|
Hosts are for sure an issue to talk about. I think slower movement speed is a possible soft nerf that could go through without changing too much and without making too big of a deal of it, that will make it a bit easier to catch them, which can help alot, have zerg complement them more with other units, hence get them later/less. But: Anti air weekness of zerg can be a serious problem.
However the whole game is full of things like that. And I don't see that you are aware of that avilo, what makes your matter a biased one for me.
The matter is about free units, free harass, free pressure, free damage, etc.
- We have the whole issue with bio that is getting healed. Not as relevant as in the beginning anymore, as basically everything has been buffed but bio over time, and bio got some minor nerfs too, it is still there. For example at the end of huge fights, when small army vs. small army is left, bio can usually get free kills and free escape through stim and medivacs.
- We have disruptor drops, that can do damage and be picked up out of range, same with archons.
- Reaper + heal
- Muta + heal
etc. dont wanna write that all down. The mechanic is kind of prevalent throughout the whole game.
Now in the exact case of ZvT(mech) it is where zerg needs such an option the most and owns such mechanics the least. If you remove it at all, such as you suggested with your balance mod, that would just create another case where the disadvantage of that free unit/harass thing is on the zerg side. Without hosts I don't see any viable options for zerg to attack a mech terran, other than (semi)all-in play.
Imo the whole concept is wrong and should be changed. But it is not the singular thing with hosts that you are trying to make it.
|
The thing with the SH is that you have to look at it in what it's supposed to do versus what it actually does.
The SH is supposed to force mech players into splitting their armies and thinning out their defenses in places that you can't access by foot.
I don't have a problem with that since the high population cost makes it so that the zerg's main army will be much weaker, and that means that the mech player will be able to have windows of opportunity to attack and deal damage.
However in effect the SH is best used with hydras a single place, repetively hammering a position that the mech player can't really defend. Zerg players not dumb enough to rush swarm hosts out of 3 bases/T2 and go for a 4rth with hydras, then mass SH/hydra will be able to then go into vipers.
And mech has no answer whatsoever to that. You can't do much about 15 SHs hammering your 3rd or 4rth while being covered by hydras, and vipers abducting high priority targets. Split pushing doesn't work because of how nimble on creep hydras are with 3.0. You can't shove forward because you'll just be slowed down by hydras to the point where locusts will respawn and crush your army.
Once again i'm a big fan of agressive mech and the SH may be the techpath to allow zerg to prevent mech turtle. To which the answer would be to push out/splitpush with mech.
But with how free (cheap base cost/free locusts) and unkillable (movespeed/health) SH are, it's impossible to do so. The only real answer is to turtle up and mass ravens.
The only way i see is to make it so that sending a locust wave costs minerals. This would make the SH a "proximity hatchery" being able to energize ZvMech without forcing mech players to turtle up into mass ravens. If locusts wave costed a decent amount of minerals, zerg could afford less drones/bases/static defenses, meaning that split-pushing and runbies would be much more effective. And i'll gladly exchange that for a raven nerf, to prevent mech players from playing the ressource-exhaustion game against locusts costing money.
|
I feels like pro players don:t even need swarm hosts to buy time against terran:s tank death push.But it:s only SH purpose so without it they are uselss.Bad designs always bad.
|
Along with Reaper nerfs can Swarm Hosts just be removed from the game? I don't think there has been a single incarnation of the unit that the community has ever been very accepting of and it's innately cancerous (or "free unit") design makes it either overpowered or underpowered with a middle ground apparently being incredibly difficult or outright impossible to achieve.
Zerg needs little to no help against mech in it's current form which can certainly be strong is played well from the Terran, it's always sub optimal to bio in the sense that units like the Viper seem to be almost tuned specifically to deal with mech (blinding cloud nullifies tank lines and abduct makes Thors vulnerable) so I propose one of two things..
1) Preferably just remove the Host from the game and buff Zerg accordingly to deal with mech if buffs are even needed which I seriously doubt
2) Change the Host once again but this time change the Swarm Host to fill a role that Zerg has struggled with since day 1 of Starcraft 2, and that is dealing with end game aerial armies, mostly from Protoss as Skyterran was a thing but then was promptly nerfed. Make the Hosts do something along the lines of spawn 1 - 2 Scourge (the unit model already exists for SC2 if I'm not mistaken and it would be an awesome comeback for an old unit imo) and make it cost minerals just like Interceptors with Carriers, and tune the Scourge to be potent against mass air death armies.
