Adept upgrade changed to a health upgrade instead of the bounce damage: adds 50 Shields to Adepts.
Adept can cancel the Shade ability at any time. When you cancel, the Shade disappears and you don’t teleport.
Our goal for this unit remains unchanged. We want a unit that’s good in early game harassment, which can also serve as a core army unit in the mid/late-game. The health change is because the Adept is much weaker than we expected out of the box. We want smaller numbers of Adepts to be viable in the early-game depending on how the opponent opens the game. We also hope that with this change, Protoss can take expansions a bit quicker and keep up with the other two races in terms of economy.
The change to the Adept upgrade is because the bounce attack wasn’t getting the micro interactions we were looking for. What we really want out of this upgrade is for Adepts to function well as a core part of the army. The current ability is too pointed towards low health units, but we wanted a more general combat buff. Therefore, we would like to try out something more straightforward.
The final change is to provide more decision making and power to the player using the Adept’s Shade ability without making it similar to Blink. The most common feedback we hear in this area is that players want to be able to control when the teleport happens, but we’d like to avoid that as that would make this ability more like Blink.
Immortal Barrier ability absorbs 200 (up from 100). Our goal for the Immortal is for it to be more committed to in-combat situations depending on what the opponent is building. For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit. We also would like to encourage more Immortal drop play in combination with the Warp Prism. Therefore, we decided to buff the Barrier ability to reward Protoss players who are able to utilize this ability properly, as well as reward the opposing player who is able to get around the shields during their short duration by focusing on units in combat.
Cyclone after lock-on range down from 15 to 12, but after the range upgrade, lock-on range goes back up to 15.
This change is really aimed towards getting more early-game Cyclone shot-dodging micro. Before things like unit speed upgrades and Blink come into play, the 15 range feels like it’s just a snipe ability. We’d like to try out this change in hopes of seeing more micro on both sides with early Cyclone usage.
Lurker starts off with 9 range, and upgrade is removed. Lurker attack is also more responsive after burrowing.
The Lurker feels buried at the moment, especially in ZvZ vs. Roaches where we’d really love to see more Lurker play. Against other races the steps needed to start using Lurkers also feels like too much. Hydralisk Den has to be upgraded to the Lurker Den, which also competes with the Hydralisk upgrade, Lurkers then need to be morphed and also research the upgrade before Lurkers are useful. We’d like to try out this change in order to see what happens when Lurker timing is sped up.
Tempest disintegration ability damage increased to 550, and units under the effect of disintegration can’t regenerate, heal, or repair health.
We’re seeing a lot of cool things with many of the end-game units, but the Tempest just doesn’t seem to have a clear role right now, especially vs. Terran as they can just repair through the damage. We really want to see how our initial direction with the new Tempest turns out and this change helps us further evaluate that. Once your units are tagged with Disintegration, you really have to decide if you’ll cut that loss and gain advantages elsewhere, engage in combat, or just decide to go for skirmish attacks during the 80 seconds you have.
What’s next?
In addition to reviewing your feedback after this update, we’re also looking into these areas:
Protoss ability to take later bases in larger maps
We’re considering having specific units that warp-in faster. Maybe the Adept.
Overall, we like the change to warp-in being dependent on position, but maybe we could have specific units that are more resilient to getting picked off quickly.
Splitting mech upgrades
Internally, we’ve been playing with splitting these upgrades again, and we believe the commitment in upgrades makes for much more interesting pure mech games or bio supported by mech games.
Our concern is that we don’t yet know how strong or weak mech is currently. We’d like to first make mech more viable before making this change.
Transition late-game units
While we feel like we’re doing well in this area, we’d like to evaluate all three races again to confirm.
Examples of strong late-game transition units we’re seeing now are: Carriers, Battlecruisers, Banshees with speed, Ultralisks, etc.
We want to be as detailed as possible with sharing our thoughts so that you are all in the loop and can contribute more meaningfully to the testing process. Thank you for playing, watching, and giving feedback during the beta. Your help continues to be a vital part of making Legacy of the Void awesome!
Poll: Adept Changes Overall?
All good! (314)
72%
Cancel is good, but health changes no (44)
10%
Health changes good, cancel meh (41)
9%
Don't like it (36)
8%
435 total votes
Your vote: Adept Changes Overall?
(Vote): All good! (Vote): Health changes good, cancel meh (Vote): Cancel is good, but health changes no (Vote): Don't like it
Poll: Immortal Barrier Change?
All good! (252)
65%
Not Enough! (79)
20%
Too much! (56)
14%
387 total votes
Your vote: Immortal Barrier Change?
(Vote): All good! (Vote): Too much! (Vote): Not Enough!
Poll: Cyclone Lock-on Change
Why isn't this unit removed yet? (321)
55%
Not Enough Decrease! (148)
26%
All good! (89)
15%
Too much Change! (22)
4%
580 total votes
Your vote: Cyclone Lock-on Change
(Vote): All good! (Vote): Too much Change! (Vote): Not Enough Decrease! (Vote): Why isn't this unit removed yet?
Poll: Lurker Range Change?
All good! (311)
78%
Too much Increase, change it back! (63)
16%
Still not useful! (26)
7%
400 total votes
Your vote: Lurker Range Change?
(Vote): All good! (Vote): Too much Increase, change it back! (Vote): Still not useful!
Poll: Tempest Ability Change?
Who cares? (223)
52%
Too much Increase, change it back! (83)
19%
All good! (71)
17%
Still not useful! (51)
12%
428 total votes
Your vote: Tempest Ability Change?
(Vote): All good! (Vote): Too much Increase, change it back! (Vote): Still not useful! (Vote): Who cares?
Poll: Do you like the general direction of these changes?
No, we need to focus on other aspects. (285)
52%
Hard to say at this point. (190)
35%
Yes, these are good. (73)
13%
548 total votes
Your vote: Do you like the general direction of these changes?
(Vote): Yes, these are good. (Vote): No, we need to focus on other aspects. (Vote): Hard to say at this point.
Lurker change is pointless. Cyclones are still dumb. Adepts are still worthless. I dont know how the fuck they decided to change the Tempest of all things since Protoss cant survive to late game anyway
I'm surprised the ravager wasn't nerfed. I like that blizzard is taking their time though rather follow knee jerk community reactions and nerf things into the ground as per usual.
Really don't like the immortal change. Even with the 100 shield they still owned tanks in lower numbers.
They're opting to buff toss instead of nerfing the ravager or completely destroying the cyclone, which I like. I'd rather they do this than outright remove them because people don't know how to deal with them in the first public build.
Cool changes but not everything I expected. Also I disagree that making you able to choose when to teleport to the shade would make that ability close to blink
On April 15 2015 05:36 Teoita wrote: Lurker change is pointless. Cyclones are still dumb. Adepts are still worthless. I dont know how the fuck they decided to change the Tempest of all things since Protoss cant survive to late game anyway
What's even more saddening is that we got more of this "you cant do anything against this"-1-button-sh1T =/ Stuff dies with Disintegration now, no matter if you bring Queens, Medivacs etc... even MOBA's got more micro-counterplay... Where's the interaction ? Right next to the interaction that Cyclones or Ravagers provide, hiding in a corner sobbing about it's miserable non-existence ? =(
This change is really aimed towards getting more early-game Cyclone shot-dodging micro. Before things like unit speed upgrades and Blink come into play, the 15 range feels like it’s just a snipe ability. We’d like to try out this change in hopes of seeing more micro on both sides with early Cyclone usage.
15 range is still too much post upgrade. Yes in the exact scenario where you have blink you have a bit of countermicro, but what about in all other scenarios? Speed Roaches and Speed Roaches still can't escape it. Immortals, Colossus???
Anything above 12 range is just a bad idea here, regardless of the point in time.
Health changed from 80/60 to 90/90. Adept upgrade changed to a health upgrade instead of the bounce damage: adds 50 Shields to Adepts. Adept can cancel the Shade ability at any time. When you cancel, the Shade disappears and you don’t teleport.
Our goal for this unit remains unchanged. We want a unit that’s good in early game harassment, which can also serve as a core army unit in the mid/late-game. The health change is because the Adept is much weaker than we expected out of the box. We want smaller numbers of Adepts to be viable in the early-game depending on how the opponent opens the game. We also hope that with this change, Protoss can take expansions a bit quicker and keep up with the other two races in terms of economy.
The change to the Adept upgrade is because the bounce attack wasn’t getting the micro interactions we were looking for. What we really want out of this upgrade is for Adepts to function well as a core part of the army. The current ability is too pointed towards low health units, but we wanted a more general combat buff. Therefore, we would like to try out something more straightforward.
The final change is to provide more decision making and power to the player using the Adept’s Shade ability without making it similar to Blink. The most common feedback we hear in this area is that players want to be able to control when the teleport happens, but we’d like to avoid that as that would make this ability more like Blink.
This might sound blasphemous, but why don't they just try to give the Adept that sort of blink, making it the early-harass and blin-unit and just remove blink from Stalkers (and buff their Anti.air-capabilities or give them 1Armor) to make the Stalker fill the Core (anti-AA) unit that they are so desperately looking for ?
On April 15 2015 05:46 TT1 wrote: i like the adept change, its gonna be a much more viable middgame unit vs bio terran (an area where protoss was lacking in after the collo nerf).
It's not bad per se, it's just beyond insane that it's the only thing we get along the immortal buff (which is not important since you can still count to two after the shield activates and focus the immortal later). Adepts are cute and all but they certainly cant make up for how terrible protoss overall is in the current economic model. I mean, the balance is so horrible that many protoss as well as players of other races are outright refusing to play the beta...
None of the changes are giving me a higher opinion of the tempest. It just doesn't seem to add much flavor to Protoss other than filling an anti-massive gap in their ranks. I don't know if Protoss needs a specifically anti-massive unit.
On April 15 2015 05:46 TT1 wrote: i like the adept change, its gonna be a much more viable middgame unit vs bio terran (an area where protoss was lacking in after the collo nerf).
It's not bad per se, it's just beyond insane that it's the only thing we get along the immortal buff (which is not important since you can still count to two after the shield activates and focus the immortal later). Adepts are cute and all but they certainly cant make up for how terrible protoss overall is in the current economic model. I mean, the balance is so horrible that many protoss as well as players of other races are outright refusing to play the beta...
Hmm, Immortal buff --> Better core army vs armored units. Adept buff --> Better core army vs light units.
Not the change I would have liked to see with the Immortal, but I don't agree that it isn't a pretty large step in the right direction.
On April 15 2015 05:46 TT1 wrote: i like the adept change, its gonna be a much more viable middgame unit vs bio terran (an area where protoss was lacking in after the collo nerf).
It's not bad per se, it's just beyond insane that it's the only thing we get along the immortal buff (which is not important since you can still count to two after the shield activates and focus the immortal later). Adepts are cute and all but they certainly cant make up for how terrible protoss overall is in the current economic model. I mean, the balance is so horrible that many protoss as well as players of other races are outright refusing to play the beta...
Hmm, Immortal buff --> Better core army vs armored units. Adept buff --> Better core army vs light units.
Not the change I would have liked to see with the Immortal, but I don't agree that it isn't a pretty large step in the right direction.
Problem is, we still need tech, upgrades and aoe to fight most armies, which we can't get to still. The immortal change is ok i suppose, but it really doesn't address the fact that protoss sucks because we rely on tech, which is not viable currently.
On April 15 2015 06:02 Lunareste wrote: I really don't think we need Tempests in the game anymore if Carriers are viable.
Take that spot and put the Arbiter back in the game.
We have it in the form of the Oracle more or less.
Problem is, we still need tech, upgrades and aoe to fight most armies, which we can't get to still.
If you can get enough strong Immortals out, you don't need AOE though. Robotics Facility, however, still need a significant cost reduction for that to be the case.
Problem is, we still need tech, upgrades and aoe to fight most armies, which we can't get to still.
If you can't get enough strong Immortals out, you don't need AOE though. Robotics Facility, however, still need a significant cost reduction for that to be the case.
Yes you do need aoe. Mass immortals doesnt beat bio, and isn't versatile enough to compete vs zerg. If they were good enough on their own we would be massing them in HotS, or would have massed them in WoL, where their shield is even stronger.
On April 15 2015 05:30 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Thank you for playing, watching, and giving feedback during the beta. Your help continues to be a vital part of making Legacy of the Void awesome!
