EPTFor a unit that is tier 3, costs 300/200 and requires a 200/200 upgrade to hit the field it has felt underwhelming since lotv.
A while back you said you would have experimented with 12 (+4) light on the test map. What happened to this idea?
Community Feedback Update- April 20 - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
icesergio
Italy31 Posts
For a unit that is tier 3, costs 300/200 and requires a 200/200 upgrade to hit the field it has felt underwhelming since lotv. A while back you said you would have experimented with 12 (+4) light on the test map. What happened to this idea? | ||
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
On April 21 2017 17:45 insitelol wrote: Blizzard, If you are so obsessed with changing the game look at capcom for instance. One relatively big balnce patch every year. So everyone is warranted the game won't be touched for at least one year. What you do these days is just obscene. Throwing in changes during tournaments, w/o any proper analysis/data. Every freaking time "community feedback" thread pops up i tremble in both horror and anger and pray BW HD is coming out sooner or starting to think about fully switching to SFV. And i'm playing starcraft since 98. So Blizzard should wait 1 year before chaging stuff that are clearly broken in the game? They did that for Ultra armor and i didn't see the playerbase or viewers numbers going up. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
| ||
|
SCHWARZENEGGER
206 Posts
On April 21 2017 20:47 icesergio wrote: Oh and might I propose a Colossus buff? For a unit that is tier 3, costs 300/200 and requires a 200/200 upgrade to hit the field it has felt underwhelming since lotv. A while back you said you would have experimented with 12 (+4) light on the test map. What happened to this idea? colossus are good enough, 12+4 idea was cancelled cuz it's obviously imba and it was mentioned in previous updates | ||
|
KOtical
Germany451 Posts
On April 21 2017 05:00 Liquid`Snute wrote: Thor is already pretty strong and very underrated but the suggested change probably won't break much. Terran mech is very strong if swarmhost doesn't exist btw, raven and BC's will probably need some big nerfs down the line if SH gets 'deleted' again. Really??? Thor pretty strong and underrated? the unit wich doesnt do it´s job vs any air unit its meant to be "good against". the unit wich gets hardcountered by every tier 1 unit ingame... the unit wich is so slow fat and clunky that it cant even do its job vs mutas well enough... cant get how u feel thor is strong and underrated... its just a waste of minerals and gas, coz it has absolutly no job that other units cant do better... | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On April 21 2017 21:57 KOtical wrote: Really??? Thor pretty strong and underrated? the unit wich doesnt do it´s job vs any air unit its meant to be "good against". the unit wich gets hardcountered by every tier 1 unit ingame... the unit wich is so slow fat and clunky that it cant even do its job vs mutas well enough... cant get how u feel thor is strong and underrated... its just a waste of minerals and gas, coz it has absolutly no job that other units cant do better... I've always viewed thors as a tank unit (similar to an ultralisk) whose job was to help zone out balls of flying units (specifically mutalisks) - and provide okay ground damage. Ground damage was mainly taken care of by tanks Air damage was mainly taken care of by marines / valks. They definitely ARE slow, and I feel like that's one thing that is against them. I personally wouldn't mind seeing stronger AA in the cyclone (have it not be tied to an ability) - at the cost of some of its air range (obviously) and at the cost of some of its ground damage (so it just doesn't become the only unit you bother to make out of a factory...don't want a repeat of the warhound, where there was no purpose in building anything BUT that unit) | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17510 Posts
Specifically, "While this does reduce the Thor’s single target damage vs high armor capital ships, it greatly increases its overall damage to most grouped air units." .. i like this thinking here. This is great stuff. Thors are "very under rated"? "very under rated" by whom? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
| ||
|
StraKo
Germany96 Posts
On April 21 2017 19:29 Grumbels wrote: Has Blizzard ever acknowledged this? In WoL the Brood Lord was in ascendance for a long time before finally breaking through in mid-2012, but I never heard about Blizzard monitoring the unit because they didn't want BL/Viking battles to become the norm. And they did promote the phoenix as a counter to mutalisks, fantasizing about the micro potential and such. The reason corsair vs muta works in BW is because mutalisks are mostly good when grouped up and in that formation they fall easily to the corsair's splash attack. Furthermore, you can't effectively chase mutalisks with corsairs. In SC2 the way to adapt to phoenixes is to make more mutalisks and vice versa, also phoenixes are faster than mutalisks. I'm not sure if Blizzard understands that air units are best suited to interacting with ground units, and that every air vs air interaction needs to be carefully designed so that it won't become dominant. I've seen a lot of games that are like: Viking vs brood lord phoenix vs mutalisk mutalisk vs mutalisk brood lord vs tempest and they're all infuriating to watch... i absolutely agree with you. When Air units start to become dominant, RTS turns into a pure numbers game where most tactical and strategic factors don't play a role anymore. Such games are hard to watch and play. Not enjoyable at all in my opinion. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
