|
On July 28 2017 00:42 Tresher wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2017 21:08 Tyrhanius wrote: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.
Don't bother, the guy is whine machine with no intent to actually discuss the subjects people want to talk about. This quote sums it up perfectly :
On July 27 2017 21:08 Tyrhanius wrote:
You try to present yourself as clever but i see only here another mech player that wants to delete SH.
Anyways since the viper is already the go-to "safe and cost effective" way for zerg to deal with mech, the swarm host could actually have a much better role if it was some kind of "proxy hatchery".
Let's say you keep the swarmhost as it is stats and cost-wise, but give it a choice to either spawn locusts or scourges, with a 15 mineral cost for a locust wave and a 10/10 cost for a wave of scourges (100/100 for 20 scourges is still a bargain).
This would make the SH more into a versatile turtle-buster able to both break positions, provide anti air support to punish turtle into air strats, and split push. However, this strength and versatility would be somewhat expansive to function, and we'd have a clear difference between taking the safe, late game-oriented route of the viper, and the expansive bust/dynamic game mid game SH.
|
On July 27 2017 18:02 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah. SHs vs mech are like Tempests vs mech IMO; completely unnecessary for balance, but with a devastating effect on the fun factor of both playing and watching. They come the the era of hard counter vs style created by Browder IMO.
|
On July 28 2017 01:26 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote: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?
Cause I played the other races in BW.
|
On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote:
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.
i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses. i find balance and design to be the top 2 though.
|
On July 28 2017 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote:
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. i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses.
That is their right to do so. Still your post before that was basically pure fake news.
|
that i'm enjoying GSL, SSL, and IEM-Shanghai? or that i'm having fun playing the game and enjoying my wins?
On July 28 2017 01:46 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote:
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. i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses. That is their right to do so. Still your post before that was basically pure fake news.
balance and design are the 2 i notice the most. i cover both in my post.
|
You tried to draw a completely false picture of the reality, suggesting that everything is fine with SC2 and these threads here are basically obsolete.
Again: Ppl like me dont blame design for their losses, I dont even play right now, but try to bring it away from a sole balance discussion, which is detrimental. You just mix everything up randomly. Why dont you go and play diamond ladder instead? ;D
The design question of swarmhosts is justified and even necessary. May I ask how old you are? Anyway my suggestions are for those in charge, maybe they can do anything out of it, or not. No need to discuss it with anyone claiming random things here.
But again for you: 7 years of sole balance discussion without any/much respect to design issues has brought the game to this current state. Kor-pros leave to broodwar, eu pros leave to mobas or go inactive, everyone I know is basically not satisfied with SC2 and think it could be improved, chobos like me go inactive cause playing the game is frustrating, etc.
But ofc if you, a happy diamond player, say the game is fine and ppl should stop to blame design (and imply with that that the design question has been prevalent all of the time instead of balance, or that both are the same), so shall it be, lol.
I seriously question that you are legtimate partner of discussion for me after all. I am in since 20 years, been having leading roles in the BW community, been creating redesigns already at wc2, etc. and you face me with your bullshit suggesting I blame frustrating losses on design, others say I am a mech terran player, while I am an 1 year inactive zerg only, lol. I am seriously sick of that kid level discussion here. The only reason I post here is cause I want to see improvements for the game, which has mostly an egoistic background.
|
On July 28 2017 01:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:that i'm enjoying GSL, SSL, and IEM-Shanghai? or that i'm having fun playing the game and enjoying my wins? Show nested quote +On July 28 2017 01:46 LSN wrote:On July 28 2017 01:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On July 28 2017 01:00 LSN wrote:
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. i watch people blame balance, design, David Kim, Dustin Browder, modern gaming culture, their mouse, their headset and ATVI after losses. That is their right to do so. Still your post before that was basically pure fake news. balance and design are the 2 i notice the most. i cover both in my post.
I don't think you know what design means.
|
I do question nerfs to Terran when according to aligulac winrates at the current pro level are
Tvz: 47.15%
PvT 44.63%
PvZ 43.68%
While reapers may be fairly bull shit, nerfing Terran when tvz is balanced or slightly Zerg favored seems like an odd choice. I just hope Soo wins a final so we Terran "whiners" can get the Zergs nerfed. I think ravager allins are snowbally and unfun to play against, they force deffensive units out of Terran and do indirect damage so mabey they should be up next. Or perhaps hydras need a nerf since they are seeing increasing play on ladder and completely dominate the PVZ matchup.
I think it's also prity clear from these stats that Protoss is in need of buffs being at a substantial deficit in both PvT and PvZ. While 3% difference is not to big of a deal 6.32% is probably significant. I realy hope bliz fixes PvZ and soon.
|
On July 28 2017 02:29 washikie wrote:
I do question nerfs to Terran when according to aligulac winrates at the current pro level are
Tvz: 47.15%
PvT 44.63%
PvZ 43.68%
While reapers may be fairly bull shit, nerfing Terran when tvz is balanced or slightly Zerg favored seems like an odd choice. I just hope Soo wins a final so we Terran "whiners" can get the Zergs nerfed. I think ravager allins are snowbally and unfun to play against, they force deffensive units out of Terran and do indirect damage so mabey they should be up next. And yes it has to be Soo since apparently foreigner zergs can win evrey tournament under the sun and blizzard won't care.