This last sentence makes you feel like Blizzard is trolling you! People write essays of high quality, and analyse potential alternatives for the current economy which is still shitty (subjective I know) in LotV. I mean even if they said that they would rather stick with the current system, that would be better than not even mentioning anything at all about the current discussions. It feels like a large part of the community is ignored or that they dont care/know about it. Absolutely disgusting! To all the people that care about the game the most and want it to be the best it can be, I salute you for your passion and hours of hard work, that seems to be ignored by Blizzard.
I personally see this as a big "fuck you" towards the community.
Maybe the Tempest could become viable if the attack was similar to the Reaver. If the unit isn't hard countering massive units there is reason to build it.
Adept Health changed from 80/60 to 90/90. Adept upgrade changed to a health upgrade instead of the bounce damage: adds 50 Shields to Adepts. Adept can cancel the Shade ability at any time. When you cancel, the Shade disappears and you don’t teleport.
Feel that the adept needs this to be a core army unit. Don't know if health changes alone do it. Ultra combat shields is kinda weird, but whatever. Don't like the cancel on the shade because it can create weird situations where there's no counterplay. A bunch of shades run to somewhere important while posturing with the army somewhere else important. Opponent splits to counter the shades, shades cancel, engage the now weakened other portion.
Immortal Barrier ability absorbs 200 (up from 100).
It was too weak, needed something like this.
Cyclone after lock-on range down from 15 to 12, but after the range upgrade, lock-on range goes back up to 15.
I actually really like the cyclone in theory, but don't like how it's playing out in practice. This doesn't really change how it's being used at all, just a straight nerf. I think it will make an impact in early game cyclones vp though, which is the goal.
Lurker starts off with 9 range, and upgrade is removed. Lurker attack is also more responsive after burrowing.
More anti-bio changes I don't want Legacy to default to mech tvz. Maybe this means an eventual buff to the tank so that it could see use with bio again? Maybe this is an internal change based on their thoughts on the siege valk? I think the lurker is primarily not being used because ravagers and other units are amazing, not necessarily because lurkers are bad. It would be like buffing tanks and bio in HotS beta because everyone is massing warhounds.
Tempest disintegration ability damage increased to 550, and units under the effect of disintegration can’t regenerate, heal, or repair health.
I despise this. It's encouraging an ultra defensive setup where the now pretty quick tempests dart out and zap important things and then fall back. The opponent has to either just eat it or attack into that defensive setup while the protoss is super cost efficient. I think this will undercut some of the design goals in legacy. Not that it matters in ZvP because what protoss is going to be allowed to reach tempests
Yes you do need aoe. Mass immortals doesnt beat bio
Incorrect. They beat Maurauders (esp with recent buff)., not Marines. Hence, why the Adept is in the game. When mixed with Guardian Shield and Zealots to tank, the situation further favors protoss. The issue is however twofold:
(1) Immortals too slow and easily get outdropped and has no countermicro vs Concussive Shell). (2) Your produce too slowly which mean that in reality your army will consist more of Stalkers, which doesn't do a whole lot vs bio.
Solution to midgame protoss - Reduce Robo cost to 100/75 - Increase movement speed of Immortals to 2.75 and remove damage point. - Remove shield from Immortals (lame design) - Increase range to 7 (hence making them scale better and furhter reward focus fire). - Reduce cost, BT and supply of Immortals - Remove/redesign Concussive Shell.
Result --> You don't need AOE anymore. You can now produce a strong and bigger core army vs Roaches and you have Adept vs Marines and Lings + you have better escape mechanic and more countermicro.
Problem for protoss right now is that they get behind ecowise and their tech/infastructure costs are also pretty high, which makes them rely on AOE. However, reducing infastructure costs and boosting the mobility of the Immortal can fix that.
Lurker being in is still just a concession to people being nostalgic of Lurkers being good without understanding why. I fully expect Lurkers to stay a mediocre unit for a long time.
On April 15 2015 05:36 Teoita wrote: Lurker change is pointless. Cyclones are still dumb. Adepts are still worthless. I dont know how the fuck they decided to change the Tempest of all things since Protoss cant survive to late game anyway
How long did you play the new beta version to be so sure of that opinion?
Someone make a poll for each change and add it to the OP. I'd be willing to bet that Blizz likes to look at the overall consensus, rather than sifting through comments for feedback. Polls would actually add incentive to look through comments for arguments and opinions that support the poll results.
Overall, I have a negative opinion of this proposed balance update. That's about as simple as I can put it. Seems like they made Adepts even more boring. As for Cyclones, maybe give them some kind of a strafe ability instead of this obscene lock-on attack.
adept change is somewhat interesting after all, at first I thought it was shit but worth a try at least
cyclone is still broken as fuck, the problem hasn't been adressed at all, Terran doesn't even have any reason to do anything else than cyclones every game, in every match ups
On April 15 2015 05:36 Teoita wrote: Lurker change is pointless. Cyclones are still dumb. Adepts are still worthless. I dont know how the fuck they decided to change the Tempest of all things since Protoss cant survive to late game anyway
How long did you play the new beta version to be so sure of that opinion?
I've played of the current version enough to know adepts don't hold a candle to well...anything, and that cyclones stopping evyerthing that flies is overboard
As someone without a beta key and without having watched any LotV streams, I'm getting a good feel from these changes. Except the Tempest ability. That has always been lame, and I want them to try something else.
I'm really dissapointed. Without even talking specifics, I got the impression that they were going to try a few radically different builds of the game, decide what worked best, and go from there. Instead they've tried one and are going back to minor tweaks to see if they can balance it.
This stage should be more about design that balance. The immortal tweak is a pretty lame attempt to help protoss with ravagers and what's worse, it's essentially back tracking. And yeah, the fact that they didn't even comment on the economy is pretty sad.
On April 15 2015 06:29 Ctesias wrote: As someone without a beta key and without having watched any LotV streams, I'm getting a good feel from these changes. Except the Tempest ability. That has always been lame, and I want them to try something else.
The best part is that Battlecruiser has exactly 550 HP so disintegrate can snipe 400/300/90 6 supply units. Can it get any more retarded?
I like most of these changes especially to the lurker and adept making them more viable. I think the cyclone change is not enough and needs to not have autocast or a longer cooldown. I think these changes are going in the right direction
On April 15 2015 05:46 TT1 wrote: i like the adept change, its gonna be a much more viable middgame unit vs bio terran (an area where protoss was lacking in after the collo nerf).
It's not bad per se, it's just beyond insane that it's the only thing we get along the immortal buff (which is not important since you can still count to two after the shield activates and focus the immortal later). Adepts are cute and all but they certainly cant make up for how terrible protoss overall is in the current economic model. I mean, the balance is so horrible that many protoss as well as players of other races are outright refusing to play the beta...
give it some time, the games only been out for like a week now. ive spoken to dkim and hes well aware of all these issues (including how protoss doesnt benefit as much as the other races from the new eco change).
I am in awe how people expected EVERYTHING to be changed after 1 week. Beta will last for like 6 months, after it LotV will probably look completely different. Outside of Tempest and Cyclone changes, which don't make sense, I am fine with other 3 changes(maybe Oracle shouldn't be able to cancel teleport). Did they change enough? Not even close, but are they changing things? Yes, they are.
On April 15 2015 05:46 TT1 wrote: i like the adept change, its gonna be a much more viable middgame unit vs bio terran (an area where protoss was lacking in after the collo nerf).
It's not bad per se, it's just beyond insane that it's the only thing we get along the immortal buff (which is not important since you can still count to two after the shield activates and focus the immortal later). Adepts are cute and all but they certainly cant make up for how terrible protoss overall is in the current economic model. I mean, the balance is so horrible that many protoss as well as players of other races are outright refusing to play the beta...
give it some time, the games only been out for like a week now. ive spoken to dkim and hes well aware of all these issues (including how protoss doesnt benefit as much as the other races from the new eco change).
Yeah, exactly this... Tournaments aren't happening tomorrow guys, the world isn't falling apart.
On April 15 2015 05:36 Teoita wrote: Lurker change is pointless. Cyclones are still dumb. Adepts are still worthless. I dont know how the fuck they decided to change the Tempest of all things since Protoss cant survive to late game anyway
Basically this. The sad thing is, the lurker is already incredibly good. The only reason they buffed it is because there is something more OP currently being used? wtf? why no nerf to ravagers? Do they really think cyclones are going to be any less strong with this change? Tempests...? TEMPESTS? LOL WHAT?! WHO IS ON THIS BALANCE COMMITTEE?
The last few days the beta has seen a huge drop in players and streamers due to it simply being a waste of effort at this point. Far too many things are going to HAVE to change if players are to get interested/invest time in it again, especially in light of WCS. So, for them to still be tiptoeing around like this is really worrisome.
On April 15 2015 06:37 Ramiz1989 wrote: I am in awe how people expected EVERYTHING to be changed after 1 week.
Totally agree.
BlizzCon 2014 held on November 7 and 8, 2014. Beta released over 2 weeks ago.
It didn't take anyone 2 weeks to realize how broken the cyclone or ravager was. It certainly didn't take 6(?) months as a few players won a showmatch using essentially that one unit... lol
On April 15 2015 06:37 Ramiz1989 wrote: Yeah, exactly this... Tournaments aren't happening tomorrow guys, the world isn't falling apart.
Many have already happened. Some including premier teams and players for hundreds++ of dollars. We all get that they are just for fun, but it is kind of depressing when you are a person participating in the beta and have literally no chance at playing in any of them simply due to race. @_@;;
Giving adept more health instead of damage is the wrong way. A harass unit needs to deal damage, not to survive. Harass units that are made to survive are stupid, because they cannot inflict a lot of balance or the game snowballs. Shade ability is going to be incredibly frustrating to play against if you don't know where your units need to be. It's another gimmicky anti-positioning tool meant to still reward harass-play against an opponent who has outplayed you.
Cyclone range is still way too much for good interactions.
Including the lurker upgrade is a timingbased change in a game without figured out timings. Additionally their explanation is not what I have seen from players like stephano who extensively use lurkers heavily, in particular vs zerg.
Tempest ability is shit design. Removing counterplays is even shittier.
A good take on unit balance, but as many on this site, I think they should look a bit at the economy. I mean, there is a slight chance that with perfect unit design, you don't need to "fix the economy", but they maybe should look at the latter first, then the former.
On April 15 2015 05:53 Spect8rCraft wrote: None of the changes are giving me a higher opinion of the tempest. It just doesn't seem to add much flavor to Protoss other than filling an anti-massive gap in their ranks. I don't know if Protoss needs a specifically anti-massive unit.
They don't. Void Rays work pretty well already in that regard. If anything, they could bring back the passive +20% vs massive damage bonus they had in WoL and then redesign the Tempest as a more traditional siege unit.
On April 15 2015 06:46 Big J wrote: Giving adept more health instead of damage is the wrong way. A harass unit needs to deal damage, not to survive. Harass units that are made to survive are stupid, because they cannot inflict a lot of balance or the game snowballs. Shade ability is going to be incredibly frustrating to play against if you don't know where your units need to be. It's another gimmicky anti-positioning tool meant to still reward harass-play against an opponent who has outplayed you.
Cyclone range is still way too much for good interactions.
Including the lurker upgrade is a timingbased change in a game without figured out timings. Additionally their explanation is not what I have seen from players like stephano who extensively use lurkers heavily, in particular vs zerg.
Tempest ability is shit design. Removing counterplays is even shittier.
no it needed more health in order to be a viable core unit against bio terran, it can 2 shot marines/workers/lings already so it doesnt need more damage. after the collo nerf protoss was forced to go into chargelot comps and thats terrible vs bio mine comps (the counter to that used to be stalker + collosus), with the new adept you can safely take a 3rd while having a strong enough comp to defend against t's early game bio and you can stay outside of mine range in fights. adept + blink stalker + forcefields is gonna be a good early game comp against bio.
that being said i still think that they need to revert the warpgate changes.
Very, very disappointing. No topical point is addressed and the changes are plain underwhelming... I hope for a far better direction for the next batch of changes.
On April 15 2015 06:46 Big J wrote: Giving adept more health instead of damage is the wrong way. A harass unit needs to deal damage, not to survive. Harass units that are made to survive are stupid, because they cannot inflict a lot of balance or the game snowballs. Shade ability is going to be incredibly frustrating to play against if you don't know where your units need to be. It's another gimmicky anti-positioning tool meant to still reward harass-play against an opponent who has outplayed you.
