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
327 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 States2142 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
690 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
Denmark10305 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
France12912 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
Germany16062 Posts
| ||
|
darklycid
3541 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
France12912 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
Finland577 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
Poland3430 Posts
And I, too, believe that reavers, the way they work in BW, would be way too OP in SC2. | ||
|
alpenrahm
Germany629 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
8751 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
8751 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. | ||
|
Elantris
66 Posts
| ||
|
Moonerz
United States461 Posts
On September 09 2021 03:57 Elantris wrote: Fun fact: disruptor actually wasn't core lategame unit in pvt before EMP buff in 2019. What does that have to do with anything? This would point, IMO at least, to toss options being better than disruptors at that time. Now that emp is a stronger tool disruptors were forced into use and hey they are pretty good. | ||
|
darklycid
3541 Posts
On September 09 2021 04:16 Moonerz wrote: What does that have to do with anything? This would point, IMO at least, to toss options being better than disruptors at that time. Now that emp is a stronger tool disruptors were forced into use and hey they are pretty good. The ghost buff pretty heavily fucks non disruptor based lategame comps, hwich is acxtually a problem i see if we'd only nerf the dirsuptor into more of a niche unit, alot of changes have happened with it in mind, so i'd guess you probably have to nerf emp too e.g. | ||
|
PtossParty
20 Posts
| ||
|
Moonerz
United States461 Posts
For TvP at least the matchup feels lopsided (even if it's not imbalanced) and has for quite some time but it's not the disruptor that makes it feel that way for sure. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On September 08 2021 11:49 Beelzebub1 wrote: Remove and replace with Reavers, run a long PTR with lots of pro feed back and then balance accordingly. 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. The reaver was in LoTV campaign, and also there was a version custom mappers put in for HoTS. So this would be easy enough to implement via a mod and to test if enough of the community were willing to do some testing on it. Throughout SC2 however people were never really willing to do testing on these kinds of ideas which was kind of a shame. Off topic, but WC3 map editor gave birth to dota and to tower defense as a genre (sort of). Meanwhile nothing much came out of the SC2 editor / arcade even though it was far more advanced than the WC3 version. I think that all comes back to the unwillingness of people to mess around with custom stuff in SC2. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26751 Posts
I’d rather the race was less reliant on having to have high tech AoE units once the midgame passes. Protoss keep getting given more and more tools to make them competitive that yes, can be frustrating but are ultimately necessary in lieu of more fundamental tweaking. Disruptors are merely another example, although I like aspects of them. Disruptor wars add a certain level of crazy intensity to PvP. Assuming a certain level of skill, they seem too good as a ‘surprise!’ move coming through the fog, and can be totally ineffective if your opponent has vision of them. There’s just such a wonkiness to the unit in that sense. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26751 Posts
On September 08 2021 11:49 Beelzebub1 wrote: Remove and replace with Reavers, run a long PTR with lots of pro feed back and then balance accordingly. 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. I’m a bit reticent to just bring back BW units, the lurker being a prime example. The unit can’t have the same niche and role as in BW partly due to the engine differences, partly due to the differing eco flow, and I imagine the Reaver could well be similar. The cool stuff you can do with reavers, the disruptor can approximate and even then the prism/drop harass is pretty limited to pretty early in the game before the disruptor joins the deathball. But yes I share your irritation, it can’t be that much work to put at least someone actively engaging the community, even if actual changes are slow. Just some form of feedback, or if you’re not going to bother at all, open things up to some trusted community hub to potentially facilitate. | ||
| ||