Seriously, number 2 isn't even actually needed even if Skytoss can be frustrating to play against at times, but it's really the only hole in the Swarm's arsenal at the moment and it could be filled considering the Hosts current form only is strong against a style of play that Roach/Hydra/Viper/Corruptor deals with handily in almost all cases. In my honest opinion, idea 1 is way better then idea 2, even if they did change it, who is to say the balance team would implement it elegantly? I mean, they haven't been able to hit the mark yet with this unit so somehow I doubt the third time would be the charm.
Oh and yea, I'm a Zerg player lol, no bias going on here
|
SH is the only thing that can trade well vs mech and slow T enough to get hive tech, else you will die on a mass pre hive tank push everygame vs mech.
Tanks are just too OP now, best range of the game no upgrade, insane dmg vs armor. They're ok on small number when T play bio, but with mech with uprade and high number they're simply nothing that can kill them on the ground, vipers are long/hard to get really expensive, supply expensive and they get crushed by vikings.
You can play vs mech without SH because SH stay a possibility so T can't rush mass tanks and push, if you delete them mech would be unstoppable.
|
My original idea with SH was to limit them somehow to reasonable numbers. I think ~4-8 hosts would be a fine thing to have and can increase strategic variety. My original idea of 2013 (?) was to link their max number to the number of queens a player has. While it might not be the very best option to link it to queens, it is for sure one way to limit them. Again it is not my job to find the very best solution.
Another idea about SH that I had 2013 (?) was to make it a hero unit like the MSC/MS and put it's strength/price according to ~4-6 of current swarmhosts.
As all the the stuff in this game, the units start to create problems when they are massed. Some reapers are not the problem, but 3/5 rax reaper and crearting 20-30 of them is a problem. Same goes with SH. If the mechanics of the game are not able to limit production of units on their own it can be considered to create artificial numbers that do not appear artifical as the examples I have given.
The two examples I gave above could even be embeded in the lore somewhat easily, so the queen could be put in some relation with the swarmhost to justify that (matrimony).
Other things that come to my mind with the queen limitation is that it could require queen energy/inject energy to create swarmhosts or even requires a queen to transform it into a swarmhost, but I don't like the latter one that much.
What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3?
Anyway why do all zerg units require exactly 1 larva to build? (okok zerglings..) Drones to ultralisks. I find a concept where units require more than one larva in general a very healthy and viable approach, that could increase strategical depth. Of course not for the current meta, but in general game design.
Anyway outside the box solutions are required for SH. Simple stat altering wont do the job. SH will either stay completely unusable/unefficient (avilo approach) or be efficient and then massable/abuseable. I wonder why game designers of of SC2 cannot accept that simple fact and try to approach the issue with 1998 methods instead. The same is btw. true with several other game mechanics.
And I want to add one general thing to think about. Game designers of SC2 should stop to solely focus on 1on1. Of course when redesigning a unit it must be a disqualifier, if it doesn't fit 1on1. But I mean that the other way round:
Use teamgames as indicators for problems! If there are issues, they usually get multiplied in teamgames which should be used as an indicator to detect them and fix them. When comparing 1:1.5 issues are less visible than comparing 1²:1,5². Simple as that. Problems that appear in teamgames usually/always are problems in 1on1 too.
Reaper: TT vs ZZ 2on2, both T abuse reaper, almost impossible to play against with ZZ against since ages on certain/many/most maps. Now after years you get the idea that something is wrong with reapers. It always has been since its current design took place. You could have seen it earlier when looking at the that 2on2 case. Why didn't it happen?
Current example protoss air:
When I play 3on3 now, I hardly find a game where protoss air is not involved. It is a problem to the extent, that it kills the fun so that ppl stop playing. Protoss air is still an issue in 1on1 too, even if it is less visible.
Not only this should be used for indication but as well in order to create a better experience for the majority of players out there who do not play 1on1 on highest level but do some teamgames. Stuff like that kills it for many and they turn their back towards the game. Why would it be fun to face insta carrier gameplay in almost each and every 3on3 where protoss is involved?
|
Limiting the number of buildable SHs through gimmicks is extremely anti-SC2. This isn't WCIII.
The reason why the SH is abusive is the lack of counter from mech. Protoss has storm, archons and overcharge.
Mech has hellbats being able to trade decently against them, but the fact is that only PDD/turrets allow mech players to take limited damage from SHs, considering how they trigger tanks friendly fire.