Cyclone range is still way too much for good interactions.
They're very specifically trying to make it a core unit that's also good for early game harass, rather than a harassing unit that can also be haphazardly thrust into your army compositions. I agree with them that more health is a better solution than upping their damage output, but I don't think they're sufficiently differentiating the unit from Zealots with the current numbers they've chosen. If they'd kept the health the same and upped the shields to 100, you'd have a moderately tanky, low-DPS unit that gets boned by EMP. Removing the shockwave upgrade was a bad idea. If anything, it should be built into the unit as a default.
The Cyclone range doesn't have to remove good unit interactions at 6-12 and 9-15. If it were given a very slight nerf to speed, so that Stalkers could more reliably close the gap or escape its vision, this would accomplish the same task. It could really use a change to its attack from 18 to 9(2), so that it's no weaker against Zerglings than it already is, but it doesn't wipe out Zealots in quite so few hits. That would increase the shots needed against Zealots from 8 to 9, in order to give Protoss a slightly better engagement opportunity against them. Of course, like a lot of other people are saying, autocast needs to be removed from lock-on.
On April 15 2015 05:51 404AlphaSquad wrote: Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be. -we removed interesting unit interactions. -we still wont try eco changes.
I'm sad to have to say I agree... Especially when it comes to the cyclone, tempest and adept changes (the shade is not needed, not cool and not easy to differentiate from blink...). Stubbornness epitomized.
On April 15 2015 06:46 Big J wrote: Giving adept more health instead of damage is the wrong way. A harass unit needs to deal damage, not to survive. Harass units that are made to survive are stupid, because they cannot inflict a lot of balance or the game snowballs. Shade ability is going to be incredibly frustrating to play against if you don't know where your units need to be. It's another gimmicky anti-positioning tool meant to still reward harass-play against an opponent who has outplayed you.
Cyclone range is still way too much for good interactions.
Including the lurker upgrade is a timingbased change in a game without figured out timings. Additionally their explanation is not what I have seen from players like stephano who extensively use lurkers heavily, in particular vs zerg.
Tempest ability is shit design. Removing counterplays is even shittier.
no it needed more health in order to be a viable core unit against bio terran, it can 2 shot marines/workers/lings already so it doesnt need more damage. after the collo nerf protoss was forced to go into chargelot comps and thats terrible vs bio mine comps (the counter to that used to be stalker + collosus), with the new adept you can safely take a 3rd while having a strong enough comp to defend against t's early game bio and you can stay outside of mine range in fights. adept + blink stalker + forcefields is gonna be a good early game comp against bio.
that being said i still think that they need to revert the warpgate changes.
I'd rather them buff every single warpgate unit than make the act of warping in less vulnerable. That having been said, higher cooldown on warpgates than build times on gateways seems like a much better way of doing it than just doubling the damage on unit while they're warping in. It's kind of a clumsy "fix", as it doesn't do a whole lot to deal with the core issue of Protoss production being too good on the offense and not good enough on the defense, and instead just forces players to warp in their units slightly further away from the battle.
The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
Please disable comments for threads like these. Such a shitload of people whining about stuff when they don't even have or play the beta. Noone who doesn't play the beta should be allowed to comment, as they have no idea.
Someone said the OP was painful to read. I say the posts of random whiners is painful to read.
I think what matters most is that Blizzard recieves enough feedback from the professional players, and never ever reads threads like these.
I'd also like to add that one thing I do agree with is that Blizzard shouldn't focus too much on designing units used for specific things, I prefer it when the players figure things like that out themselves.
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
This so much. Good design is often accidental, nearly by definition. I think that was phrased quite nicely in TheDwf's manifesto.
The Cyclone range doesn't have to remove good unit interactions at 6-12 and 9-15. If it were given a very slight nerf to speed, so that Stalkers could more reliably close the gap or escape its vision, this would accomplish the same task. It could really use a change to its attack from 18 to 9(2), so that it's no weaker against Zerglings than it already is, but it doesn't wipe out Zealots in quite so few hits. That would increase the shots needed against Zealots from 8 to 9, in order to give Protoss a slightly better engagement opportunity against them. Of course, like a lot of other people are saying, autocast needs to be removed from lock-on.
Besides Blink Stalkers, what good interactions does a anything above 12 range adds to the game?
If it were given a very slight nerf to speed, so that Stalkers could more reliably close the gap or escape its vision
Slight nerf to speed barely change anything here. (going from 2.85 to 2.7 won't matter in 98% of situations).
On April 15 2015 06:46 Big J wrote: Giving adept more health instead of damage is the wrong way. A harass unit needs to deal damage, not to survive. Harass units that are made to survive are stupid, because they cannot inflict a lot of balance or the game snowballs. Shade ability is going to be incredibly frustrating to play against if you don't know where your units need to be. It's another gimmicky anti-positioning tool meant to still reward harass-play against an opponent who has outplayed you.
Cyclone range is still way too much for good interactions.
Including the lurker upgrade is a timingbased change in a game without figured out timings. Additionally their explanation is not what I have seen from players like stephano who extensively use lurkers heavily, in particular vs zerg.
Tempest ability is shit design. Removing counterplays is even shittier.
no it needed more health in order to be a viable core unit against bio terran, it can 2 shot marines/workers/lings already so it doesnt need more damage. after the collo nerf protoss was forced to go into chargelot comps and thats terrible vs bio mine comps (the counter to that used to be stalker + collosus), with the new adept you can safely take a 3rd while having a strong enough comp to defend against t's early game bio and you can stay outside of mine range in fights. adept + blink stalker + forcefields is gonna be a good early game comp against bio.
that being said i still think that they need to revert the warpgate changes.
Yeah, I guess plain damage would be the wrong way to go. It was rather thinking about giving it some small splash and just tweaking the damage a bit, like a little more base damage instead of being a light hardcounter with little to hold against other units.
Anyway, my opinion about the health stands. If you thought the roach-hitpoints were retarted then behold, the adept now has 1.44 health/resource(roach=1.45, zealot=1.50). And that before its upgrade which pushes this to 1.84 to make it the beefiest unit per costs in the game. I fail to see how protoss needed that in a line up with the zealot, the archon, the blink stalker and the immortal to tank damage on the ground.
On April 15 2015 05:36 Teoita wrote: Lurker change is pointless. Cyclones are still dumb. Adepts are still worthless. I dont know how the fuck they decided to change the Tempest of all things since Protoss cant survive to late game anyway
The lurker range thing is meh. The responsiveness update is golden.
They're trying to balance the tempest without changing its boring design. That's the biggest problem with SC2's endgame design. Endgame units are boring. Endgame unit interactions are boring. Endgame compositions are boring. The plays and counterplays are boring. The micro is boring. Every good, exciting, watchable game ends with midgame compositions.
Oh man, I don't understand this patch. How can they not nerf the cyclone and ravager stats... surely that must be number one priority. No reason for the cyclone to have 200 health. No reason for the ravager to have such high damage output.
How can people generate proper feedback with those 2 units in their current state...
On April 15 2015 07:20 sd_andeh wrote: Please disable comments for threads like these. Such a shitload of people whining about stuff when they don't even have or play the beta. Noone who doesn't play the beta should be allowed to comment, as they have no idea.
Someone said the OP was painful to read. I say the posts of random whiners is painful to read.
I think what matters most is that Blizzard recieves enough feedback from the professional players, and never ever reads threads like these.
I'd also like to add that one thing I do agree with is that Blizzard shouldn't focus too much on designing units used for specific things, I prefer it when the players figure things like that out themselves.
pretty close minded statement right there, exactly what would disabling comments accomplish?
Many many many many people have been watching streams religiously if they didn't get a beta invite. Their input is just as valid, if only for the spectator experience.
On April 15 2015 07:06 BakedButters wrote: I wish Blizzard just implement double harvest right now
They won't, because it would add alot of complexity to the game and the only way to make up for that is to reduce the game speed. Pros can't even handle HotS macro and do some cute micro in the meantime, because they get overwhelmed. What will happen if players actually have to scout what the opponents economy is doing or if they actually have to react to what the opponents eco is looking like.
Only thing a more complex economy will lead to is more one sided games and a worse viewer experience, because fights will look even more a-move then in HotS.
Don't get me wrong I am all for more complexity. But you have to keep in mind that humans will have to be able to play the game and look good while doing it. No one wants to play a game were even the best look like a noob. And sadly everyone is all into playing Starcraft on fastest .
On April 15 2015 07:44 Mistakes wrote: Many many many many people have been watching streams religiously if they didn't get a beta invite. Their input is just as valid, if only for the spectator experience.
It's not even that, some of it is just math that we expect first graders to be able of.
Yes you do need aoe. Mass immortals doesnt beat bio
Incorrect. They beat Maurauders (esp with recent buff)., not Marines. Hence, why the Adept is in the game. When mixed with Guardian Shield and Zealots to tank, the situation further favors protoss. The issue is however twofold:
(1) Immortals too slow and easily get outdropped and has no countermicro vs Concussive Shell). (2) Your produce too slowly which mean that in reality your army will consist more of Stalkers, which doesn't do a whole lot vs bio.
Solution to midgame protoss - Reduce Robo cost to 100/75 - Increase movement speed of Immortals to 2.75 and remove damage point. - Remove shield from Immortals (lame design) - Increase range to 7 (hence making them scale better and furhter reward focus fire). - Reduce cost, BT and supply of Immortals - Remove/redesign Concussive Shell.
Result --> You don't need AOE anymore. You can now produce a strong and bigger core army vs Roaches and you have Adept vs Marines and Lings + you have better escape mechanic and more countermicro.
Problem for protoss right now is that they get behind ecowise and their tech/infastructure costs are also pretty high, which makes them rely on AOE. However, reducing infastructure costs and boosting the mobility of the Immortal can fix that.
Agree with this post! The immortal is much weaker now due to the fact that it can be killed. That's fine, the main reason players use them is for their strong damage against armored units anyway. Rather than trying to reinforce the fiction behind the unit (they are 'immortal' hur hur!) they could look to reduce their cost and/or build time proportionately so they can be a more core unit. Would help reduce the risk of going for immortal drops as well.
On April 15 2015 05:36 Teoita wrote: Lurker change is pointless. Cyclones are still dumb. Adepts are still worthless. I dont know how the fuck they decided to change the Tempest of all things since Protoss cant survive to late game anyway
Not listening to feedback is a virtue that was always very important to the Blizzsters
Yes you do need aoe. Mass immortals doesnt beat bio
Solution to midgame protoss - Reduce Robo cost to 100/75 - Increase movement speed of Immortals to 2.75 and remove damage point. - Remove shield from Immortals (lame design) - Increase range to 7 (hence making them scale better and furhter reward focus fire). - Reduce cost, BT and supply of Immortals - Remove/redesign Concussive Shell.
Result --> You don't need AOE anymore. You can now produce a strong and bigger core army vs Roaches and you have Adept vs Marines and Lings + you have better escape mechanic and more countermicro.
To make your point viable, you have suggested 6 different balance changes just to make Immortal's a massable unit instead of thinking of ways to make Storm/AoE more available.
- With the Robo change, that just makes the Warp Prism/Disruptor available much sooner. So at least 1 form of AoE is more accessible now. - Increased MS directly counters the usefulness of concussive shells slow, to mention their usefulness in drop harass. - Removed Shield because you think it's lame. Okay...? Any alternatives? Or is Immortal just a boring a-move unit now? - Range 7 - Sure? - Reduced cost,BT,supply - With the Robo Change, now Immortals will absolutely decimate Roaches/Ravagers/Hard-counter Marauders. What a timing push. - Remove/Redesign Conc. Shell. Any Alternatives?
Pretty drastic amount of changes just to say that Protoss doesn't need AoE despite the race being built to have less numbers in an army compared to the other 2 races.
To make your point viable, you have suggested 6 different balance changes just to make Immortal's a massable unit instead of thinking of ways to make Storm/AoE more available.
I responded to a comment about protoss AOE not being viable and not enough changes being made, and hence provided a solution that wasn't focussed on AOE and has multiple other advantages. But it is true that to get a solid gameplay with protoss, multiple changes must be made to the race. There is no easy 1 change to protoss that fixes everything.
Reduced cost,BT,supply - With the Robo Change, now Immortals will absolutely decimate Roaches/Ravagers/Hard-counter Marauders. What a timing push.
