|
On August 25 2017 07:05 Fatam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2017 01:05 seopthi wrote:Played a bit on the test server as Protoss. Altogether I am very happy with most changes. Few specific points: 1) I don't think the shield battery is enough for early defense. It is strong but costs a lot of energy, which is mainly a problem with early to midgame allins or just prolonged aggression at the beginning. I think it is necessary to boost early defense for Protoss, either lowering the energy cost, or perhaps just adding it to a separate building like in BW, lowering cost of Photon Cannon, or something else. 2) Wouldn't mind the changes being even more drastic, i.e even removing Adept and Tempest, of which addition a few years back has not improved the game and just tweaking their numbers will not fix them completely. The other gateway and air units seem to be enough design wise, of course, could be tweaked for rebalancing, but Adept does seem to overlap with Zealot/Stalker and Tempest with others too much. Virtually never watched or played a game in which Adepts and Tempest would play a fun role for the players nor spectators. As a Protoss player, I'd like to see them being removed even more than MSC. If it'd result in too low # of units for w/e reason, perhaps can Blizz come up with a new unit, for example Purifier sounds fun http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Canceled_StarCraft_II_Protoss_units3) Revelation could still see a nerf. I remember that TY in an interview once said that it'd be good if Adept's shade cooldown was nerfed hard, but would return the shade's full vision. If Adept is to stay, perhaps it'd be best if Revelation was nerfed/removed and Adept was used for vision (being slightly more demanding and counterable) 4) More changes towards i) easier control (such as high templars with attack, observer's anchor, if just to contrast to bw) and ii) nerfing moments which can very quickly turn the game due to minor oversight (mines) are welcomed. i.e even as a Protoss it sucks if a solid tense game is ended just because an Oracle is sent to enemy's worker line, who is just a second late to respond. These moments should be minimised, and in fact I think that BW having less of them is reason why I don't have any ladder anxiety playing it. As mine drops were nerfed, Oracles could be, too. To combine i) and ii) from Protoss perspective, I'd very much like to see a tool to defend entrance against Zerg. It is clunky to have a Zealot or Adept blocking an entrance and it ruins many games when it is not on hold or wrongly positioned, allowing Zergling spilling in. This creates a huge difference in balance between intermediate and pro players; as the latter is able to block it right away with Sentry or is just better with holding it with a zealot. But even on pro level, I've seen numerous toe to toe games which ended up in a moment by zerglings running in just because of Zealot being wrongly positioned or the Protoss being just a second late with force field. The punishment is disproportionally larger to the mistake that is too easy to make, which is the similar case of Oracle, mines, etc., it's frustrating of everyone and should be changed. Something similar to Supply Depot lowering or at least sensor tower type of warning would be great. 5) With more resources per base, Carriers are probably not nerfed enough. Perhaps they will not be seen on pro level, but on intermediate skill level it'll still be well possible to stay on 3 bases and mass carriers and cause inbalance and feeling of unfairness for the opponent. Really good post, I agree with most of it. I do maybe disagree with removing tempests, I think it's good for the game to have a siegebreaker. I think it would be interesting to make them more glass cannon-y, though. Maybe increase the damage ever so slightly but reduce their hp by a moderate amount, so you have to be super careful with them. Would make for a more tense back and forth.
The "siege breaking" mechanics in HOTS and LOTV have ALWAYS resulted in deathballs and unbeatable armies. In HOTS, tempest/HT was the best composition in the game. Vipers have always forced mech players into even more turtle behind turrets not to get their shit abducted.
"Siege breaking" shouldnt mean "being able to pick off enemy units with superior range without them being able to do something about it". Siege breaking should be about making a position inconfortable to hold for the enemy.
If the tempest was a 100/100 3 pop airship with decent movespeed that had 13 flat range but only 10 damage per shot, it would be a "siege breaker", in the sense that revelated units would be attacked, and that the opponent wouldn't be able to hold the position, without progressively loosing ressources.
|
On August 25 2017 18:45 JackONeill wrote:
If the tempest was a 100/100 3 pop airship with decent movespeed that had 13 flat range but only 10 damage per shot, it would be a "siege breaker", in the sense that revelated units would be attacked, and that the opponent wouldn't be able to hold the position, without progressively loosing ressources.
WOuldn't it become shit agaisnt repaired mech?
|
Capital air ships should be weaker for the good of the game.
Ground units are much more interesting than capital ships since you need to care about terrain. Capital ships should be something that you add to your regular army but they should not be mono-battle units.
Both Carriers and BCs needs to be weaker somehow. Carriers more than BCs though since it is easier to get mass Carriers compared to mass BCs.