There's a few ways to make SH more fair for both races :
- make the SH into a low initial cost, high supply "proxy hatchery" being able to spawn locusts or scourges with a shared cooldown for some amount of money, effectively making it a "turtle bust/splitpushing" unit able to punish turtly air rushes
- give terran tools to defeat swarmhosts some other way (ghost cost change to allow them to work better with mech and snipe off SHs, lowering swoop range for thors to be able to perform better against them, increasing liberator AA damage a little to make them a threat to packs of locusts)
- keep them as they are but nerf them, risking them to be useless in ZvP or across the board
Obviously the two first options are better
|
On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote:
What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3?
.
What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ?
Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works).
|
On July 27 2017 17:39 JackONeill wrote:
Limiting the number of buildable SHs through gimmicks is extremely anti-SC2. This isn't WCIII.
The reason why the SH is abusive is the lack of counter from mech. Protoss has storm, archons and overcharge.
Mech has hellbats being able to trade decently against them, but the fact is that only PDD/turrets allow mech players to take limited damage from SHs, considering how they trigger tanks friendly fire.
There's a few ways to make SH more fair for both races :
- make the SH into a low initial cost, high supply "proxy hatchery" being able to spawn locusts or scourges with a shared cooldown for some amount of money, effectively making it a "turtle bust/splitpushing" unit able to punish turtly air rushes
- give terran tools to defeat swarmhosts some other way (ghost cost change to allow them to work better with mech and snipe off SHs, lowering swoop range for thors to be able to perform better against them, increasing liberator AA damage a little to make them a threat to packs of locusts)
- keep them as they are but nerf them, risking them to be useless in ZvP or across the board
Obviously the two first options are better
I like my ideas better. What you suggest is another buff above nerf approach which will only create more problems afterwards, we have had that for years now. You say it is no WC3, but we got the MSC/MS already. There is nothing anti SC with limiting SH to queens or anything similar, e.g. a building count: e.g. #hatch*2 or the upgrade level of lair/hive and even connect that with the lore of SC.
What you suggest are counters that require counters again which all will result in narrow game path options, bad interaction quality and massing one kind of unit in certain cases. Look at the adept, muta, ling/bane, bio, etc. etc. etc. So you say what does not work with all these units suddenly will work with the SH? No way.
I say if you create a better counter SH will either be unefficient and not be used anymore at all or the counter will be too weak (now state) which will continue the SH massing in these situations. There is nothing inbetween, it is the nature of this game.
|
On July 27 2017 17:46 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote:
What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3?
. What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ? Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works).
You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state.
And as you might not have noticed, I am not at all interested in the current meta and its micro issues, just as the majority of my peers who have stopped playing and switched to other games. I am trying to give new general approaches to address certain basic issues.
|
On July 27 2017 16:24 Tyrhanius wrote:
SH is the only thing that can trade well vs mech and slow T enough to get hive tech, else you will die on a mass pre hive tank push everygame vs mech.
Tanks are just too OP now, best range of the game no upgrade, insane dmg vs armor. They're ok on small number when T play bio, but with mech with uprade and high number they're simply nothing that can kill them on the ground, vipers are long/hard to get really expensive, supply expensive and they get crushed by vikings.
You can play vs mech without SH because SH stay a possibility so T can't rush mass tanks and push, if you delete them mech would be unstoppable.
You serious ? Koreans don't even need them to buy time.
|
On July 27 2017 17:57 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 17:39 JackONeill wrote:
Limiting the number of buildable SHs through gimmicks is extremely anti-SC2. This isn't WCIII.
The reason why the SH is abusive is the lack of counter from mech. Protoss has storm, archons and overcharge.
Mech has hellbats being able to trade decently against them, but the fact is that only PDD/turrets allow mech players to take limited damage from SHs, considering how they trigger tanks friendly fire.
There's a few ways to make SH more fair for both races :
- make the SH into a low initial cost, high supply "proxy hatchery" being able to spawn locusts or scourges with a shared cooldown for some amount of money, effectively making it a "turtle bust/splitpushing" unit able to punish turtly air rushes
- give terran tools to defeat swarmhosts some other way (ghost cost change to allow them to work better with mech and snipe off SHs, lowering swoop range for thors to be able to perform better against them, increasing liberator AA damage a little to make them a threat to packs of locusts)
- keep them as they are but nerf them, risking them to be useless in ZvP or across the board
Obviously the two first options are better I like my ideas better. What you suggest is another buff above nerf approach which will only create more problems afterwards, we have had that for years now. You say it is no WC3, but we got the MSC/MS already. There is nothing anti SC with limiting SH to queens or anything similar, e.g. a building count: e.g. #hatch or the upgrade level of lair/hive and even connect that with the lore of SC. What you suggest are counters that require counters again which all will result in massing units and bad interaction quality. Look at the adept, muta, ling/bane, bio, etc. etc. etc. So you say what does not work with all these units suddenly will work with the SH now? No way. I say if you create a better counter SH will either be unefficient and not be used anymore at all or the counter will be too weak (now state) which will continue the SH massing in these situations.