Incorrect. They will be cost efficiently but the thing your missing - and why its so important that toss gets less reliant on warptech - is that Immortals come from a standard production facility. If the majority of the army strenght cannot be warped in, and you instead have 2 Robos in the midgame (and fewer warpgates), you will have an easier time defending and moving out on the map, but your overall timing attack will be less strong.
Remove/Redesign Conc. Shell. Any Alternatives?
It removes micro. Awfullly designed passive.
With the Robo change, that just makes the Warp Prism/Disruptor available much sooner. So at least 1 form of AoE is more accessible now.
Reduce tier 2 cost while at the same time increasing tier 3 cost (if thats a neccesity).
Removed Shield because you think it's lame. Okay...? Any alternatives? Or is Immortal just a boring a-move unit now?
Actually the Immortal in LOTV is an amove unit!!! Pressing a button =/ micro --> Pressing T to stim bio units isn't micro. Micro mainly comes from how you move your units, hence why the movement speed buff, range buff and damage point removal. This Immortal has a ton more micro potential than the LOTV-version.
- Increased MS directly counters the usefulness of concussive shells slow, to mention their usefulness in drop harass.
I don't see your point. Concussive Shell does 50% damage reduction and 1.35 movement speed Immortals are still unmicroable.
On April 15 2015 06:43 -Kyo- wrote: Many have already happened. Some including premier teams and players for hundreds++ of dollars. We all get that they are just for fun, but it is kind of depressing when you are a person participating in the beta and have literally no chance at playing in any of them simply due to race. @_@;;
And those are just fan-made tournaments that aren't organized nor supported by Blizzard, and their whole point was to give bigger sample of games to Blizzard. The guys that organized those tourneys and that have spent money on them understood quite well what they are doing and what is the current state of the game in the beta.
All I see is bunch of guys whining how these changes are "worthless" and how Blizzard is "clueless" while on the other hand when you ask 10 players what do they think about beta and what should be changed, all 10 of them will give different answer.
Now, I think that Blizzard fucked up many times in the past, but I really appreciate that they aren't hasty about their decisions and listening to the community.
Overall, we like the change to warp-in being dependent on position, but maybe we could have specific units that are more resilient to getting picked off quickly.
What could they have in mind by this statement? Haven't seen many comments on this matter. The distance might then be based on the spawn location and the zealots looks they will be changed.
I still don't get how it will be easier to defend bases as protoss if expansion bases will take longer time to resupply with army units compared to your home base. Looks like this is a change in the wrong direction.
Overall, we like the change to warp-in being dependent on position, but maybe we could have specific units that are more resilient to getting picked off quickly.
What could they have in mind by this statement? Haven't seen many comments on this matter. The distance might then be based on the spawn location and the zealots looks they will be changed.
I still don't get how it will be easier to defend bases as protoss if expansion bases will take longer time to resupply with army units compared to your home base. Looks like this is a change in the wrong direction.
They probably are just referring to units taking more damage and thus you cannot warp in your opponents face anymore.
Overall, we like the change to warp-in being dependent on position, but maybe we could have specific units that are more resilient to getting picked off quickly.
What could they have in mind by this statement? Haven't seen many comments on this matter. The distance might then be based on the spawn location and the zealots looks they will be changed.
I still don't get how it will be easier to defend bases as protoss if expansion bases will take longer time to resupply with army units compared to your home base. Looks like this is a change in the wrong direction.
they mean where you warp in in relation to the opponents units. You just take more damage while warping in so you can't just warp in right on top of an army anymore, you have to be more careful about it.
On April 15 2015 06:43 -Kyo- wrote: Many have already happened. Some including premier teams and players for hundreds++ of dollars. We all get that they are just for fun, but it is kind of depressing when you are a person participating in the beta and have literally no chance at playing in any of them simply due to race. @_@;;
And those are just fan-made tournaments that aren't organized nor supported by Blizzard, and their whole point was to give bigger sample of games to Blizzard. The guys that organized those tourneys and that have spent money on them understood quite well what they are doing and what is the current state of the game in the beta.
All I see is bunch of guys whining how these changes are "worthless" and how Blizzard is "clueless" while on the other hand when you ask 10 players what do they think about beta and what should be changed, all 10 of them will give different answer.
Now, I think that Blizzard fucked up many times in the past, but I really appreciate that they aren't hasty about their decisions and listening to the community.
I think everybody except avilo maybe agrees that cyclone needs a much harder nerf than that
On April 15 2015 07:20 sd_andeh wrote: Please disable comments for threads like these. Such a shitload of people whining about stuff when they don't even have or play the beta. Noone who doesn't play the beta should be allowed to comment, as they have no idea.
Someone said the OP was painful to read. I say the posts of random whiners is painful to read.
I think what matters most is that Blizzard recieves enough feedback from the professional players, and never ever reads threads like these.
I'd also like to add that one thing I do agree with is that Blizzard shouldn't focus too much on designing units used for specific things, I prefer it when the players figure things like that out themselves.
pretty close minded statement right there, exactly what would disabling comments accomplish?
Well, in general, it is a good idea to keep in mind that the majority of players who post on TL are around gold league and genuinely have very little understanding of balance, meta-game and the like. Though, this is not specific to TL/SC2 so hopefully I don't sound elitist by pointing it out. Nonetheless, it is very rare to see good suggestions in a sea of biased comments. And since I am on the topic I will take a moment to re-emphasize as I have previously that you must maintain a fair approach to ideas that are posted. Make sure that if you are evaluating balance posts or whatever else that you never bend in the face of things like a join date, post count, or reputation. Ideas are ideas. Of course, there may be some fantastic ones that come from people who are in a lower league, and disabling comments would not aid in the process of determining which are or are not; but it is indeed a reasonable position to be skeptical of the large majority of suggestions you see from people on forums regardless of the game.
I don't think the poster conveyed this idea but I think it was close enough to give a reply to you for.
On April 15 2015 06:43 -Kyo- wrote: Many have already happened. Some including premier teams and players for hundreds++ of dollars. We all get that they are just for fun, but it is kind of depressing when you are a person participating in the beta and have literally no chance at playing in any of them simply due to race. @_@;;
And those are just fan-made tournaments that aren't organized nor supported by Blizzard, and their whole point was to give bigger sample of games to Blizzard. The guys that organized those tourneys and that have spent money on them understood quite well what they are doing and what is the current state of the game in the beta.
All I see is bunch of guys whining how these changes are "worthless" and how Blizzard is "clueless" while on the other hand when you ask 10 players what do they think about beta and what should be changed, all 10 of them will give different answer.
Now, I think that Blizzard fucked up many times in the past, but I really appreciate that they aren't hasty about their decisions and listening to the community.
I think everybody except avilo maybe agrees that cyclone needs a much harder nerf than that
On April 15 2015 06:43 -Kyo- wrote: Many have already happened. Some including premier teams and players for hundreds++ of dollars. We all get that they are just for fun, but it is kind of depressing when you are a person participating in the beta and have literally no chance at playing in any of them simply due to race. @_@;;
And those are just fan-made tournaments that aren't organized nor supported by Blizzard, and their whole point was to give bigger sample of games to Blizzard. The guys that organized those tourneys and that have spent money on them understood quite well what they are doing and what is the current state of the game in the beta.
All I see is bunch of guys whining how these changes are "worthless" and how Blizzard is "clueless" while on the other hand when you ask 10 players what do they think about beta and what should be changed, all 10 of them will give different answer.
Now, I think that Blizzard fucked up many times in the past, but I really appreciate that they aren't hasty about their decisions and listening to the community.
I think everybody except avilo maybe agrees that cyclone needs a much harder nerf than that
Definitely, this shouldn't be even considered as nerf but I also dislike Tempest's ability a lot(that's probably the stupidest thing in whole LotV right now in my opinion). Stuff need changing, but they are taking slower approach, which is fine by me if Beta is going to last for quite some time like it should.
On April 15 2015 06:43 -Kyo- wrote: Many have already happened. Some including premier teams and players for hundreds++ of dollars. We all get that they are just for fun, but it is kind of depressing when you are a person participating in the beta and have literally no chance at playing in any of them simply due to race. @_@;;
And those are just fan-made tournaments that aren't organized nor supported by Blizzard, and their whole point was to give bigger sample of games to Blizzard. The guys that organized those tourneys and that have spent money on them understood quite well what they are doing and what is the current state of the game in the beta.
All I see is bunch of guys whining how these changes are "worthless" and how Blizzard is "clueless" while on the other hand when you ask 10 players what do they think about beta and what should be changed, all 10 of them will give different answer.
Now, I think that Blizzard fucked up many times in the past, but I really appreciate that they aren't hasty about their decisions and listening to the community.
I think everybody except avilo maybe agrees that cyclone needs a much harder nerf than that
Aren't ppl always complaning to bring back the OPness of units like in BW? Granted the cyclone doesnt require the micro that a reaver did in BW, but siege where freaking strong back then and they had WAY MORE dmg than current siege tanks... and didnt require a lot of micro. I think that cyclones are pretty damn strong but I'm ok with Blizzard making OP units and then buffing other units to combat the OPness rather than nerfing crap into the ground and making them useless, as we have seen before.
TLDR #2: we're not going to fix the ridiculous things we put in, and we're going to take some of the stuff that isn't quite ridiculous and make it more ridiculous to distract people away from the already ridiculous stuff.
On April 15 2015 06:43 -Kyo- wrote: Many have already happened. Some including premier teams and players for hundreds++ of dollars. We all get that they are just for fun, but it is kind of depressing when you are a person participating in the beta and have literally no chance at playing in any of them simply due to race. @_@;;
And those are just fan-made tournaments that aren't organized nor supported by Blizzard, and their whole point was to give bigger sample of games to Blizzard. The guys that organized those tourneys and that have spent money on them understood quite well what they are doing and what is the current state of the game in the beta.
All I see is bunch of guys whining how these changes are "worthless" and how Blizzard is "clueless" while on the other hand when you ask 10 players what do they think about beta and what should be changed, all 10 of them will give different answer.
Now, I think that Blizzard fucked up many times in the past, but I really appreciate that they aren't hasty about their decisions and listening to the community.
I think everybody except avilo maybe agrees that cyclone needs a much harder nerf than that
Aren't ppl always complaning to bring back the OPness of units like in BW? Granted the cyclone doesnt require the micro that a reaver did in BW, but siege where freaking strong back then and they had WAY MORE dmg than current siege tanks... and didnt require a lot of micro. I think that cyclones are pretty damn strong but I'm ok with Blizzard making OP units and then buffing other units to combat the OPness rather than nerfing crap into the ground and making them useless, as we have seen before.
Even if we were to approach things in that way, which honestly I could care less how we get to a balanced game, it doesn't change the fact that this 'patch' doesn't really address much at all. As TT1 has posted, apparently David Kim knows of some fundamental issues and is working on them, but if they're changing things I don't really understand why this approach is being taken. It seems like a few key issues are being overstepped either in bringing down the OP or making certain units more OP. In either case, the same issues that are present before the patch will remain, and thus, I don't really see what it is going to accomplish. #trustindavidkim #awgawdwegonnadie
"This change is really aimed towards getting more early-game Cyclone shot-dodging micro. Before things like unit speed upgrades and Blink come into play, the 15 range feels like it’s just a snipe ability. We’d like to try out this change in hopes of seeing more micro on both sides with early Cyclone usage."
On April 15 2015 05:46 TT1 wrote: i like the adept change, its gonna be a much more viable middgame unit vs bio terran (an area where protoss was lacking in after the collo nerf).
It MIGHT, but the core problem of gateway units having trash dps is still there. If this change is good enough to make them viable, all it does is make the Adept replace the zealot if you can afford to use the gas on it in PvT, though maybe not because Adepts are still way too slow at base to get around the map in reasonable time.
Protoss need DPS so they can actually kill the things that are attacking the bases they are constructing and defend drops/run-bys without committing significantly more resources/supply into defense than the person is using to attack if they want to stop it from doing too much damage.
Having more units that can take a lot of damage doesn't really do anything. They already have units for that (Zealots/Stalkers/Archons).
Also the cancel makes the teleport too binary. Either you chase the shade and they don't teleport, or you commit to killing the adepts and they do. It should have been a teleport at any point during the shade duration imo.
Still waiting on a not Phoenix/ground based answer to mutas. Blink stalkers can delay/deter Mutas for a while, but they don't answer them because their dps is too low to kill the Mutas efficiently once numbers start getting reasonably large.