tbh adepts should cost 100/50, it wouldnt do anything to adept timings since protoss floats crazy gas in the midgame, but it would make it harder for toss to fuck around on mass adept while forcing opponent back into their mineral lines for the entire midgame while banking gas for doom tech later (like adept phoenix in pvt, adepts into carriers/storm in pvz, etc.) charge cost reduction might actually help zealots a bit but probably not enough to make them as good as adepts. as everyone has pointed out, the adept is too preferable to zealots with its fast worker 2shotting and teleport. even with vision reduction it's still far far preferable to have an adept which can shade back and forth wasting the enemy's time than a zealot which, when caught, just simply dies, and also can't target workers from range or they could just make adepts not tank units, which everyone has been asking for since beta since it makes no sense watching tiny unarmored protoss who throw energy balls take 500 hits from a roach and kill mineral lines while surrounded by army, and make zealots much tankier/maybe take away the passive speed increase from charge pvz has been ridiculous since hots because protoss is designed around getting free drones to limit the zerg economy. at this point i would even be okay with something radical like a nexus cost decrease + some nerf to defense (overcharge maybe) to allow protoss to just play the economic game properly. because the progression of "use micro to get massive amounts of free drones with adept or phoenix -> get to 3/4 base -> get air or storm" is the same shit we've been seeing since hots and it's what makes pvz garbage - not talking about balance, just the way the game plays out. and i feel like in lotv the same is partly true of pvt edit: didnt know the adept nerf was live when i wrote this, not sure it changes much though since reducing adept hp just makes them weak/decent and poorly designed instead of strong and poorly designed | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
The only thing that don't make them too strong right now is the tech is expansive, so they prefer unlock adepts upgrades, so are a lategame tech. With a cost reduction, Protoss will be able to save a lot of gas, so get better upgrades, faster skytoss or templar/archons tech, or more immortal. Due to larva nerf, the early game for Zerg is just droning hard to try to catch Protoss superior economy for the first 5-6min. If Protoss get even more cost effective army with reducing a lot the gas cost that is the limiting factor, well zerg wouldn't be able to beat protoss at all. | ||
|
Meepman
Canada610 Posts
On April 22 2017 01:44 Tyrhanius wrote: Chargelots are just too good vs Zerg right now, there isn't really a good cost effective response You attack me with 20 chargelots and I will laugh with my 5 lurkers and 1 spore crawler. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On April 22 2017 01:52 Meepman wrote: You attack me with 20 chargelots and I will laugh with my 5 lurkers and 1 spore crawler. First you won't have lurker tech when they will have 20 chargelots. Second, a decent Protoss will just use revelation on your lurkers and they won't lose anything. Honestly just look the profil of the top Zerg of EU : What's the worst MU of Nerchio, Snute, Elazer, Lambo, True, Zanster, Stephano,TLO, Denver, Namshar ? ZvP... (some have even 20% difference with the other MU) What will happen in your opinion if they buff chargelots, and tempest while nerfing swarm host ? | ||
|
AaBbCc
New Zealand110 Posts
I'm most uncertain about the Thor change - the high impact payload didn't seem particularly game changing vs. broods/tempests carriers, but then again, it's not like anyone masses Thors in response to mass air by Protoss or BL/corrupter. While I don't think that the Thor should hard counter air in sufficient numbers, I think it should be tweaked so it trades better to give Terran mech a more even trade without it being straight up even or superior. I wonder if adding some kind of late game upgrade to the Thor's AA that either increased the range or damage would be worth trying? Something relatively expensive with fusion core you could go for if you scout the air transition, it might help put the opponent on a clock to push with their air comp rather than turtling up for too long. Other suggestions to help terran out with air could be a damage point reduction to vikings to improve their micro vs. corruptors or an upgrade to increase viking range by 1-2. Would also add an interesting dynamic to TvT air battles if one player has air superiority (similarly to how the pulse crystals can change the phoenix battle in PvP) I play T but I can see the zealot buff causing problems in early midgame ZvP before lurkers are out, I suppose banes will still help out quite a bit. The main problem with the swarm host aside from the cost IMO is the lack of counter play, in