EPTWhat do people think about just deleting disruptors from the game, and increasing storms duration so that it does 90 damage (thus 2 storms kill a tank now). This will not increase storm dps so I feel like storm dodging is just as effective.
Trade disruptor for storm buff?
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
angry_maia
314 Posts
What do people think about just deleting disruptors from the game, and increasing storms duration so that it does 90 damage (thus 2 storms kill a tank now). This will not increase storm dps so I feel like storm dodging is just as effective. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
That being said Storm I think is in a decent place. Buffing it could affect it's interactions with air units, specially slow ones. Maybe a better change would be removing the disruptor, but buffing the Colossus, which was nerfed twice, making it damage more vs light units instead of hitting the same for everyone, and reducing it's range. | ||
|
QOGQOG
834 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
But you know, there would have to be an actual balance team with a passion and vision for this great game for any of this to happen. Honestly, even for ANY balance changes for that matter. Not even a community feedback on things that are active topics in the community like the power of Lurkers and the general disdain for mass air battles. | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On September 08 2021 09:55 QOGQOG wrote: Rather than taking them out of the game, I'd rather see them redesigned into something more like their BW analogue the reaver. Make shots cost something and there be a limited number of shots that can be "stored" so that spamming is discouraged. reavers can fire their stored shots every ~2 seconds, and even when they run out it takes only ~4 seconds to build a new one. disruptors have a required cooldown of 20 seconds between each shot. in no way are they spammier than the reaver, they only feel that way because players tend to have more of them at a time. why is everyone so convinced that reavers would work better than disruptors in sc2? my guess is that it would take less than a day before people start complaining that the shots are impossible to micro against, take no skill for protoss, etc | ||
|
yubo56
687 Posts
It's worth exploring the idea of toning the disruptor down a bit to be more consistent but less devastating again, perhaps? Maybe a different idea | ||
|
QOGQOG
834 Posts
On September 08 2021 13:20 -NegativeZero- wrote: reavers can fire their stored shots every ~2 seconds, and even when they run out it takes only ~4 seconds to build a new one. disruptors have a required cooldown of 20 seconds between each shot. in no way are they spammier than the reaver, they only feel that way because players tend to have more of them at a time. why is everyone so convinced that reavers would work better than disruptors in sc2? my guess is that it would take less than a day before people start complaining that the shots are impossible to micro against, take no skill for protoss, etc I think that reavers would be better because they are better, albeit in a different game. Now, you're 100% right that people will balance whine regardless. | ||
|
Arch0ff
1 Post
| ||
|
SmoKim
Denmark10304 Posts
On September 08 2021 13:20 -NegativeZero- wrote: why is everyone so convinced that reavers would work better than disruptors in sc2? I think you know why  | ||
|
Poopi
France12841 Posts
But it’s probably too hard to tweak properly. I agree it feels redundant and frustrating to add 1 more aoe to a race that already had a lot of aoe | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15947 Posts
| ||
|
darklycid
3488 Posts
On September 08 2021 17:22 Charoisaur wrote: I think the disruptor design when they exploded immediately on contact was decent and more consistent but they changed it for some reason Terrans complained that they could never engage a protoss as they were so consistent (and the cd was way shorter than now so you always had a ball)  | ||
|
Poopi
France12841 Posts
On September 08 2021 17:53 darklycid wrote: Terrans complained that they could never engage a protoss as they were so consistent (and the cd was way shorter than now so you always had a ball) Yeah I don't remember a single version of disruptor that was good design wise, the current one is not that bad I guess. | ||
|
Legan
Finland402 Posts
However, I thing that the redesign were nova that had to touch just one unit do explode was abandoned too fast. I would have liked to see upgrade or something that allowed change the behavior of nova or just giving them both version with shared cool down. This would have given the choice to player if they want to keep fishing for big connection or have more reliable value. Ideally there would probably be three phases of nova. First phase where contact doesn't matter so that melee units do not just cause friendly fire in first second or so. Second phase where contact causes nova to become unstable and change to 3rd phase. After entering third phase the nova will explode in second or so, but can still move to allow player maximize amount of units hit. If consistency is increased then damage can be lowered. However ability to target more important units like siege tanks is also decreased. | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3423 Posts
And I, too, believe that reavers, the way they work in BW, would be way too OP in SC2. | ||
|
alpenrahm
Germany628 Posts
On September 08 2021 09:24 [Phantom] wrote: I've never liked the disruptor (though I love how it looks, though I love how it looked in the LotV beta even more). And I don't think Protoss really needed a third splash damage ground unit. That being said Storm I think is in a decent place. Buffing it could affect it's interactions with air units, specially slow ones. Maybe a better change would be removing the disruptor, but buffing the Colossus, which was nerfed twice, making it damage more vs light units instead of hitting the same for everyone, and reducing it's range. Nah, it throws the Terran air counter game off. Right now you have to make a choice; either make Libs or Vikings (assuming that you already have 8+ medis) to counter Disruptors or Colossi respectively. If the Disruptor were removed, terran would just default to vikings and Terran aswell as protoss would lose the opportunity to out techswitch their opponents. The Current TvP meta lives off of this concept, and it's one of the very few opportunities you have to gain an advantage in the late midgame to late game that doesn't depend entirely on micro. Imho, if you wanted to get rid of the Disruptor you shouldn't offload its responsibilities to a unit that Terran will just blind counter. See Colossi make Viking is so engrained in our heads that you would effectively render the colossus worthless. Maybe we could instead make guardian shield much stronger (and ofc more energy expensive so that they can't be warped in aggressively) by giving it an upgrade that coincides with the usual stim timing and thus make gateway units more competitive. At the very least Terran needs to be punishable for over or under making vikings. If you were to remove the techswitch aspect of the game it would just come back down to who can make more units faster. | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 08 2021 08:43 angry_maia wrote: At the pro level, it feels like they inject rng into the game which just sucks both ways what does the disruptor have to do with rng? it's flat damage with bonus to shields | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
On September 09 2021 01:51 NonY wrote: what does the disruptor have to do with rng? it's flat damage with bonus to shields People use the phrase RNG as a way of saying random result. If a pro has disruptors it often feels like just random chance whether it does something game ending or not at all. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 09 2021 01:59 Fango wrote: People use the phrase RNG as a way of saying random result. If a pro has disruptors it often feels like just random chance whether it does something game ending or not at all. the problem with RNG is that the players do the exact same thing twice and get different results. there's no RNG with the disruptor. it's positioning, reaction time, micro. idk why he feels like disruptor injects rng into pro play, so i asked. even though the range of effects it can have on a game is huge (which is also true of some games' RNG mechanics), it's important to acknowledge that the effects are strictly a result of things the players are doing and would play out the exact same way every time if the players play the same way. so likening it to an RNG is not a good idea | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
It's especialy funny since reavers are a notoriously finicky units that regularly shoot in random/incoherent way but somehow it's suppose to be a golden standard for unit design. As for the storm buff, I think it would be very bad for the laders since storm is already way stronger than disruptor at most level, and for the top players it would maybe lead to skytoss being even stronger. | ||
| ||