The main problems Protoss has regarding securing bases, defending attacks efficiently, and having all ins that are too strong could largely be resolved by a mobile high DPS gateway unit.
Adepts could fill that role with a base statline similar to what they had before, but higher DPS vs armored if the bounce upgrade was on every attack at 50%/25%(muta bounce), and a reasonable base movement rate.
The shade wouldn't need to be changed because they would still need an upgrade before they actually have the DPS to be a major threat, and having a higher base movement rate shouldn't cause any major problems with their early harass/damage potential. They could also have their speed increase when charge is researched if they can't have more than 2.25 movement speed early.
If necessary, they could reduce the vs light damage to ~19 on a 2.0 attack timer so they don't 2 shot workers and their total HP+shields could be reduced to 120 or so.
Yes you do need aoe. Mass immortals doesnt beat bio
Incorrect. They beat Maurauders (esp with recent buff)., not Marines. Hence, why the Adept is in the game. When mixed with Guardian Shield and Zealots to tank, the situation further favors protoss. The issue is however twofold:
(1) Immortals too slow and easily get outdropped and has no countermicro vs Concussive Shell). (2) Your produce too slowly which mean that in reality your army will consist more of Stalkers, which doesn't do a whole lot vs bio.
Solution to midgame protoss - Reduce Robo cost to 100/75 - Increase movement speed of Immortals to 2.75 and remove damage point. - Remove shield from Immortals (lame design) - Increase range to 7 (hence making them scale better and furhter reward focus fire). - Reduce cost, BT and supply of Immortals - Remove/redesign Concussive Shell.
Result --> You don't need AOE anymore. You can now produce a strong and bigger core army vs Roaches and you have Adept vs Marines and Lings + you have better escape mechanic and more countermicro.
Problem for protoss right now is that they get behind ecowise and their tech/infastructure costs are also pretty high, which makes them rely on AOE. However, reducing infastructure costs and boosting the mobility of the Immortal can fix that.
Agree with this post! The immortal is much weaker now due to the fact that it can be killed. That's fine, the main reason players use them is for their strong damage against armored units anyway. Rather than trying to reinforce the fiction behind the unit (they are 'immortal' hur hur!) they could look to reduce their cost and/or build time proportionately so they can be a more core unit. Would help reduce the risk of going for immortal drops as well.
In what universe are 7 range Immortals much weaker vs 4 Range Roaches and 6 (with upgrade) range Hydralisks? Cheaper robo with 7 range Immortals? LOL... Might as well, just make them warpable, that way Protoss could just win every game with a 2 base all-in and as an added benefit, that might make them stop bitching and moaning that they have to actually expand with the new economy.
On April 15 2015 09:14 ivancype wrote: "This change is really aimed towards getting more early-game Cyclone shot-dodging micro. Before things like unit speed upgrades and Blink come into play, the 15 range feels like it’s just a snipe ability. We’d like to try out this change in hopes of seeing more micro on both sides with early Cyclone usage."
WTF? micro with a 12 range auto attack unit?
Yeah... 12 range is more than nearly every unit. I think it should be more like 4-5 with a max of 15 range after the lock-on. That would be pretty cool compared to what we have now.
On April 15 2015 09:14 ivancype wrote: "This change is really aimed towards getting more early-game Cyclone shot-dodging micro. Before things like unit speed upgrades and Blink come into play, the 15 range feels like it’s just a snipe ability. We’d like to try out this change in hopes of seeing more micro on both sides with early Cyclone usage."
WTF? micro with a 12 range auto attack unit?
Yeah... 12 range is more than nearly every unit. I think it should be more like 4-5 with a max of 15 range after the lock-on. That would be pretty cool compared to what we have now.
On April 15 2015 09:19 MrFreeman wrote: Oh great, so they added kill any chosen unit button that doesn´t really help you much, but will really frustrate your opponent, gr8 job.
It's ok, no one is even making Tempests anyway. Protoss either dies before they can get there (mostly this) or make Carriers (which are better/more fun)
The Cyclone range doesn't have to remove good unit interactions at 6-12 and 9-15. If it were given a very slight nerf to speed, so that Stalkers could more reliably close the gap or escape its vision, this would accomplish the same task. It could really use a change to its attack from 18 to 9(2), so that it's no weaker against Zerglings than it already is, but it doesn't wipe out Zealots in quite so few hits. That would increase the shots needed against Zealots from 8 to 9, in order to give Protoss a slightly better engagement opportunity against them. Of course, like a lot of other people are saying, autocast needs to be removed from lock-on.
Besides Blink Stalkers, what good interactions does a anything above 12 range adds to the game?
Tempests and Siege tanks, mostly. Also Carriers, but only in the sense of them pulling back to their leash range after first stepping into their release range. I'm not saying that they absolutely need their huge range, just that it can be worked into the design of the unit with some stat adjustments in other areas. The main reason is simply that the large range gives the controlling player some leeway in which to micro between the Cyclone's range and the targeted unit's range. If the max range is permanently 12, that's a very narrow band against some units, such as Void Rays and Brood Lords.
If it were given a very slight nerf to speed, so that Stalkers could more reliably close the gap or escape its vision
Slight nerf to speed barely change anything here. (going from 2.85 to 2.7 won't matter in 98% of situations).
Actually that would double the rate at which Stalkers escape from them or catch up to them. Because their speeds are so close to parity right now, the effects of minor changes are greatly amplified.
I like your general Immortal readjustment, btw. Very OneGoalesque.
The Cyclone range doesn't have to remove good unit interactions at 6-12 and 9-15. If it were given a very slight nerf to speed, so that Stalkers could more reliably close the gap or escape its vision, this would accomplish the same task. It could really use a change to its attack from 18 to 9(2), so that it's no weaker against Zerglings than it already is, but it doesn't wipe out Zealots in quite so few hits. That would increase the shots needed against Zealots from 8 to 9, in order to give Protoss a slightly better engagement opportunity against them. Of course, like a lot of other people are saying, autocast needs to be removed from lock-on.
Besides Blink Stalkers, what good interactions does a anything above 12 range adds to the game?
Tempests and Siege tanks, mostly. Also Carriers, but only in the sense of them pulling back to their leash range after first stepping into their release range. I'm not saying that they absolutely need their huge range, just that it can be worked into the design of the unit with some stat adjustments in other areas. The main reason is simply that the large range gives the controlling player some leeway in which to micro between the Cyclone's range and the targeted unit's range. If the max range is permanently 12, that's a very narrow band against some units, such as Void Rays and Brood Lords.
If it were given a very slight nerf to speed, so that Stalkers could more reliably close the gap or escape its vision
Slight nerf to speed barely change anything here. (going from 2.85 to 2.7 won't matter in 98% of situations).
Actually that would double the rate at which Stalkers escape from them or catch up to them. Because their speeds are so close to parity right now, the effects of minor changes are greatly amplified.
I like your general Immortal readjustment, btw. Very OneGoalesque.
Yes most people greatly underestimate those effects. If two units are the same speed and suddenly one of them is even 5% faster or slower, it's a huge deal.
If you have 2.5 vs 2.7 speed and it's changed to 2.5 vs 2.6, it's a miniscule change on the scope of that one unit but it completely changes the interaction between those two units, halving the movement speed difference
BLIZZARDF PLEASE READ: This is not an orginal idea, I read from different thread. Design units that are can only be made from a GATEWAY and NOT a warpgate. This would make protoss macro much more interesting and intense. Make a set of only gateway accessible units, such as a dragoon-esque unit or a beefier unit. I can see you taking this a lot of ways.
Problem is, we still need tech, upgrades and aoe to fight most armies, which we can't get to still.
If you can get enough strong Immortals out, you don't need AOE though. Robotics Facility, however, still need a significant cost reduction for that to be the case.
protoss needs AoE since stalker dps are pretty shit compared to their counterparts.
Health changed from 80/60 to 90/90. Adept upgrade changed to a health upgrade instead of the bounce damage: adds 50 Shields to Adepts. Adept can cancel the Shade ability at any time. When you cancel, the Shade disappears and you don’t teleport.
Our goal for this unit remains unchanged. We want a unit that’s good in early game harassment, which can also serve as a core army unit in the mid/late-game. The health change is because the Adept is much weaker than we expected out of the box. We want smaller numbers of Adepts to be viable in the early-game depending on how the opponent opens the game. We also hope that with this change, Protoss can take expansions a bit quicker and keep up with the other two races in terms of economy.
The change to the Adept upgrade is because the bounce attack wasn’t getting the micro interactions we were looking for. What we really want out of this upgrade is for Adepts to function well as a core part of the army. The current ability is too pointed towards low health units, but we wanted a more general combat buff. Therefore, we would like to try out something more straightforward.
The final change is to provide more decision making and power to the player using the Adept’s Shade ability without making it similar to Blink. The most common feedback we hear in this area is that players want to be able to control when the teleport happens, but we’d like to avoid that as that would make this ability more like Blink.
This might sound blasphemous, but why don't they just try to give the Adept that sort of blink, making it the early-harass and blin-unit and just remove blink from Stalkers (and buff their Anti.air-capabilities or give them 1Armor) to make the Stalker fill the Core (anti-AA) unit that they are so desperately looking for ?
On April 15 2015 10:35 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: BLIZZARDF PLEASE READ: This is not an orginal idea, I read from different thread. Design units that are can only be made from a GATEWAY and NOT a warpgate. This would make protoss macro much more interesting and intense. Make a set of only gateway accessible units, such as a dragoon-esque unit or a beefier unit. I can see you taking this a lot of ways.
Why don't the cyclones require vision to keep to lock on?
As a terran that thinks the cyclone is a greath unit, the fact that they still can shoot through fog of war is really fucking stupid.
On April 15 2015 07:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Oh man, I don't understand this patch. How can they not nerf the cyclone and ravager stats... surely that must be number one priority. No reason for the cyclone to have 200 health. No reason for the ravager to have such high damage output.
How can people generate proper feedback with those 2 units in their current state...
Actually that is because it cost a lot, at 150/150 its more expensive than siege tanks, banshees, medivacs, templars, etc.
I think they should nerf both the damage and health of the cyclone but also make them 100/100 or 125/100 or something like that, they are supposed to be mobile map control units that can snipe targets, they shouldn't be the core of mech army itself
The tempest change sounds like a bad joke. So make the Tempest autocounter all high tech Terran/Zerg units? Lets give Protoss one more ridiculous ability that cannot be countered or microed against.
Please let viking get +1 armor and 8x2 damage while landed instead!!! I wish it could swoop land so bad I'm not even joking guys it would maybe let the see a harass in a pro game for once
Health changed from 80/60 to 90/90. Adept upgrade changed to a health upgrade instead of the bounce damage: adds 50 Shields to Adepts. Adept can cancel the Shade ability at any time. When you cancel, the Shade disappears and you don’t teleport.
Our goal for this unit remains unchanged. We want a unit that’s good in early game harassment, which can also serve as a core army unit in the mid/late-game. The health change is because the Adept is much weaker than we expected out of the box. We want smaller numbers of Adepts to be viable in the early-game depending on how the opponent opens the game. We also hope that with this change, Protoss can take expansions a bit quicker and keep up with the other two races in terms of economy.
The change to the Adept upgrade is because the bounce attack wasn’t getting the micro interactions we were looking for. What we really want out of this upgrade is for Adepts to function well as a core part of the army. The current ability is too pointed towards low health units, but we wanted a more general combat buff. Therefore, we would like to try out something more straightforward.
The final change is to provide more decision making and power to the player using the Adept’s Shade ability without making it similar to Blink. The most common feedback we hear in this area is that players want to be able to control when the teleport happens, but we’d like to avoid that as that would make this ability more like Blink.
This might sound blasphemous, but why don't they just try to give the Adept that sort of blink, making it the early-harass and blin-unit and just remove blink from Stalkers (and buff their Anti.air-capabilities or give them 1Armor) to make the Stalker fill the Core (anti-AA) unit that they are so desperately looking for ?
This is genius.
Or just flat out get rid of warp gate so Toss gateway units can all be buffed and actually be decent? Almost all Protoss balance problems stem from warp gate being there. I mean it's a cool concept but it just makes it insane to balance properly around. Units become way to strong early game or way to weak late game. Make it way to easy to defend and too easy to attack with reinforcement points.
