn't fun to play, isn't fun to play against, and isn't fun to watch, which is why it is not really an option now. | ||
|
Edowyth
United States183 Posts
On February 11 2017 08:54 Boggyb wrote: As to Starcraft 2, a Battlecruiser or a Carrier would absolutely have defense systems capable of stopping anything deployed from a mobile weapon system regardless of its type. Stationary defense might have weapons capable of breaking through that and to defend itself, but armies definitely shouldn't. One Battlecruiser or Carrier should completely invalidate any and all ground armies, so air in SC2 is significantly under powered. I mean ... marines have rifles that shoot bullets directly into space ... Something that tiny that doesn't get captured by the gravity of the planet is going to make for one hell of a hard-to-detect much less hard-to-stop-projectile. Nonetheless, the carriers and battlecruisers in lore would still completely wreck face on planets (even if they lost one or two carriers to freak shots to power centers / distribution and took tons of casualties due to ordinary shots going end-to-end through their ship). Regardless, none of that matters for game-play. Having a single unit end the game simply isn't fun. I'd argue this is even worse for ground-based units (disruptors, widow mines) than air-based units, but ground-to-air from all three races is significantly lacking and always has been. I'd say all of these units either suck or are only marginal against air threats: - stalker (damage) - sentry (damage) - archon (immobility, single-target damage) - hydra (health) - queen (damage) - ravager (delay making damage nearly non-existent) - thor (immobility, damage) - cyclone (damage) Which leaves slow, splash damage (HTs, WMs, infestors), cheap, mass-producible options (Marines), or high-impact options (Ghost). Of those, only marines are actually reliable and mobile enough to be considered "good" versus air units. It's not that air units are "too good" versus ground -- it's just that all the ground-to-air options are actually horrible. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16378 Posts
 On February 11 2017 06:12 ihatevideogames wrote: Nothing about Swarm Hosts. Whatever, I'll stick to dota 2 I guess. Who knows, maybe someone someday will make another good RTS. Halo Wars 2 is out in February its gonna go down faster than the Hindenburg. | ||
|
Exquisite7
34 Posts
On February 11 2017 09:41 Edowyth wrote: I mean ... marines have rifles that shoot bullets directly into space ... Something that tiny that doesn't get captured by the gravity of the planet is going to make for one hell of a hard-to-detect much less hard-to-stop-projectile. Nonetheless, the carriers and battlecruisers in lore would still completely wreck face on planets (even if they lost one or two carriers to freak shots to power centers / distribution and took tons of casualties due to ordinary shots going end-to-end through their ship). Regardless, none of that matters for game-play. Having a single unit end the game simply isn't fun. I'd argue this is even worse for ground-based units (disruptors, widow mines) than air-based units, but ground-to-air from all three races is significantly lacking and always has been. I'd say all of these units either suck or are only marginal against air threats: - stalker (damage) - sentry (damage) - archon (immobility, single-target damage) - hydra (health) - queen (damage) - ravager (delay making damage nearly non-existent) - thor (immobility, damage) - cyclone (damage) Which leaves slow, splash damage (HTs, WMs, infestors), cheap, mass-producible options (Marines), or high-impact options (Ghost). Of those, only marines are actually reliable and mobile enough to be considered "good" versus air units. It's not that air units are "too good" versus ground -- it's just that all the ground-to-air options are actually horrible. In regards to the list of units you posted, it really matters what this air threat really means. The only units on that list that truly struggle against all air types are ravagers, sentries and cyclones. Everything else does really well against a certain type of air unit like Thor to muta, or queens to void rays. | ||
|
necrosexy
451 Posts
| ||
|
Kokujin
United States456 Posts
| ||
| ||
