|
As a Zerg player who doesn't play actively anymore(for now) and has never played on a high level (I got diamond after ~2 months), I was watching some games from Nathanias and noticed some things I thought would be nice to share. My observations thus of course concern terran changes.
First of all I like the changes overall, It is obvious you made up your mind and the changes have some merit.
1. The new MULE gives terrans a high degree of flexibility (as already mentioned in this thread), which in general is not a bad thing, imo. However the high amount of gas the mule can collect, makes it such that the terran can decide very spontaneously which resource is more important to him in a certain situation.
I would recommend the MULE to gather far less gas, such that it's impact is less imminent. Like that a terran would have to make up his mind and plan ahead, which kind of strategy he wants to chose. A slightly higher gas income (than in the current live patch) would then over a longer time enable new strategies.
Add to this, that the current gas income is raised just way too much. If it's the case that the MULE can gather gas parallel to the other 3 workers (without disturbing their work), adding a single MULE to a geyser is basically like adding another geyser ontop of your current income, since the MULE can work parallely AND gather more gas than a usual worker.
Imo the amount a MULE can gather should be even lower than the amount a normal worker carries.
2. The ravens ability to reduce armor by 3 is in my opinion too much, irrespective of how it turns out in terms of balance. An upgrade advantage of +1 is generally considered to be highly influential in a regular game. Removing 3 armor, equal to 3 armor upgrades in most cases, will have too much influence on a single fight.
Imo the armor reduction should be lowered to 1 armor. This also makes sense in order for the raven to have a support role, rather than a game deciding role.
By now you might see what my recommendations have in common: they are merely number tweakings and chosen such that the changes only impact the game by nuances - which leads me to my third point.
3. The transformation speed upgrade from smart servos is a little too fast imo. Eventhough I like the flexibility this gives to a Terran, again, changing this by a nuance will probably put it in a better place.
On a side remark, eventhough it probably is very influential, I want to address the raven change again. The raven has a really important role in the current meta, as it is an essential part of terran's late game army in order to compete with carriers&brutelords. You can't change the raven without also addressing its counterparts in the other races.
Edit: Oh and one remark on the protoss changes. The shield recharge ability of the nexus looks quite strong, which is good since Protoss needs a reliable early game defense - I've witnessed probes being kind of immortal and I think it could help out a great deal defending early attacks, so I'm looking forward to see that being tested. However shield recharge and chronoboost both using the energy of the nexus, will probably do more harm than good to a protoss.
I think chronoboost could be kept the way it is in the current live patch, while only shield recharge and mass teleport (which should require a high amount of energy, and be on global cooldown) require energy.
|
Cool, scouting what his mules are doing could become a tell now.
|
On August 19 2017 00:43 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 00:02 DomeGetta wrote:
With the removal of the Mothership Core we are also looking into Protoss’s other early game units. In particular we wanted to try sharpening the role of the Stalker, and make it more of a shoot and move unit with sniping capabilities. To do this we are slowing its attack rate but increasing its damage per shot.
Increased Stalker’s Particle Disruptor weapon from 10 (14 vs armored) to 15 (21 vs armored)
Increased Particle Disruptor’s weapon period from 1.03 to 1.54
Particle Disruptor now gets +2 damage per weapon upgrade, up from +1
Um what? Does this not seem retardedly broken without even testing?
Stalkers are already a shoot and move unit - see any early game fight between stalkers and non stim marines.
So we are going to increase their damage by 50%?? lolol hello blink all in era The weapon damage increases by 50%, but the weapon speed decreases by something like 33% (from 0.97 attacks per second to 0.65) to compensate. Overall it's a DPS increase from 9.71 to 9.74...
Yeah I totally understand that. The issue is that stalkers entire utility is based on kiting - where the delay is irrelevant. You don't see any Protoss a move stalkers at bio because it makes no sense - you're never going to win a DPS battle. Stalkers will be insane to deal with before you have stim if they up their damage that much - they can already basically kite forever rofl - I don't get it?
|
On August 18 2017 09:04 Snakestyle1 wrote:
Interesting changes other than one part.
ZvZ will be absolute hell now. Stronger /more agile lurkers, fungal doesnt hit air...
Mass muta will be way too strong in zvz... Lurker spore turtle late game as well.
For these changes to be reasonable for zvz i would propose the following changes.
Buff spores anti bio back to hots values.
Give broodlords frenzy so they cant be abducted into spores/hydras. Making them a good answer to spore/lurker turtle.
Carrier change is too little to have any impact.
I dunno, if Parasitic Bomb remains at current value it is going to MASSACRE Mutalisk flocks unless you have god like splitting power.