You drop warp gates, maybe make the warp prism be able to warp in like 4 units at a time from gateways but not more. This would give the warp prism still good use, keep the idea of warping in and make it so Protoss gateway units can be buffed and be not trash in the later stages, while not destroying everything with warp gate all ins early game.
First balance update and the community already up in arms about how there is not enough changed. You guys realize if you change too much, that Blizz won't be able to tell where the problems are right? I'm pretty sure they even said that LotV beta will be longer than both WoL and HotS, so I don't know why you guys are already acting like this is the final product. A week or two from now they'll probably release another patch fixing the ravager and introducing the new Terran unit.
I feel like the people in charge of LotV are like Eric Cartman at Fat Camp. Bound to get caught up in his own interests at the expense of the bloated community around him, but destined to cry into his own sugar coated donut at his inability to create long lasting and effective changes.
That said, this list of potential changes reveals 'Their' feelings and intentions massively. Given the limited scope of these changes 'They' actually believe the shamozzle they released as a closed beta is actually somewhat close to a working version of LotV.
This makes me really really really sad. Yet I hold hope, no faith as such, but great hope that LotV will be the Starcraft we all desire.
Carriers need to be seriously looked at. The launch interceptor ability is so broken right now. It allows protoss to 1) Have 8 interceptors attacking any where on the map while the carrier is simultaneously building more interceptors. When the interceptors on the map dies, the carrier is ready to launch 8 more. It essentially is a Protoss Swarmhost unit for LoTV 2) Right before a carrier dies, all the protoss player needs to do is to launch the interceptors to avoid them dying with the carrier. Now even when the carrier is dead, you have a swarm of zombie interceptors attacking you.
The ability needs to be changed so that the carrier can only have a maximum of 8 interceptors, including launched ones. Also, when carrier dies, all the interceptors launched from that carrier must self destruct as well.
On April 15 2015 11:52 Tentative wrote: Please let viking get +1 armor and 8x2 damage while landed instead!!! I wish it could swoop land so bad I'm not even joking guys it would maybe let the see a harass in a pro game for once
Yes, Terran really needs some sort of viking buff. The corruptor, voidray, pheonix, muta all have been buffed and the viking is falling further and further behind in uselessness.
Here are my suggestions: 1) Remove armored tag, increase hp to 150. 2) Increase ground weapon damage to 14. 3) Allow vikigns to be produced in ground mode out of factories (with ability to transform unlocked with starport tech).
On April 15 2015 12:21 Loccstana wrote: Carriers need to be seriously looked at. The launch interceptor ability is so broken right now. It allows protoss to 1) Have 8 interceptors attacking any where on the map while the carrier is simultaneously building more interceptors. When the interceptors on the map dies, the carrier is ready to launch 8 more. It essentially is a Protoss Swarmhost unit for LoTV 2) Right before a carrier dies, all the protoss player needs to do is to launch the interceptors to avoid them dying with the carrier. Now even when the carrier is dead, you have a swarm of zombie interceptors attacking you.
The ability needs to be changed so that the carrier can only have a maximum of 8 interceptors, including launched ones. Also, when carrier dies, all the interceptors launched from that carrier must self destruct as well.
I mean, except for the fact that it's Tier 3. Interceptors cost minerals. They take much longer to build. And cost way more.
But yeah, other than that, they are essentially the same!
It's a T3 unit. Blizzard wants people to be ending up at T3 in the late game, so they're trying to make everyone's T3 actually, you know, powerful.
On April 15 2015 11:52 Tentative wrote: Please let viking get +1 armor and 8x2 damage while landed instead!!! I wish it could swoop land so bad I'm not even joking guys it would maybe let the see a harass in a pro game for once
Yes, Terran really needs some sort of viking buff. The corruptor, voidray, pheonix, muta all have been buffed and the viking is falling further and further behind in uselessness.
Here are my suggestions: 1) Remove armored tag, increase hp to 150. 2) Increase ground weapon damage to 14. 3) Allow vikigns to be produced in ground mode out of factories (with ability to transform unlocked with starport tech).
Definitely don't agree with the bolded point, but I would possibly be in favor of Vikings getting some kind of change. ONLY if Cyclone is drastically changed or...something, though.
There was no possible way that economy changes would happen a week into the Beta and a few days after the economy article. The way implementation works, these changes were probably decided on a while ago. There are probably a lot changes in devs' minds, under discussion, and in internal dev testing, but they're not just going to push them all out at once as soon as they think of them. You have little patches that lead into big patches after more time and discussion. This is a little patch.
Patience, my brethren. We shall see how things develop.
Krazy trumpet I don't know about the 14 damage I just want them to do 8 x 2 attacks so they can deal 48 damage in 3 shots killing an scv but once you get the armor upgrade you negate 6 damage dealing 42 which is fucking funny as hell but saves your scv and saves your marine whilst the +1 armor makes small packs of vikings very strong against low queen counts and small ling squads
IT take 5 vikings to kill an ovie in 2 shotsnow picture now picture attacking with those 5 vikings at 125 life the zerglings can swarm over and kill vikings rather quickly at just 25 hits and at +1 armor it is 31.5 making them wayyyy tougher
It would be good to see some more communication, though. It's kind of hard to have a "community-based" beta with lots of interaction when we don't know what's going through the dev's heads on big questions.
So no econ changes, or plans for them in the future? Great job Blizzard...What is the point of even having a beta if you're not going to listen to the one thing that a major portion of the community is actually in agreement on? So sad
On April 15 2015 12:50 Captain Peabody wrote: There was no possible way that economy changes would happen a week into the Beta and a few days after the economy article. The way implementation works, these changes were probably decided on a while ago. There are probably a lot changes in devs' minds, under discussion, and in internal dev testing, but they're not just going to push them all out at once as soon as they think of them. You have little patches that lead into big patches after more time and discussion. This is a little patch.
Patience, my brethren. We shall see how things develop.
Yeah, people seem to forget that a company as big as Blizzard can't generally shift gears too fast. It's likely this post from them was written up before the TL Strat Economy article hit the forums. It also came out over the weekend, when most of the important Blizz people with regards to the SC2 community/dev team were out of the office.
We just have to keep making ourselves heard that we want them to address it, and I truly think they will at least respond. I'm already of the opinion they are doing better with transparency and outreach than in the past.
On April 15 2015 12:59 Survivor61316 wrote: So no econ changes, or plans for them in the future? Great job Blizzard...What is the point of even having a beta if you're not going to listen to the one thing that a major portion of the community is actually in agreement on? So sad
Health changed from 80/60 to 90/90. Adept upgrade changed to a health upgrade instead of the bounce damage: adds 50 Shields to Adepts. Adept can cancel the Shade ability at any time. When you cancel, the Shade disappears and you don’t teleport.
Our goal for this unit remains unchanged. We want a unit that’s good in early game harassment, which can also serve as a core army unit in the mid/late-game. The health change is because the Adept is much weaker than we expected out of the box. We want smaller numbers of Adepts to be viable in the early-game depending on how the opponent opens the game. We also hope that with this change, Protoss can take expansions a bit quicker and keep up with the other two races in terms of economy.
The change to the Adept upgrade is because the bounce attack wasn’t getting the micro interactions we were looking for. What we really want out of this upgrade is for Adepts to function well as a core part of the army. The current ability is too pointed towards low health units, but we wanted a more general combat buff. Therefore, we would like to try out something more straightforward.
The final change is to provide more decision making and power to the player using the Adept’s Shade ability without making it similar to Blink. The most common feedback we hear in this area is that players want to be able to control when the teleport happens, but we’d like to avoid that as that would make this ability more like Blink.
This might sound blasphemous, but why don't they just try to give the Adept that sort of blink, making it the early-harass and blin-unit and just remove blink from Stalkers (and buff their Anti.air-capabilities or give them 1Armor) to make the Stalker fill the Core (anti-AA) unit that they are so desperately looking for ?
This is genius.
Or just flat out get rid of warp gate so Toss gateway units can all be buffed and actually be decent? Almost all Protoss balance problems stem from warp gate being there. I mean it's a cool concept but it just makes it insane to balance properly around. Units become way to strong early game or way to weak late game. Make it way to easy to defend and too easy to attack with reinforcement points.
You drop warp gates, maybe make the warp prism be able to warp in like 4 units at a time from gateways but not more. This would give the warp prism still good use, keep the idea of warping in and make it so Protoss gateway units can be buffed and be not trash in the later stages, while not destroying everything with warp gate all ins early game.
What I don't understand, is why they don't just change WG so that units can only be warped in on a Nexus. That would still keep the "cool, unique, race specific mechanic" (Blizzard's words and reasons for keeping it around at all), while also nerfing it enough to allow a buff to gateway units. It would still keep it viable as a drop, and overall defensive tool, while significantly nerfing its offensive potential.
On April 15 2015 06:37 Ramiz1989 wrote: I am in awe how people expected EVERYTHING to be changed after 1 week.
Totally agree.
Whoa whoa whoa... slow down. We should expect the majority of large changes to come at the start of beta, where Blizzard should figure out everything they did that was wrong prior to release and work quickly to correct it, so they can spend the rest of beta fine tuning and polishing.
Think of it like creating a stone statue from a block of granite. Big chunks of rocks come off first; then smaller chunks, and the the final steps are polishing. If big chunks aren't coming off at the start, then Blizzard is doing it wrong. You don't want to be carefully polishing the area above the head, because that is something you're going to have to remove.
Thus, the calls for patience are questionable, and so is people excusing Blizzard because it is a "big company." None of that matters. We know what is broken. Blizzard knows (or should know) what is broken. But none of the broken stuff is getting changed. Take that piece of rock off already Blizzard, or we're going to be end up with a stone statue a finely polished tumor on its head that is going to have to be eventually removed (read Warhound, which we knew was broken for how long before it got removed?).
The community pretty obviously feels the new economy has some major problems and has suggested improvements, but Blizzard can't even be bothered to respond to that because it is busy adjusting the range on the Lurker. Again, big chunks need to come off but Blizzard is trying to polish... Did they really only learn after a weeks worth of games (thousands of games) that Lurker range needs to be adjusted? Seriously?
I'd like to be positive, but I prefer to be right: Frankly, Blizzard is on track to mishandle this because they want beta testing to be a coronation of their greatness, nothing more.
Whoa whoa whoa... slow down. We should expect the majority of large changes to come at the start of beta, where Blizzard should figure out everything they did that was wrong prior to release and work quickly to correct it, so they can spend the rest of beta fine tuning and polishing.
Think of it like creating a stone statue from a block of granite. Big chunks of rocks come off first; then smaller chunks, and the the final steps are polishing. If big chunks aren't coming off at the start, then Blizzard is doing it wrong. You don't want to be carefully polishing the area above the head, because that is something you're going to have to remove.
Thus, the calls for patience are questionable, and so is people excusing Blizzard because it is a "big company." None of that matters. We know what is broken. Blizzard (should) knows what is broken. But none of broken stuff is getting changed here. Take that piece of rock off already Blizzard, or we're going to be end up with a stone statue a finely polished tumor on it's head that is going to have to be eventually removed (read Warhound, which we knew was broken for how long before it got removed?).
The community pretty obviously feels the new economy has some major problems and has suggested improvements, but Blizzard can't even be bothered to respond to that because it is busy adjusting the range on the Lurker. Again, big chunks need to come off but Blizzard is trying to polish... Did they really only learn after a weeks worth of games (thousands of games) that Lurker range needs to be adjusted? Seriously?
I'd like to be positive, but I prefer to be right: Frankly, Blizzard is on track to mishandle this because they want beta testing to be a coronation of their greatness, nothing more.
Cyclone is the most terrible idea I've ever heard/seen in my life. The existence of this unit reinforces my beliefs that current sc2 balance team isn't competent at what they are doing.
On April 15 2015 14:09 saddaromma wrote: Cyclone is the most terrible idea I've ever heard/seen in my life. The existence of this unit reinforces my beliefs that current sc2 balance team isn't competent at what they are doing.
I'm trying really hard to think of a reason why it's not. and failing. 15 range, line of sight no longer required auto cast lock on, can target ground and air. that's crazy town. i can think of no situation where building cyclones is a bad idea, apart from maybe really low econ?
On April 15 2015 06:37 Ramiz1989 wrote: I am in awe how people expected EVERYTHING to be changed after 1 week.
Totally agree.
Whoa whoa whoa... slow down. We should expect the majority of large changes to come at the start of beta, where Blizzard should figure out everything they did that was wrong prior to release and work quickly to correct it, so they can spend the rest of beta fine tuning and polishing.