So units being able to counter one another, which is the basic framework of SC2, is worse than "3 larvae for a unit" gimmick? Alright buddy.
Also sure there is the MS/MSC which has been historically critizised for having nothing to do in a starcraft game.
And by the way all your exemples are terrible.
"Look at the adept, muta, ling/bane, bio, etc. etc. etc." :
- if you take the mutas, for instance : 40+ mutas as a viable strat in TvZ was a flaw in HOTS. In LOTV, with liberators and buffed thors, 40+ mutas is never seen anymore. So what problems do the thor armor/increased splash induced? I'll give you a hint : it's less than 1. And that's the second option i propse for the SH.
- if you take the adept, the fact is that the ability has no downside and is abusive, and needs to be solved with a redesign, for instance an increase in the adept stats but making it so that an adept shading looses its shields, or can't attack for a while. Which is the first option i proposed for the SH.
Or do you mean (by mentionning ling banes/bio) that units comps working well together are bad for the game because they can be massed? That's the most insanely idiotic thing i've heard all day.
[B]On July 27 2017 18:01 LSN wrote: Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 17:46 Tyrhanius wrote:On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote:
What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3?
. What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ? Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works). You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state.
"Out of the box thinking" can't be a way to legitimize extremely bad ideas.
|
No, no! You don't get me at all. I am not saying do exactly this or that, I am giving a variety of approaches that can or can not be used which are not yet considered. As I have said, it is not my job to find the best solution.
When I give the example of 3 larvas, of course this is not meant for the exact current meta but embedded in a larger redesign. It could be even put into a first host requires 1 larva, 2nd 2 larva, etc. kind of state.
Just stay with the facts please. The issue with SH is not the SH itself but its numbers. As I have said e.g. ~6-8 hosts or something would not cause many issues I am sure. My approaches goals are to find ways to limit the possible number of hosts to a similar amount (queen approach = soft limit even). That would allow them to stay efficient/viable to a certain degree but disable the 15+ SH style, which is most certainly bad for the game.
I get your point that it is possible to fix that with counters and hence give SH a timeframe, but I am pretty sure this will create new problems (the nature of hardcounter vs. hard counter, counter vs. counter) and just narrow down the game even more. Just compare it to the development of the matchups since 2010 and you can verify that.
Anyway I don't understand why you try to attack me? Cause I find my ideas better than yours or what? lol
The basic framework of SC2, as you have identified rightfully, which is counter vs. counter, is imo one of the major problems of SC2, and I know that many people agree to that. People who play SC since 98'.
Btw. this is the reason I critisize bio that much, as it requires hardcounters which require hardcounters, etc. Bio is the underlying problem of that issue for me and I believe anyone else with common sense, as it performs way too well compared to the other other basic/tier 1 units of the other races, not taking into account hardcounters such as banelings or adepts, which obviously create imbalanced situations: mass shade on top of bio, baneling bust through on terran in the HOTS muta/bling vs mmmm meta after terran lost his whole army once and dies instantly, etc. etc. If I took the time I surely could come up with examples like that for almost every unit interaction (fenix vs. muta, muta vs. protoss ground, blablabla etc.).
You can continue to implement hard counters for everything, but the problem will just be shifted around and continue to exist. It is just the nature of things in SC2. I feel bad for you if you did not notice that yet and believe that the one counter that you suggest now will change that concept for any unknown reasons. It wont.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I am not even sure what is debateable about that. The solution for SC2 is to make everything more moderate, not more extreme. This can be achieved with nerfs over buffs instead the buff patching meta.
But I guess try hards from ladder in their teens or early 20s have a hard time to open their minds to new solutions. Not even directing that to you, as I don't know you, but I got the general feeling when discussing here.
Again: You argument against me as if I was the Blizzard employee responsible and getting paid for doing the job right. I am not. I can not come up with exact current meta implementations of that extent without extensive testing/time spending, which I am obviously not able to do as a private person.