Lurkers also become a bit of a non-issue once Broodlords hit the field I would imagine.
|
On August 19 2017 01:18 Spyridon wrote:
It really upsets me that they call this & the last year proposal a "design update".... this is in no way anything more than a glorified balance patch. All the core mechanics & the foundation of the game are exactly the same... None of the fundamental design issues are being looked at whatsoever...
They are changing the way core macro mechanics and unit designs operate how is that the same as tweaking the cooldown on D8 charges?
|
To me its strange to call it major design changes. Mule for example doesnt feel like a redesign, more like a tweak with added utility.
|
On August 19 2017 03:02 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:18 Spyridon wrote:
It really upsets me that they call this & the last year proposal a "design update".... this is in no way anything more than a glorified balance patch. All the core mechanics & the foundation of the game are exactly the same... None of the fundamental design issues are being looked at whatsoever... They are changing the way core macro mechanics and unit designs operate how is that the same as tweaking the cooldown on D8 charges?
I don't see tweaking resource numbers as changing "Core macro mechanics". And if we're talking about how unit designs operate, what separates every single balance patch they have ever done from being a "design change"?
By that logic, all the times Thor was changed in balance patches to have different shooting mode would have been a "design change". The buff to Photon Overcharge would have been one as well. HotS's swarm host changes were more significant than the majority of changes in this patch so that would have to be included as well. Widow mines back when the shield damage was changed. The Void Ray changes, the Tempest changes - again were just as significant as this patch. And so on....
Moving or removing abilities and tweaking numbers... I know it's up to your interpretation, but I'm sorry but I can't see how those can be justified as "design changes". The only thing that's more significant than anything they have done in balance patches is that they actually removed a unit. Is that really all it takes to change the design of the game...? I do not agree with that.
I just think the term is used in this case to glorify that they are actually doing a balance patch, which has became all the more rare since LotV came out. Nowadays, when they actually do something to the balance of the game, they have to hype it up as a "major design change" when in reality, they only do a full balance patch around once a year.
True design changes would be looking at the core of the economy, not just tweaking numbers of the patches that appear on map. Adjusting core/global design issues, not just tweaking unit numbers.
After these changes, the economy will SCALE just as fast as now! Which is the true design issue that has been brought up since lotv release. But in no way will it reduce how strong fast expanding is now. This will only make it take longer to starve an enemy out, but they will still be at a significant disadvantage if being prevented from expanding (as the design of this claims it's intent is). It won't truly even achieve the design intent. Maybe it'll be a bit easier for casual players, but do you think pro players are going to have any significant difference when being at such a disadvantage of being down a base?
I'm not sure if you have familiarity with how game development teams operate, and what situations involve designers, or which involve balance teams. But just FYI, everything included in this patch is something that the balance team - not the design team - would typically have authority to do. Do you really think they had to call up the design team for this? "Major Balance Changes" would fit a lot more than "MAJOR DESIGN Changes". Relative to the history of the game, this is pretty underwhelming to call "major design change".
But I can see it's interpretation, so I guess it's not worth arguing over since it will come down to semantics anyway.
|
Please do something about TvT and the insane tank + marine battles, where it is very difficult to attack or break out, huge armies get obliterated in 5 seconds, and doom drops can instantly end the game.
The raven's defense drone would be better targeted for fixing this problem than in protecting mech units.
|
I'd say removing Photon Overcharge and replacing it with Shield Battery is a major design change since it's very impactful on how Protoss defend their bases throughout the game. They'll have to commit more units to defense now.
Considering how regular balance patches are usually just numbers tweaks anyways, changes like removing units or adding/removing/replacing abilities/functionalities feels like bigger design decisions in comparison.
|
I really like almost all of these changes and I cant wait to try them out. If you would have told me mules were going to be able to mine gas in like 2012 i would not have believed you.
|
On August 19 2017 01:37 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 01:26 Elentos wrote:On August 19 2017 01:18 Spyridon wrote:
It really upsets me that they call this & the last year proposal a "design update".... this is in no way anything more than a glorified balance patch. All the core mechanics & the foundation of the game are exactly the same... None of the fundamental design issues are being looked at whatsoever... I'd say Protoss disagrees with you I'm assuming u mean the removal of a unit as the reason you say that?
No, I was referring to the redesign of the Protoss macro mechanic.
|
Wow, I might be able to switch back to Protoss if this goes properly. I've never liked using the MSC, and having a little more front-end damage on Stalkers seems nice. The HT change is a great QoL change for the majority of players. The amount of activated abilities can get overwhelming.
I'm surprised at the cost of chronoboost, since they are also increasing the size of mineral patches. I think they'll need to increase the efficacy or decrease the cost of it, or it'll feel pretty weak - the number of targets hasn't really changed much.