Unfortunately, the beta was at a state of such great imbalance that it was difficult to get really meaningful information. Basically, they're likely to do a few patches to get the units to actually start being used in their intended roles, and then they'll be able to look at serious structural changes. Not saying they will actually do those changes, but they'll be in a better position to attempt them at the very least. Furthermore, they still have that new Terran starport unit to introduce, so there will be more changes needed at that point. Expect a few more weeks of stumbling around before we start seeing meaningful ideas put into practice.
On April 15 2015 06:37 Ramiz1989 wrote: I am in awe how people expected EVERYTHING to be changed after 1 week.
Totally agree.
Whoa whoa whoa... slow down. We should expect the majority of large changes to come at the start of beta, where Blizzard should figure out everything they did that was wrong prior to release and work quickly to correct it, so they can spend the rest of beta fine tuning and polishing.
Unfortunately, the beta was at a state of such great imbalance that it was difficult to get really meaningful information.
Listen to what you just said: "Everything is so screwed up right now, that we can't glean anything from it"...
We can glean something from this, and that is that everything is screwed up. And that was the very point of my post, they should be rapidly working at the core problems that are making things imbalanced. And I think we can all agree that these mickey mouse changes (like the one to the Lurker) won't fix the fact everything is so screwed up, so Blizzard is literally wasting time.
And this is their job. I take my job incredibly seriously, and they had a lot of time to think (a week is a long time) about these problems, tons of new data from an open beta and a massive response from the community. And they came out with this patch.
Again, they are polishing a square stone they plan to turn into a statue, when they should be taking chunks off to begin forming the statue itself.
I bet that they will design the new terran unit around having split up the mech upgrades again... which will also destroy terran because, the new unit will either be massively op and get nerfed to the ground or useless and has to wait months for any kind of buff
Actually that would double the rate at which Stalkers escape from them or catch up to them. Because their speeds are so close to parity right now, the effects of minor changes are greatly amplified.
True. However, if it would take 30 seconds for a Stalker to escape with 15 max range and 2.85 speed, reducing that to 15 seconds won't matter.
Man, and I used to think making Zealots during the early game was bad. Now, it shouldn't even be a question of ever making them. Any reason, even one so ninch, just make Adept for now.
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
On April 15 2015 15:39 Gullis wrote: I hate the cancel thing on the adept I wish they would have made them easier to stutter step with.
That's actually a good idea. If Blizz wants it to help fight Marines then at least make it so it can micro like a marine, I don't think I've yet seen an Adept do well against a decent number of marines.
On April 15 2015 05:53 Spect8rCraft wrote: None of the changes are giving me a higher opinion of the tempest. It just doesn't seem to add much flavor to Protoss other than filling an anti-massive gap in their ranks. I don't know if Protoss needs a specifically anti-massive unit.
The tempest is like the thor in that Blizzard keeps experimenting with it even if the results are unsatisfying. I think they don't want to remove units, but there is no role the tempest can fill.
On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
Yes, yes i know. I honestly refrain from commenting to all the BW posts. Not because i don't care / don't want to correct them. It just seems like a huge waste of time :s. Which is saying a lot because i've been lurking TL almost every day for the past 5.5 years. You just always have these BW wannabe theorists get so much stuff wrong. Over analyzing the shit out of every little thing simply because it doesn't / isn't BW. News flash this is the third installment of Starcraft '2' not BW 3.0
So i entirely agree with you.
Either way to people who want a list of more BW things: Lurker has been added, disruptor is kind of similar to the reaver at least 30%. Terrible terrible damage unit with high micro-ability + warp prism 7range pick up. The ability to store 2 disruptors in them at one moment or an immortal. Secondly i'm 100% aware it's not the same unit but then again blizzard already said they weren't going to bring back the reaver so stop beating the dead horse for more minutes of your life. People who actually like the design of sc2 are getting real tired of this nonsensical complaining about something that will never happen.
Third: current state of the disruptor is nothing compared to how it'll function in the game at lotv launch or even for the next few weeks/months. ( same for cyclone / ravagers) fourth: All current units/stats will still change and be adjusted. fifth: Same thing when it comes to the in game economy... don't believe me ? feel free to be a bitter-ist but i do happily challenge you to reconsider or see if i'm wrong.
As Rotterdam brought up in the lotv showmatches he would like to see if the economy in lotv was distributed equally so all patches can deplete around the same time. If you too like this "concept" then go do something useful and speculate/ do the math. Instead of complaining about all the stuff that hasn't happend yet, you could do something how does that sound?
Or i guess you can continue to drop 3-5 sentences posts(or even less) about how "blizzard bad *grrr* Lol relevance is an entire different thing than just your initial gut feelings/ opinions.
Tldr; please staph with knee jerk non mathematical emotion tantrums on TL. This place should be a safe haven for strategy and analysis/ enjoyment regarding starcraft/ other stuff we like that actually makes sense to be posted here.
For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit.
I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes?
To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly.
Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant.
On April 15 2015 16:38 huller20 wrote: Do BCs and Carriers actually have a role? Does Z have a late game composition that can match mech or protoss? These things need answers,
We're in super early beta and most good players are playing HotS. Remember, nobody made Infestors for like 2 years in WoL. As of now it seems Carriers certainly do have a role, they are very powerful and seem to be what Protoss should aim for in the late-game against many compositions. It also seems at the moment that Zerg might have the strongest lategame, 8 armour Ultralisks are insane, Viper Irradiate is insane, Corruptors seem a lot more useful and new Adrenal Glands Zerglings are great.
I think this first wave of invites is just to get some general feel of things and these first "minor" tweaks are in line with that. We have a LONG beta - let's go slowly.
That said, I think the robo (or immortal) could use a cost adjustment if blizzard envisions P having more than one off 2 base.
Why would blizzard really discuss economy changes before we've really gotten a chance to see how it works? Again, we've had 1 week of very limited testing. Granted, I do like the "reward expansion" over "punish turtle" (especially as it puts pressure on the player vs player instead of player vs clock) however let's not rush everything at once.
For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit.
I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes?
To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly.
Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant.
The opinion of most good players in that thread was that yes, you stop roaches (or ravager i imagine), but immortals are not versatile enough to deal with basically anything else (mutas being the scariest thing, fast hive for broodlords was also an issue at the time); the zerg can too easily adjust to what you're doing and tech switch, and since that time PvZ has become much, much more about tech switches anyway. Even if you scout this consistently (which as you said isn't that obvious with the current pacing of the game), double robo opens up a bunch of other problems for the protoss.
For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit.
I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes?
To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly.
Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant.
in a standard game protoss is blindly gonna tech to robo or stargate anyways so thats not an issue, the main thing is that we need a cheap "low tech" counter to the ravager in both tech trees because its a hatch tech unit.
right now void rays are a viable answer to them but immortals aren't, the only way to deal with ravagers on robo tech is with disruptors and thats obviously not an optimal tech path when we're on 2 bases. it delays your 3rd for a long time and gives zerg alot of map control, they can easily go up to 4 bases and tech switch into mutas.. it usually doesnt end well for protoss when that happens.
EDIT: oh shit i miss-read your post, my bad. against a fast 2base ravager push you won't have enough time but vs 3hatch ravager you most likely would, although i dont think its a very optimal playstyle. it doesnt really make alot of sense if protoss is forced to go into duo robo immortal in order to take our 3rd safely vs a hatch tech unit. in any case i do agree that the immortal needs to be a core unit, if it doesnt become a solid anti-ravager unit then robo tech wont be a viable opener in pvz (that being said another issue is that ravagers are extremely cost efficient vs gate units, especially sentries).
For example, if the Zerg player is going heavy Roach/Ravagers, Protoss can potentially opt to use multiple Robotics Facilities and use the Immortal as the core unit.
I would like some opinions from protoss players who has the beta to tell me whether this is actually realistic. Can you scout in time and then throw down an ADDITIONAL 200/100 80 second build time production facility and get Immortals out in time to deal with Roach/Ravager pushes?
To me, it still feels like they should opt to reduce the cost significantly.
Generally though I am happy that they are taking the route I am suggesting by making the Immortal more of a core-unit. Protoss needs to be less tier 3 reliant.
The opinion of most good players in that thread was that yes, you stop roaches (or ravager i imagine), but immortals are not versatile enough to deal with basically anything else (mutas being the scariest thing, fast hive for broodlords was also an issue at the time); the zerg can too easily adjust to what you're doing and tech switch, and since that time PvZ has become much, much more about tech switches anyway. Even if you scout this consistently (which as you said isn't that obvious with the current pacing of the game), double robo opens up a bunch of other problems for the protoss.
Yeah, Immos are a wasted apportunity to have some very strong core unit. Immortals need some love. Decreased cost to 200/100 minimum (better for adepp/zealot immmortal compos), decreased build time by 10 s at least, and maybe their damage slighly reworked to be stonger vs more thigs, like 30+20vs armored.
I'm not a fan of immortals being a core unit that we always need tbh. They still have the issue of not being very versatile no matter how you tweak their damage, and i'd prefer if Protoss was designed so that our robo production time is mostly warp prisms/observers with situatioanlly immortals or disruptors.
oh !@#$%^&* i didnt read the ADDITIONAL part, my bad. against a fast 2base ravager push you won't have enough time but vs 3hatch ravager you most likely would, although i dont think its a very optimal playstyle. ideally we should be able to take our 3rd safely by going 1 robo immo + gate units vs ravagers.
Yeh I wasn't sure the "use multiple Robitics Facilities" comment from David Kim was realistic either. At least not untill the later stages of the game.
I'm not a fan of immortals being a core unit that we always need tbh. They still have the issue of not being very versatile no matter how you tweak their damage, and i'd prefer if Protoss was designed so that our robo production time is mostly warp prisms/observers with situatioanlly immortals or disruptors.
I agree that a 2.25 Immortal with 6 range and the default damage point of 0.16 with a "press a button"-ability shouldn't be a core unit. This type of unit is too specialized and doesn't reward proper micro.
But I think it is very important that protoss gets a strong core army that cannot be warped in at the same time (high cost efficiency + warp-in is a bad combo due to lack of defenders advantage). This is why I propose several changes to the Immortal and I would like to make it feel a bit more like a Dragoon in terms of mobility and production speed.
Immortal: Idiotic change. Let's make siege tanks just as useless as HOTS/WOL vs toss. Un-necessary.
Cyclone: I recommended same type of change. Gives more opportunity to micro vs it since people don't realize right now the way you micro vs cyclone is same as you do vs raven seeker - move the unit away, cyclone loses it's lock on. This change is good.
Lurker: Good change, will see more of them.
Tempest: Why does this need an ability that is uber late game abuse. Remove this ability immediately.
Last thoughts as a lot of other people are thinking: Test double harvest economy or other similar model please. LOTV econ right now = "gun to your head economy" which is not fun at all and removes too many defensive options.
Protoss/Mech become more viable when you are allowed to play defensive. TL proposed economy model allows for defensive play + offensive play + rewards you for expanding, rather than punishing you for not.
im worried for new terran content, i hate the cyclone and they already removed the herc. i think they need 2 new units altogether. maybe some sort of new science vessel type unit, or a lategame addon that works as both a techlab and a reactor like in the WOL campaign, maybe make it a research upgrade in the fusion core that transforms all ur addons to the mega addon which fills both roles to give terran remaxing some flexibility perhaps?
zerg looks great, i love the ravager and the lurker additions, although ravager might be a big too big aesthetically for a roach evolution, it kinda overshadows everything else in a composition.
i want to like the adept but as a protoss player something feels weird about it, i want it to be able to fill a core gateway role like blizzard intends for it but i dont know if i can see it working with this units design-
i would much prefer adding a dragoon, and making the stalker a twilight council tech unit, protoss gateway units need to be buffed if they are to be viable in the mid game without sentries or splash, and although stalkers are an amazing unit with blink, they are flimsy and not very durable, and durability and quality for expensiveness has always been the entire idea of protoss units. I never liked the idea of them being a core unit, theyre dark templars by lore, and they should be for harassing and blinking hit squads not giant numbers in a big deathball, thats what a dragoon should be for.
dunno wtf to do about the tempest. the unit was only ever in the game coz infestor broodlord was broken in WOL, if its not an issue anymore i dont see why it should even stay, although aesthetically its really cool, it still fills no role, and i dont like the skirmisher role its trying to be pushed towards, thats what phoenix are for, turn it back to siege or remove it imo
a shield battery might also be a cool addition
also whats the deal with the collosus? i dont get whats happening there at all...