I hope and believe some people who might read the thread here can find some of the things and build their own ideas onto mine, take them as inspiration for better outside the box solutions or even in one or the other case find solutions I suggested viable with some changes and adaptions. But I guess that kind of acting is above the level of these forums for the named reasons. However it is a common process in solution finding and way more prosperous than the usual my race is up and I want it to be op forum meta which is prevalent here.
I actually didn't want to mention but it was me who first suggested a strong single target AA attack for the thor instead of the siege anti ground mode(?), which was implemented years later. As well as bio nerfs marauder = 2 rockets = 2x armor reduction, is as well something I have mentioned years/months before implementation I am pretty sure. I could surely search through the balance discussion thread and find more stuff. I was getting flamed for each and everything which was above simple 1 stat +1/-1 adjustment I believe. Idc.
And just in case you do not understand the queen approach and how good it actually is, let me explain in detail:
A zerg player on 3 hatch builds a minimum amount of 3 queens, usually at least 2 extra queens, depending on the playstyle vs. mech, which I am not entirely sure about. Lets count with 5 queens on 3 hatch. So you can build 5 SH for the same price and risk/reward structure as currently. You get diminishing returns for every extra SH from then on as you got to build extra supply and extra queen for every additional SH. Now I am pretty sure in most basic situations it does not make any sense to go up to 15queen/15 hosts. But you know what? In some very rare situations it might make sense and it will be possible to do so and it can create a wow situation in the audience, etc.
This is not only a good solution, it is the on point solution for the problem. You have additional supply and mineral costs for hosts in high numbers but leave them alone in low numbers, which is diminishing returns. The only thing I am not sure about is how many queens zergs use on 3-5 bases vs mech, it might be a bit too high of numbers, hence not fitting anymore, but it could be adjusted or even connected to something else (e.g. hatchery, even steeper diminishing returns) AND if queen+SH could become the new meta then instead of hydras, which should be investigated by the guys who have the knowledge and the capacities to do so before ofc. Even if you leave it to queens and zergs usually have about 8-10 (?) queens on 5 bases, it could do the trick, as 8-10 is still way below 15+. And you put even more value on killing queens, which is another strategic depth increasment. This concept is brilliant, isn't it?
And we finally can get away from the buff this, then buff that, then buff another thing, then buff next thing, and so on never ending (by nature) patch meta ...
But I see you guys are happy every time it is your turn in the buff meta and you enjoy it like little kids that see something the first time in their life and let yourself be deceived that if you get a period where your race is little op or ahead you think that this will be the solution for the game, until it ends and it is the other guys turn again. It is again the nature of vicious circles (even the definition of it) that it is way more comfortable to stay in the circular movement than to break out of it.
|
delete plz, quote instead of edit!
|
On July 27 2017 18:01 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 17:46 Tyrhanius wrote:On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote:
What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3?
. What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ? Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works). You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state. And as you might not have noticed, I am not at all interested in the current meta and its micro issues, just as the majority of my peers who have stopped playing and switched to other games. I am trying to give new general approaches to address certain basic issues.
You try to present yourself as clever but i see only here another mech player that wants to delete SH.
Everytime a mech player loses a game it's a balance issue, balance team should fix it immediatly !
If we listen all the mech players SC2 would be truly dead because mech would be invincible :
Tanks should crush all the ground units Z and toss, cyclon/thor should crush all the air, nothing should harass Terran no mutas, no SH no nyndus, nothing should outrange them (so delete tempest, broodlords) of course Terran should be free to harass P and Z for free so queens, overcharge should be nerfed...
That sum up how mech player want to fix the game lol
|
Well it is quite simple.
1. Pro Zergs have no problems defeating mech without using Swarm Hosts.
2. Swarm Hosts are too much of a hard counter and forces the mech player to turtle to 200 supply and mass ravens since he can not move out on the map.
3. Mass Ravens are too strong against Zerg.
Solution: Nerf both Swarm Hosts and Raven.
|
the game is in a nice state right now. recent GSLs, SSLs and IEM Shanghai are very entertaining. i'm enjoying my diamond league 1v1s and the 2v2s i play. most wins are fun... some wins are fucking awesome.
regarding the Reaper.. if Blizz does not want to commit to a total redesign of the unit then they should make it cost 25 more minerals as they said in their post.