Also I know that Blizzard primary focus is 1v1 but mass Carriers have really destroyed the enjoyment of team games. Team games have become extremly repetivite due to mass Carriers. Carriers need either lower hitpoints, less DPS or a supply increase.
Nerfing Carriers may have a small impact on pro level but it will have a huge impact on the enjoyment of both 1v1 and team games for the large mass or normal players.
Also there is nothing interesting about Carriers. There is no micro or positioning skills involved so you can't really tell the difference between a good or a mediocre Carrier user.
|
Fix this, change that. Why can't they just let the game rest? IMO having to learn new things about the game every year kinda sucks.
|
New community update with new changes:
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20758786489
Protoss has Shield Restore changed into an aoe Restoration Field that restores unit shields in an area around a nearby Pylon.
Zerg Infestors may get an anti-air stun that roots air units to the ground, though it's still not ready to be tested
Terran Hellbat/Hellion transformation time with the transformation time upgrade is nerfed from 1 second to 2 seconds.
|
So the new shield battery gets casted from a nexus to a pylon and THEN from the pylon to your units?
Seems overly complicated.
Also disappointed they haven't removed the high templar attack yet. Could as well add an auto-split button when they're moving in this direction.
|
On August 25 2017 18:45 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2017 07:05 Fatam wrote:On August 25 2017 01:05 seopthi wrote:Played a bit on the test server as Protoss. Altogether I am very happy with most changes. Few specific points: 1) I don't think the shield battery is enough for early defense. It is strong but costs a lot of energy, which is mainly a problem with early to midgame allins or just prolonged aggression at the beginning. I think it is necessary to boost early defense for Protoss, either lowering the energy cost, or perhaps just adding it to a separate building like in BW, lowering cost of Photon Cannon, or something else. 2) Wouldn't mind the changes being even more drastic, i.e even removing Adept and Tempest, of which addition a few years back has not improved the game and just tweaking their numbers will not fix them completely. The other gateway and air units seem to be enough design wise, of course, could be tweaked for rebalancing, but Adept does seem to overlap with Zealot/Stalker and Tempest with others too much. Virtually never watched or played a game in which Adepts and Tempest would play a fun role for the players nor spectators. As a Protoss player, I'd like to see them being removed even more than MSC. If it'd result in too low # of units for w/e reason, perhaps can Blizz come up with a new unit, for example Purifier sounds fun http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Canceled_StarCraft_II_Protoss_units3) Revelation could still see a nerf. I remember that TY in an interview once said that it'd be good if Adept's shade cooldown was nerfed hard, but would return the shade's full vision. If Adept is to stay, perhaps it'd be best if Revelation was nerfed/removed and Adept was used for vision (being slightly more demanding and counterable) 4) More changes towards i) easier control (such as high templars with attack, observer's anchor, if just to contrast to bw) and ii) nerfing moments which can very quickly turn the game due to minor oversight (mines) are welcomed. i.e even as a Protoss it sucks if a solid tense game is ended just because an Oracle is sent to enemy's worker line, who is just a second late to respond. These moments should be minimised, and in fact I think that BW having less of them is reason why I don't have any ladder anxiety playing it. As mine drops were nerfed, Oracles could be, too. To combine i) and ii) from Protoss perspective, I'd very much like to see a tool to defend entrance against Zerg. It is clunky to have a Zealot or Adept blocking an entrance and it ruins many games when it is not on hold or wrongly positioned, allowing Zergling spilling in. This creates a huge difference in balance between intermediate and pro players; as the latter is able to block it right away with Sentry or is just better with holding it with a zealot. But even on pro level, I've seen numerous toe to toe games which ended up in a moment by zerglings running in just because of Zealot being wrongly positioned or the Protoss being just a second late with force field. The punishment is disproportionally larger to the mistake that is too easy to make, which is the similar case of Oracle, mines, etc., it's frustrating of everyone and should be changed. Something similar to Supply Depot lowering or at least sensor tower type of warning would be great. 5) With more resources per base, Carriers are probably not nerfed enough. Perhaps they will not be seen on pro level, but on intermediate skill level it'll still be well possible to stay on 3 bases and mass carriers and cause inbalance and feeling of unfairness for the opponent. Really good post, I agree with most of it. I do maybe disagree with removing tempests, I think it's good for the game to have a siegebreaker. I think it would be interesting to make them more glass cannon-y, though. Maybe increase the damage ever so slightly but reduce their hp by a moderate amount, so you have to be super careful with them. Would make for a more tense back and forth. The "siege breaking" mechanics in HOTS and LOTV have ALWAYS resulted in deathballs and unbeatable armies. In HOTS, tempest/HT was the best composition in the game. Vipers have always forced mech players into even more turtle behind turrets not to get their shit abducted. "Siege breaking" shouldnt mean "being able to pick off enemy units with superior range without them being able to do something about it". Siege breaking should be about making a position inconfortable to hold for the enemy. If the tempest was a 100/100 3 pop airship with decent movespeed that had 13 flat range but only 10 damage per shot, it would be a "siege breaker", in the sense that revelated units would be attacked, and that the opponent wouldn't be able to hold the position, without progressively loosing ressources.