I think it's also prity clear from these stats that Protoss is in need of buffs being at a substantial deficit in both PvT and PvZ. While 3% difference is not to big of a deal 6.32% is probably significant. I realy hope bliz fixes PvZ and soon.
Or Dark, or Rogue, or just any Zerg really in LoTV since they haven't won anything in GSL 
|
On July 28 2017 01:56 LSN wrote:
You tried to draw a completely false picture of the reality, suggesting that everything is fine with SC2 and these threads here are basically obsolete.
no, the specific discussion points brought up in the OP are good. The Reaper discussion is fruitful I added my $0.02 on several specific issues brought up in the OP. i changed my position on the Reaper after further thought... and watching and playing some games.
so i do not think these threads are obsolete.
On July 28 2017 01:56 LSN wrote:
Again: Ppl like me dont blame design for their losses, I dont even play right now, but try to bring it away from a sole balance discussion, which is detrimental. You just mix everything up randomly. Why dont you go and play diamond ladder instead? ;D
not everyone is like you if we taking a complete picture of reality.
people blame design flaws on their losses.
|
No not everyone is like LSN but you bring up this subject everytime pretty much. Doesnt matter what kind of arguments you see, you bring it up either way.
|
The multiple larva per SH is atrocious. No other zerg unit works like this, and it's a bit awkward. It's supposed to be like an archon merge? What if you have multiple hatcheries and the last 3 larva are far apart, are the larva supposed to crawl cross-map over to each other? Or are you just blocked from making the SH even though you have sufficient larvae? Whats the distance cutoff and why? And this is a unique interaction you're supposed to keep track of in-game?
Increasing supply cost the more swarmhosts you have is also quite arbitrary. Why do this? Should the same apply to tanks/ravens and carriers? If not, why so? They are also "fine" when there's only 6-8 of them, but any more "cause issues" for the other player depending on their composition, which is argued to be "bad for the game".
The "proxy hatchery" swarmhost idea is more interesting in my opinion. I feel this could drop down the swarmhost to hatch/lair tech (no infestation pit) and replace the queen inject as a macro mechanic. It can boost macro at around the same pace as queens currently do, but can now be used more offensively as you bring your hosts with you. They could have their off-creep speed severely nerfed to keep them in line, and this would also unlock messing around with the queen without affecting macro.
Essentially you could pick building queens as a more defensive option and building swarmhost for macro reasons.
|
On July 28 2017 06:12 WaesumNinja wrote:
The multiple larva per SH is atrocious.
Of course it is. You have to think of it in an environment of e.g. double larva production of hatches and injects, where zerglings use 1 larva, roaches 2, etc. Then you e.g. make the first swarmhost you build use 1 larva, the second 2, the third 3, the fourth 4, etc.
I just brought this up as I found it to be an interesting idea, not in order to directly implement it into the current game. An interesting concept which could make larva management a bit deeper, allows more diversification between units, as well allows to implement diminishing returns. Just brainstorming.
In theory that could be good cause a unit like SH is pretty useless in very low numbers. That would be represented by low larva costs of the first few you build. Could even make sense then to build 1-2 hosts only from 1-3 larva instead of 1-3 zerglings for example while teching to hive and use them for minor harassment tasks. The game would give players more options in the end and reduce minmaxing. Cause now it is less of an option to build 1-2 hosts, if you go for them you build a decent amount.
If you want to make larva production the exact same as now, you keep the same spawn cycles and just make hatches spawn two instead of one at once, and double inject as well. But it is not even necessary, you can half the spawn cycle of hatches and have larva spawn one by one as now. Alot is possible there. In the end as well other units could be balanced out a bit better if you adjust larva amount they need for micro nerfs/buffs according to what is required.
And that is exactly how SH should be used. In low numbers to get on your opponents nerves without the capability of taking him out of the game all the way. 4-6 locust are quite similar to a medivac drop. 30+ is just a ridiculous amount of free units. If you wanted to go from 7 to 8 SH in this concept, you needed 8 larva, which is a full inject and 2 larva from the hatch in addition. The good thing about that is that it is a soft cap again. In lategame players could still stack larva on some of their hatches in order to get a few more hosts, without ever reaching riduclous numbers.
|
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote:
You have to think of it in an environment of e.g. double larva production of hatches and injects, where zerglings use 1 larva, roaches 2, etc. Then you e.g. make the first swarmhost you build use 1 larva, the second 2, the third 3, the fourth 4, etc.
You don't find this to be quite convoluted? Are you going to revamp the larva cost for every zerg unit just so you can have this larva increase gimmick on swarm hosts? And are you going to have this kind of nerf apply to any other units as well?