Edit: Agreed, this is a major design change for Protoss.
|
On August 19 2017 05:10 zyce wrote:
The HT change is a great QoL change for the majority of players. The amount of activated abilities can get overwhelming.
It's less of a QoL change than just a straight-up buff, let's be honest.
|
On August 19 2017 03:59 paralleluniverse wrote:
Please do something about TvT and the insane tank + marine battles, where it is very difficult to attack or break out, huge armies get obliterated in 5 seconds, and doom drops can instantly end the game.
Actually, a lot is changed about doom drops with these changes. Most directly with the removal of the boost upgrade. Second is the Raven: A single Raven now has the possibility to prevent the medivacs from unloading, while turrets will keep firing at them. The same kind of missle can also prevent tanks from firing. Only once or twice per missile I suppose but that is well enough to turn the tide of battle. The other type of missle reduces armor, which makes turrets more effective against Medicavs. Cyclones now take down medivacs faster, or just as fast with fewer cyclones. The new Mule allows Terran to go for much gas heavier compositions. So defensive units to prevent doom drops can become a thing. And, when I think about it, fast transforming Vikings can also be good vs. doom drops.
One the one hand, Marine Tank compositions/contains are also heavily influenced by the gas-mule option. On the other hand. Insane Marine Tank battles are actually kind of cool.
|
On August 19 2017 05:11 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:10 zyce wrote:
The HT change is a great QoL change for the majority of players. The amount of activated abilities can get overwhelming. It's less of a QoL change than just a straight-up buff, let's be honest.
Only a buff to players that F2 everywhere, which happens to be every Protoss
/s
|
On August 19 2017 05:11 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:10 zyce wrote:
The HT change is a great QoL change for the majority of players. The amount of activated abilities can get overwhelming. It's less of a QoL change than just a straight-up buff, let's be honest.
I think the QoL part is more interesting, a five or six damage attack from a slow caster isn't particularly interesting to me as a player - I have no clue how the balance will pan out for the unit, but you're right it's a buff too.
|
On August 19 2017 05:21 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:11 Elentos wrote:On August 19 2017 05:10 zyce wrote:
The HT change is a great QoL change for the majority of players. The amount of activated abilities can get overwhelming. It's less of a QoL change than just a straight-up buff, let's be honest. Only a buff to players that F2 everywhere, which happens to be every Protoss /s
not even F2 it just means you don't need to make an additional control group for HTs. This is going to be significant at every level of play. I think it's an awful change, out of all the changes they proposed it's the worst one.
The game doesn't need to be easier, the people that want to play an easy game aren't attracted to SC2 anyway.
edit: I'm curious what Nerchio's opinion is on making high templar easier to use.
|
On August 19 2017 05:51 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:21 Fango wrote:On August 19 2017 05:11 Elentos wrote:On August 19 2017 05:10 zyce wrote:
The HT change is a great QoL change for the majority of players. The amount of activated abilities can get overwhelming. It's less of a QoL change than just a straight-up buff, let's be honest. Only a buff to players that F2 everywhere, which happens to be every Protoss /s not even F2 it just means you don't need to make an additional control group for HTs. This is going to be significant at every level of play. I think it's an awful change, out of all the changes they proposed it's the worst one. The game doesn't need to be easier, the people that want to play an easy game aren't attracted to SC2 anyway. edit: I'm curious what Nerchio's opinion is on making high templar easier to use.
I'm assuming you disliked all the changes anyway?
|
On August 19 2017 06:03 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2017 05:51 Charoisaur wrote:On August 19 2017 05:21 Fango wrote:On August 19 2017 05:11 Elentos wrote:On August 19 2017 05:10 zyce wrote:
The HT change is a great QoL change for the majority of players. The amount of activated abilities can get overwhelming. It's less of a QoL change than just a straight-up buff, let's be honest. Only a buff to players that F2 everywhere, which happens to be every Protoss /s not even F2 it just means you don't need to make an additional control group for HTs. This is going to be significant at every level of play. I think it's an awful change, out of all the changes they proposed it's the worst one. The game doesn't need to be easier, the people that want to play an easy game aren't attracted to SC2 anyway. edit: I'm curious what Nerchio's opinion is on making high templar easier to use. I'm assuming you disliked all the changes anyway?
no I like the economy changes, the stalker, raven and the disruptor change as well as carrier/SH nerf and I don't mind the cyclone and lurker changes
Infestor/WM/Ghost/MSC/High Templar/Viper changes are awful and should be scrapped.
|
this was suggested on REDDIT and i'll restate it here.
please consider having the F2 ( all army units ) button activate all army units not on hold position. as soon as i "hold position" a unit the F2 button shouldn't be able to activate that unit.
to get an idea of the super-duper high level play i partake in .. i have F2 mapped to "CAPS LOCK" 
"Caps Lock"+A+Left Click
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