I don't see why "siege breaking" should even have to be a thing in the design of the game. If anything, MAYBE in late T3 after some upgrades have some units a slight bit stronger vs siege.
But ideally, shouldn't siege vs siege have their own metagame at play where they can break each other through skilled tactics?
Units dedicated to breaking siege seems to upset the balance of a battle so much that it will drastically change the weight for such small investment. I think it's better to avoid that type of unit.
|
On August 26 2017 03:14 Charoisaur wrote:
So the new shield battery gets casted from a nexus to a pylon and THEN from the pylon to your units?
Seems overly complicated.
Also disappointed they haven't removed the high templar attack yet. Could as well add an auto-split button when they're moving in this direction.
Wasn't the old Nexus shield battery a single-target auto-cast spell? I haven't had a chance to test that one yet.
The new Pylon shield battery seems to be an aura, which could be more powerful for greater numbers of units under it.
|
On August 25 2017 18:45 JackONeill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2017 07:05 Fatam wrote:On August 25 2017 01:05 seopthi wrote:Played a bit on the test server as Protoss. Altogether I am very happy with most changes. Few specific points: 1) I don't think the shield battery is enough for early defense. It is strong but costs a lot of energy, which is mainly a problem with early to midgame allins or just prolonged aggression at the beginning. I think it is necessary to boost early defense for Protoss, either lowering the energy cost, or perhaps just adding it to a separate building like in BW, lowering cost of Photon Cannon, or something else. 2) Wouldn't mind the changes being even more drastic, i.e even removing Adept and Tempest, of which addition a few years back has not improved the game and just tweaking their numbers will not fix them completely. The other gateway and air units seem to be enough design wise, of course, could be tweaked for rebalancing, but Adept does seem to overlap with Zealot/Stalker and Tempest with others too much. Virtually never watched or played a game in which Adepts and Tempest would play a fun role for the players nor spectators. As a Protoss player, I'd like to see them being removed even more than MSC. If it'd result in too low # of units for w/e reason, perhaps can Blizz come up with a new unit, for example Purifier sounds fun http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Canceled_StarCraft_II_Protoss_units3) Revelation could still see a nerf. I remember that TY in an interview once said that it'd be good if Adept's shade cooldown was nerfed hard, but would return the shade's full vision. If Adept is to stay, perhaps it'd be best if Revelation was nerfed/removed and Adept was used for vision (being slightly more demanding and counterable) 4) More changes towards i) easier control (such as high templars with attack, observer's anchor, if just to contrast to bw) and ii) nerfing moments which can very quickly turn the game due to minor oversight (mines) are welcomed. i.e even as a Protoss it sucks if a solid tense game is ended just because an Oracle is sent to enemy's worker line, who is just a second late to respond. These moments should be minimised, and in fact I think that BW having less of them is reason why I don't have any ladder anxiety playing it. As mine drops were nerfed, Oracles could be, too. To combine i) and ii) from Protoss perspective, I'd very much like to see a tool to defend entrance against Zerg. It is clunky to have a Zealot or Adept blocking an entrance and it ruins many games when it is not on hold or wrongly positioned, allowing Zergling spilling in. This creates a huge difference in balance between intermediate and pro players; as the latter is able to block it right away with Sentry or is just better with holding it with a zealot. But even on pro level, I've seen numerous toe to toe games which ended up in a moment by zerglings running in just because of Zealot being wrongly positioned or the Protoss being just a second late with force field. The punishment is disproportionally larger to the mistake that is too easy to make, which is the similar case of Oracle, mines, etc., it's frustrating of everyone and should be changed. Something similar to Supply Depot lowering or at least sensor tower type of warning would be great. 5) With more resources per base, Carriers are probably not nerfed enough. Perhaps they will not be seen on pro level, but on intermediate skill level it'll still be well possible to stay on 3 bases and mass carriers and cause inbalance and feeling of unfairness for the opponent. Really good post, I agree with most of it. I do maybe disagree with removing tempests, I think it's good for the game to have a siegebreaker. I think it would be interesting to make them more glass cannon-y, though. Maybe increase the damage ever so slightly but reduce their hp by a moderate amount, so you have to be super careful with them. Would make for a more tense back and forth. The "siege breaking" mechanics in HOTS and LOTV have ALWAYS resulted in deathballs and unbeatable armies. In HOTS, tempest/HT was the best composition in the game. Vipers have always forced mech players into even more turtle behind turrets not to get their shit abducted. "Siege breaking" shouldnt mean "being able to pick off enemy units with superior range without them being able to do something about it". Siege breaking should be about making a position inconfortable to hold for the enemy. If the tempest was a 100/100 3 pop airship with decent movespeed that had 13 flat range but only 10 damage per shot, it would be a "siege breaker", in the sense that revelated units would be attacked, and that the opponent wouldn't be able to hold the position, without progressively loosing ressources.