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote:
An interesting concept which could make larva management a bit deeper, allows more diversification between units, as well allows to implement diminishing returns.
Not sure how this "allows for more diversification" between units, can you elaborate? It's also a hamfisted way to introduce "diminishing returns".
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote:
In theory that could be good cause a unit like SH is pretty useless in very low numbers. That would be represented by low larva costs of the first few you build. Could even make sense then to build 1-2 hosts only from 1-3 larva instead of 1-3 zerglings for example while teching to hive and use them for minor harassment tasks. The game would give players more options in the end and reduce minmaxing. Cause now it is less of an option to build 1-2 hosts, if you go for them you build a decent amount.
Yeah, swarmhost don't do a whole lot when you have only a few (like mutalisk), so why are you suggesting it would be fine to build 2 swarmhost for 2 larva while ramping up the cost for the actual swarmhost count that you imply makes sense? "Lowering" the larva cost from the increase is about as much of a selling argument like raising the price for an item to later offer a "discount" which will later wear off. No, this is not "good in theory".
On July 28 2017 06:44 LSN wrote:
And that is exactly how SH should be used. In low numbers to get on your opponents nerves without the capability of taking him out of the game all the way. 4-6 locust are quite similar to a medivac drop.
This is how SH should be used according to who? And no, 4-6 locust are hardly comparable to 8 stimmed marines being healed by a medivac.
|
Well I said similar, locus dmg output is higher than marine and they can (must) be wasted anytime while rines have to retreat. It is similar.
More diversification ofc as you could put ultralisk on lets say 3 drones instead of 2, which would represent 1,5 in the current system. Just as an example.
You don't find this to be quite convoluted? Are you going to revamp the larva cost for every zerg unit just so you can have this larva increase gimmick on swarm hosts? And are you going to have this kind of nerf apply to any other units as well?
No, I dont find it convoluted. SC2 strategical depth is quita shallow. What you miss is that anything else can stay the same with this concept as I have explained above. But you CAN in case you want so change details such as ultralisk example above, or anything else.
Zerg usually needs all larva for drones and rest of larva for main army composition. You cant afford dead larva supply. But if the first host only takes the larva amount of a single zergling, the second that of 2 zerglings, and lets say you have a tiny advantage in game and hence a bit of extra resources to spend, you can then think about adding 2 hosts in order to kill depots, pylons, use for scout + little dmg, distract oponent or whatever else. Yes that would make options more diverse.
But this is only the side effect. The main effect is to soft cap max hosts.
|
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote:
Well I said similar, locus dmg output is higher than marine and they can be wasted anytime while rines have to retreat. It is similar.
Marines have higher move speed to chase after workers, which locust cannot do. Marines do not disappear by themselves for a while, so you can't deal with them by simply moving away workers for a while. Marines have to retreat, but they can do so to a different expansion and keep up the assault, while the swarm host takes 43 seconds to recharge. The medivac can also reposition before dropping without affecting marine duration. The medivac is also faster.
Nah, it's not really similar.
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote:
Zerg usually needs all larva for drones and rest of larva for main army composition. You cant afford dead larva supply. But if the first host only takes the larva amount of a single zergling, the second that of 2 zerglings, and lets say you have a small advantage in game and hence a bit of extra resources to spend, you can then think about adding 2 hosts in order to kill depots, pylons or whatever else. Yes that would make options more diverse.
No, it doesn't make it "more diverse", because the current situation is already that you can create 2 hosts for 2 larva if you felt like it. Though it seems like a huge waste in both effort and resources to use 2 swarm host to hunt supply depots...
On July 28 2017 07:28 LSN wrote:But this is only the side effect. The main effect is to soft cap max hosts.
And why do you want to do that rather than fix underlying issues?
|
It is brainstorming man. I agree the side effect can be neglected effectively, but yet it is there. I don't even advocate to implement that at this point. I just brought it up cause the concept exists and is interesting and I even explained it for you in detail as you seemed to not understand how this could play out. Get along with it plz. You gotta tell me now what underlying issues you are talking about.
|
Yeah I respect brainstorming man, and part of that process is discussing the ideas that come up. I understand that you find your own idea interesting, but you keep restating the same things and don't answer any questions. I don't know what you mean with "get along with it"? No.
You gotta tell me now what underlying issues you are talking about.
Why should I be the one to do that, you're the one advocating for change.
|
On July 28 2017 07:45 WaesumNinja wrote:Yeah I respect brainstorming man, and part of that process is discussing the ideas that come up. I understand that you find your own idea interesting, but you keep restating the same things and don't answer any questions. I don't know what you mean with "get along with it"? No. Why should I be the one to do that, you're the one advocating for change.
Because I sense that you lack general idea, and I wanna hear content from you before I continue to talk with you. You probably are just big at criticizing stuff others bring up. And I answered all your questions in detail. With get along with it I mean that you should accept outside the box thinking which wont necessarily at first glance fit the mainstream idea of how to address problems but at the end of the day can do other tricks instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