On July 13 2017 07:45 BlizzardMultiplayerTeam wrote:- Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
do this change to the Reaper
at the top level of play the Swarmhost is fine. At lower levels of play all kinds of units and mechanics are imba in every rts game ever made.
People must accept that the game can't be balanced at more than 1 level; people need to quit labeling everything a "design issue" when they experience a frustrating loss. Every RTS i've ever played has frustrating losses and sometimes ego crushing losses... its part of the game experience... and has been since the RTS genre was born. Now, if you are not enjoying the wins then we got some problems.
|
On July 27 2017 21:08 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 18:01 LSN wrote:On July 27 2017 17:46 Tyrhanius wrote:On July 27 2017 17:20 LSN wrote:
What about SH to require more than one larva to build? What about 3?
. What about reaper require 1 barrack with a reactor + 1 naked rax to be produced lol ? Dunno if you troll or if you're serious (then you clearly don't understand how Zerg macro works). You clearly don't understand how out of the box thinking works. But it is the only thing that can and will help SC2 in it's current state. And as you might not have noticed, I am not at all interested in the current meta and its micro issues, just as the majority of my peers who have stopped playing and switched to other games. I am trying to give new general approaches to address certain basic issues. You try to present yourself as clever but i see only here another mech player that wants to delete SH. Everytime a mech player loses a game it's a balance issue, balance team should fix it immediatly ! If we listen all the mech players SC2 would be truly dead because mech would be invincible : Tanks should crush all the ground units Z and toss, cyclon/thor should crush all the air, nothing should harass Terran no mutas, no SH no nyndus, nothing should outrange them (so delete tempest, broodlords) of course Terran should be free to harass P and Z for free so queens, overcharge should be nerfed... That sum up how mech player want to fix the game lol
You really need to change your attitude towards players that favour a certain playstyle. Just because you think of Mech players like that doesn´t mean every Mech player wants to have an Ultra unit composition like you keep constantly telling yourself. Stop being so narrow minded.
People see a problem with a Unit/strategy/whatever so they want to discuss it. Sure there are certain people that are exaggerating but you can just ignore them if their "solutions" are that stupid. Your constant hate for Mech players isn´t helping either.
|
On July 28 2017 00:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the game is in a nice state right now. recent GSLs, SSLs and IEM Shanghai are very entertaining. i'm enjoying my diamond league 1v1s and the 2v2s i play. most wins are fun... some wins are fucking awesome. regarding the Reaper.. if Blizz does not want to commit to a total redesign of the unit then they should make it cost 25 more minerals as they said in their post. Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 07:45 BlizzardMultiplayerTeam wrote:- Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
do this change to the Reaper at the top level of play the Swarmhost is fine. At lower levels of play all kinds of units and mechanics are imba in every rts game ever made. People must accept that the game can't be balanced at more than 1 level; people need to quit labeling everything a "design issue" when they experience a frustrating loss. Every RTS i've ever played has frustrating losses and sometimes ego crushing losses... its part of the game experience... and has been since the RTS genre was born. Now, if you are not enjoying the wins then we got some problems.
People actually blame losses on balance not design. The sole focus on balance had brought SC2 where it is now. People like me and few others fight since some time to bring more to a design focused discussion for the reason that balance has been predominant all over the time.
Do you recognize, that your comment is full random?
And anyway I detain myself from being a terran player. I have never been playing anything else than zerg in SC2. You guys project your own bias on me.
|
On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 00:23 JimmyJRaynor wrote:the game is in a nice state right now. recent GSLs, SSLs and IEM Shanghai are very entertaining. i'm enjoying my diamond league 1v1s and the 2v2s i play. most wins are fun... some wins are fucking awesome. regarding the Reaper.. if Blizz does not want to commit to a total redesign of the unit then they should make it cost 25 more minerals as they said in their post. On July 13 2017 07:45 BlizzardMultiplayerTeam wrote:- Increase the Reaper’s cost to 75 minerals / 50 Vespene gas. This would make it harder for the Reaper user to transition into a normal game after a Reaper rush.
do this change to the Reaper at the top level of play the Swarmhost is fine. At lower levels of play all kinds of units and mechanics are imba in every rts game ever made. People must accept that the game can't be balanced at more than 1 level; people need to quit labeling everything a "design issue" when they experience a frustrating loss. Every RTS i've ever played has frustrating losses and sometimes ego crushing losses... its part of the game experience... and has been since the RTS genre was born. Now, if you are not enjoying the wins then we got some problems. I have never been playing anything else than zerg in SC2.
Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