If you want to remove/nerf siege breaker units, then you should consider removing/nerfing sieged units. Which is, basically, just siege tank since no one use Lurkers outside of ZvZ. ^^
|
Given the wall of text I've written on last page, I think the idea behind new Pylon change sounds great. It involves more decisionmaking (incl. Pylon positioning) and it sounds that it'll help defending for a longer time. Also, if Zerglings spill into a mineral line or there's a Marine drop, it sounds that it'd protect Probes before units get in.
Generally, I'd like to see the abilities (like Chronoboost) to cost less mana but be less powerful. i.e half the speedboost for half the mana. 50 for the boost or the energy save is a lot and is quite a commitment.
|
New AoE shield restore around a pylon is way way stronger than the original one, especially as your army gets bigger, but still suffers from some fatal flaws. Making it another 50 energy ability that competes with chronoboost effectively nerfs Protoss Macro from its current state if you plan on using it..... but more importantly, it scales from weak to overpowered later in the game, just like the new recall, and does nothing to address the defense of a third base in PvZ. Unless the Zerg waits for the third base nexus to be complete and gain 50 energy, this ability isn't going to do squat to help hold it.
Now I'm imagining situations where you try to have a pylon at 13 range from the natural.... placed inbetween the natural and third base.... that you will try to run to in order to shield recharge while holding the third...... so clunky, vulnerable to surround, and map dependent.
Also, new disruptor still sucks. Even without friendly fire, it will still be bad. Would have to probably make it no friendly fire and like a 14 sec cooldown to be considered.
|
On August 26 2017 03:07 eviltomahawk wrote:New community update with new changes: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20758786489Protoss has Shield Restore changed into an aoe Restoration Field that restores unit shields in an area around a nearby Pylon. Zerg Infestors may get an anti-air stun that roots air units to the ground, though it's still not ready to be tested Terran Hellbat/Hellion transformation time with the transformation time upgrade is nerfed from 1 second to 2 seconds.
so infestors are becoming wc3 crypt fiends, interesting
|
On August 26 2017 05:05 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2017 03:07 eviltomahawk wrote:New community update with new changes: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20758786489Protoss has Shield Restore changed into an aoe Restoration Field that restores unit shields in an area around a nearby Pylon. Zerg Infestors may get an anti-air stun that roots air units to the ground, though it's still not ready to be tested Terran Hellbat/Hellion transformation time with the transformation time upgrade is nerfed from 1 second to 2 seconds. so infestors are becoming wc3 crypt fiends, interesting
With so many activatable abilities in the game all we are missing is a "hall of storms" to summon heroes
Can't remember the names of the building for each races... for humans it was like an altar of kings or sth?
|
My idea for the widowmine is that it gets revealed after it fires, but if it unburrows and burrows again, then it is invisible again. This means that it isn't a "set and forget" unit anymore, but it also isn't a brutal nerf.
|
I guess one can proxy a nexus and some indestructible cannons
|
Jesus more overly complicated bullshit. How hard is it to transform a nexus into a shield battery.
Just what protoss needed, more "it's in range of the nexus or it isn't".
I'm loosing hope that they'll realise at some point that protoss already has the best defense mechanism on paper (being able to produce anywhere in their bases) and that the fucking units are the problem. But hey, it's much better to have a main building casting spells that rely on gimmicks amiright
|
This is becoming chaotic. We're losing race characteristics.
|
On August 26 2017 06:31 StarscreamG1 wrote:
This is becoming chaotic. We're losing race characteristics.
Race characteristics got thrown out the window a long time ago. Each expansion made each race more and more homogeneous, which is ironic given that Starcraft was the first game to make unique factions a thing in RTS games. They just kept adding more gimmicky harass options and AoE spells to each race until it became all the game was about.
|
And it's funny that in a week they get the conclusion Shield Battery and stalkers "buff" is not enough. I don't know, but one week? ONE week? :|
|
Man, it feels like LOTV never left beta. 7 years later and they still don't know what to do with SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