sufficient numbers they can just swoop in in destroy a CC/Nexus/Hatch before you can respond, even if some units are present they have enough tanking ability to just ignore them (you need to have a large chuck of your army in position just to have a chance). In saying this I guess the real counter play is to have map awareness/vision and intercept them before they deploy. Which is a skill that I suspect is probably underdeveloped due to a lot of high level players either not going mech or not playing against them enough. Other ideas for changing the swarm host: -Make it easier for the opponent to scout that the zerg is probably going for swarm hosts. Either: The appearance of the infestation pit changes slightly when enduring locusts is finished or, require a cheap and quick morph at the infestation pit to build swarm hosts. -Change the locusts to be more squishy in the air, allows more to be gunned down before they own your base. -Change the locusts to burrow rather than fly but be able to move under walls etc. Duration expires slightly more slowly while burrowed and increases when unburrowed. Makes having detection able to counter them. locusts automatically unburrow when they reach their target destination but if attacked prior to this the player needs to manually un-burrow them to trade, requiring more attention/APM cost from the zerg. | ||
|
Meepman
Canada610 Posts
On April 22 2017 02:05 Tyrhanius wrote: First you won't have lurker tech when they will have 20 chargelots. Second, a decent Protoss will just use revelation on your lurkers and they won't lose anything. Honestly just look the profil of the top Zerg of EU : What's the worst MU of Nerchio, Snute, Elazer, Lambo, True, Zanster, Stephano,TLO, Denver, Namshar ? ZvP... (some have even 20% difference with the other MU) What will happen in your opinion if they buff chargelots, and tempest while nerfing swarm host ? oh, now we're talking about MU balance. I was just talking about your wild comment that chargelots have no cost effective counter | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On April 22 2017 00:10 StraKo wrote: i absolutely agree with you. When Air units start to become dominant, RTS turns into a pure numbers game where most tactical and strategic factors don't play a role anymore. Such games are hard to watch and play. Not enjoyable at all in my opinion. SC2 has a lot of air units relative to BW, accounting for underused air units in BW. And there are some more units that mostly ignore terrain, like the stalker, colossus, reaper. Terran is very mobile with medivacs too, you have so many of them and you can often just pick up your entire army. In BW you had the carrier, shuttle and the corsair, in SC2 it is the carrier, void ray, tempest, stalker, mothership (core), colossus, warp prism, phoenix that all see use. Excluding zealots, you can basically march your entire army up and down cliffs. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On April 21 2017 20:47 icesergio wrote: Oh and might I propose a Colossus buff? For a unit that is tier 3, costs 300/200 and requires a 200/200 upgrade to hit the field it has felt underwhelming since lotv. A while back you said you would have experimented with 12 (+4) light on the test map. What happened to this idea? I would rather see the Colossus get a redesign since it has been the poster boy for boring unit design and deathball issues since WoL. | ||
|
brickrd
United States4894 Posts
On April 22 2017 02:25 Meepman wrote: oh, now we're talking about MU balance. I was just talking about your wild comment that chargelots have no cost effective counter most people when discussing design are referring to actual in-game situations that happen while players are trying to establish economy and tech, not made up scenarios where you can have any number of any unit just to prove some theoretical concept of cost efficiency On April 22 2017 02:35 eviltomahawk wrote: I would rather see the Colossus get a redesign since it has been the poster boy for boring unit design and deathball issues since WoL. i've always wanted them to make it possible to fuse observers to colossus so the observer can't be targeted haha not a serious balance suggestion, i just think it would be hilarious | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On April 22 2017 02:33 Grumbels wrote: SC2 has a lot of air units relative to BW, accounting for underused air units in BW. And there are some more units that mostly ignore terrain, like the stalker, colossus, reaper. Terran is very mobile with medivacs too, you have so many of them and you can often just pick up your entire army. In BW you had the carrier, shuttle and the corsair, in SC2 it is the carrier, void ray, tempest, stalker, mothership (core), colossus, warp prism, phoenix that all see use. Excluding zealots, you can basically march your entire army up and down cliffs. Yeah all this mobility makes it so it's very hard to play styles which don't revolve around mobile armies and if you want to you have to turtle extra hard. Air to air unit interactions are all about numbers and that's simply boring to watch and play. I really would hope blizzard addresses this one day, but it being a rather big change i don't have much hope. | ||
|
VHbb
692 Posts
"Chargelots are too good vs zerg right now." this is beyond absurd | ||
| ||