On April 15 2015 18:02 Champi wrote: im worried for new terran content, i hate the cyclone and they already removed the herc. i think they need 2 new units altogether. maybe some sort of new science vessel type unit, or a lategame addon that works as both a techlab and a reactor like in the WOL campaign, maybe make it a research upgrade in the fusion core that transforms all ur addons to the mega addon which fills both roles to give terran remaxing some flexibility perhaps?
zerg looks great, i love the ravager and the lurker additions, although ravager might be a big too big aesthetically for a roach evolution, it kinda overshadows everything else in a composition.
i want to like the adept but as a protoss player something feels weird about it, i want it to be able to fill a core gateway role like blizzard intends for it but i dont know if i can see it working with this units design-
i would much prefer adding a dragoon, and making the stalker a twilight council tech unit, protoss gateway units need to be buffed if they are to be viable in the mid game without sentries or splash, and although stalkers are an amazing unit with blink, they are flimsy and not very durable, which is the entire idea of protoss units. I never liked the idea of them being a core unit, theyre dark templars by lore, and they should be for harassing and blinking hit squads not giant numbers in a big deathball, thats what a dragoon should be for.
dunno wtf to do about the tempest. the unit was only ever in the game coz infestor broodlord was broken in WOL, if its not an issue anymore i dont see why it should even stay, although aesthetically its really cool, it still fills no role, and i dont like the skirmisher role its trying to be pushed towards, thats what phoenix are for, turn it back to siege or remove it imo
a shield battery might also be a cool addition
also whats the deal with the collosus? i dont get whats happening there at all...
Blizzard has confirmed they are adding a 2nd new Terran unit, and have even told us what they are currently experimenting with. It's a Reactor-able slightly-more-expensive-than-Banshee Starport unit with AoE air-to-air that can transform into another mode which makes it air-to-ground with 9 range single-target.
On April 15 2015 17:13 y0su wrote: I think this first wave of invites is just to get some general feel of things and these first "minor" tweaks are in line with that. We have a LONG beta - let's go slowly.
That said, I think the robo (or immortal) could use a cost adjustment if blizzard envisions P having more than one off 2 base.
Why would blizzard really discuss economy changes before we've really gotten a chance to see how it works? Again, we've had 1 week of very limited testing. Granted, I do like the "reward expansion" over "punish turtle" (especially as it puts pressure on the player vs player instead of player vs clock) however let's not rush everything at once.
The voice of reason speaking!
I find it amazing how people cry for economy changes just 2 weeks after big economy changes were introduced with the beta Of course Blizzard could just try out all the suggested economy models for a week or two, however, I don't think we would be able to deduct much useful information this way since the economy is so fundamental that a change to it influences the entire balance of the game.
On April 15 2015 17:48 Teoita wrote: I'm not a fan of immortals being a core unit that we always need tbh. They still have the issue of not being very versatile no matter how you tweak their damage, and i'd prefer if Protoss was designed so that our robo production time is mostly warp prisms/observers with situatioanlly immortals or disruptors.
But is what Protoss needs. Some strong "almost core" unit to eliminate the desperate need of robo bay splash. Gateway army isn't able to cover all the roles, and what's more, it shouln't.
Immortals could be the complementary DPS and strong sustain that the Gateway army needs. By tweaking their damage, you make them effectively stronger vs light units reducing the amount of shots to kill them, specially marines and hydralisks (2shot marines, 3shot hydras) and 1 shoot zrglings at +3. That would be a hughe performance increase, with their base DPS increased by 50%(50%, 33%, and 100% respectively) so it would result in much higher flexibility. That is something that protoss has been demanding for years, easier time killing masseable fragile units with high DPS. That's why the adept was introduced and is being buffed to stupid levels of tankiness now.
However, I agree with you that Immo's speed and range don't help much their flexibily. But maybe with a little more speed and the alpha +1 range (up to 7) Immortals could play a very interesting role there.
We need to remove the " hero" status off Immortals, moving towards a more flexible unit, specially vs light units that the Protoss find problematic, more mobile, and less hardcountering, being slightly cheaper and a bit easier to produce.
What we need first is to tune the Immo ability/trait
Making tech situational or niche is not a very good design Immao. Look at Zerg and Terran now. They are being given options to make every tech tree really usable.
Immortal: Idiotic change. Let's make siege tanks just as useless as HOTS/WOL vs toss. Un-necessary.
Cyclone: I recommended same type of change. Gives more opportunity to micro vs it since people don't realize right now the way you micro
Because Immortals are really really really good right now, am I right? Cyclones also have tons of super intense micro involved right now, and the range reduction is totally going to open that up more vs stalkers which have like, half that range right?
Please stop confusing lower league players on this forum with such posts. Thanks.
On April 15 2015 18:02 avilo wrote: Quick thoughts/my opinion:
Adept change: Good, juke city
Immortal: Idiotic change. Let's make siege tanks just as useless as HOTS/WOL vs toss. Un-necessary.
Cyclone: I recommended same type of change. Gives more opportunity to micro vs it since people don't realize right now the way you micro vs cyclone is same as you do vs raven seeker - move the unit away, cyclone loses it's lock on. This change is good.
Lurker: Good change, will see more of them.
Tempest: Why does this need an ability that is uber late game abuse. Remove this ability immediately.
Last thoughts as a lot of other people are thinking: Test double harvest economy or other similar model please. LOTV econ right now = "gun to your head economy" which is not fun at all and removes too many defensive options.
Protoss/Mech become more viable when you are allowed to play defensive. TL proposed economy model allows for defensive play + offensive play + rewards you for expanding, rather than punishing you for not.
I think you're overreacting a bit to the Immortal buff.
In an optimal battle, now Immortal shield/barrier absorbs 6 tank shots (from 4 previous). Ability lasts only 3s, that is one tank volley. Immos will ussually have time to absorb 1 or 2 Shots only. That has not changed. So it's quite brained to say that the change doesn't specifically affect Siege tanks much. You also have flying siege tanks with the medivac thing with no upgrade requirement. And Immortals dont shoot up and move far slower than medivacs. Do you still need mech to be more abusable? It's obviously targeted at Ravagers and Roaches.
Immortals could be the complementary DPS and strong sustain that the Gateway army needs. By tweaking their damage, you make them effectively stronger vs light units reducing the amount of shots to kill them, specially marines and hydralisks (2shot marines, 3shot hydras) and 1 shoot zrglings at +3. That would be a hughe performance increase, with their base DPS increased by 50%(50%, 33%, and 100% respectively) so it would result in much higher flexibility. That is something that protoss has been demanding for years, easier time killing masseable fragile units with high DPS. That's why the adept was introduced and is being buffed to stupid levels of tankiness now.
However, I agree with you that Immo's speed and range don't help much their flexibily. But maybe with a little more speed and the alpha +1 range (up to 7) Immortals could play a very interesting role there.
Your correct that it needs to do better vs light, but I think you accomplish more flexibility with a mobility/range + responsiveness change. It simply becomes much easier to move it around, kite and target fire what you want with such a change. Thus with such a change it won't need any damage buff vs light to feel like less of a hardcounter unit.
On top of that you now have Adepts which are good vs light units.
Immortals could be the complementary DPS and strong sustain that the Gateway army needs. By tweaking their damage, you make them effectively stronger vs light units reducing the amount of shots to kill them, specially marines and hydralisks (2shot marines, 3shot hydras) and 1 shoot zrglings at +3. That would be a hughe performance increase, with their base DPS increased by 50%(50%, 33%, and 100% respectively) so it would result in much higher flexibility. That is something that protoss has been demanding for years, easier time killing masseable fragile units with high DPS. That's why the adept was introduced and is being buffed to stupid levels of tankiness now.
However, I agree with you that Immo's speed and range don't help much their flexibily. But maybe with a little more speed and the alpha +1 range (up to 7) Immortals could play a very interesting role there.
Your correct that it needs to do better vs light, but I think you accomplish more flexibility with a mobility/range + responsiveness change. It simply becomes much easier to move it around, kite and target fire what you want with such a change.
Yeah, that is what I wrote below the damage thing. 2.625 speed could work. Also the turret fix would be useful. The huge problem yet is the ability. However, I think that they aren't moving in a bad direction.Also, I think we can't buff much thir movement/range while keepin actual damage values
I also think that Tanks in tank mode should be buffed, specially in terms of micro, and possibly range up to 7.5 or 8. Old BW tanks used to have 2 range advatage over pgraded ranged units and 3 over unupgraded ones. Here in SC2 we don't have range upgrades except for the hydralisk, and the siege tank in tank mode has only 1 range advantage over ranged units, plus a very defficient micro.!
Called the 200 damage shield buff on immortals so hard :D
The direction is right. But some changes feel really pushed. Like the lurker range, why not just remove the lurker den? Why are they so obsessed in making it happen in ZvZ, when they were never used in that MU in broodwar? Also the Tempest ability, nobody cares about this unit xD
They seriously need to adress the economy problems first tho.
With Double Mining making it viable for Protoss to turtle and build the ultimate all-in A-move deathball, wouldn't new players who are intimidated by learning how to expand just make Protoss their defacto race, (they always have, even still now to some degree).
However, I think Blizzard absolutely must thoroughly evaluate and consider changing to the Double Mining economic model using their internal resources.
On April 15 2015 19:26 xxjcdentonxx wrote: With Double Mining making it viable for Protoss to turtle and build the ultimate all-in A-move deathball, wouldn't new players who are intimidated by learning how to expand just make Protoss their defacto race, (they always have, even still now to some degree).
However, I think Blizzard absolutely must thoroughly evaluate and consider changing to the Double Mining economic model using their internal resources.
Double mining income is simply too high. The concep is the same that th BW economy, but with different numbers, achieving less difference in income of spread workers than in BW model, where the difference between two base and 1 base is quite high, aroun a 25%. Read Worker Pairing thread from Uvantak, published a month ago.
Important to note that the NWP - BW Economy mod doesn't act as it should because there are some small bugs.
Until now the blizzard approach to balance has been: Let the players figure out to get to 3base mining. If it isn't possible, make it possible through patching. Then balance the game from that situation by making units counter other units.
With a scaling economy, a player could counter units with economy. That's very scary for them. Their design philosphy in which against everything exists a tool to shut it down for less money would have to be thrown overboard.
Blizzard style changes with Blzzard style reasoning. I think I`m gonna be sick. The reasoning behind Immortal and Cyclone changes is to die for... All in all, almost completely useless, as to be expected from them. Dont they see in the stats wtf is going on in the games?
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
I just don't understand why they are trying to force the Tempest so much. Everyone hates it, the ability they have given to it promotes abusive late-game stalemates (like Raven/SH) and it is not even needed anymore as the Carrier fits the role perfectly and is finally a viable late-game option.
Having your units killed one-by-one and not being able to do anything about it will be very frustrating. I don't understand how they still fail to see after so many years of experience what kind of abilities/units to avoid.
It reminds me so much of the Nexus Cannon. Click a button, boom, problem solved. Everyone hates it, even Protoss players. But it is at least somewhat needed. Now, there is no excuse for Tempests, just get rid of those and don't look back, please!
Other changes seems fine, but as someone else said, they really should attempt more drastic changes early on. Especially the economy change, now is the time to test it, if ever.
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators.
But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up.
On April 15 2015 12:50 Captain Peabody wrote: There was no possible way that economy changes would happen a week into the Beta and a few days after the economy article. The way implementation works, these changes were probably decided on a while ago. There are probably a lot changes in devs' minds, under discussion, and in internal dev testing, but they're not just going to push them all out at once as soon as they think of them. You have little patches that lead into big patches after more time and discussion. This is a little patch.
Patience, my brethren. We shall see how things develop.
So much this. Why is everything you say so reasonable Captain Peabody?
Hopefully this isn't the wrong place, but I'm not sure it deserves it's own thread.
Could we maybe get a dedicated suggestions/balance discussion thread in this subforum?
Anyway, I brainstormed different ways to take the cyclone and tweak how it functions, trying to think of how to create more meaningful and interesting interactions alongside a tension in ability usage.
Suggestion:
Lock-on should start out at the regular attack speed, then increase in attack speed with each successive attack against it’s target until it either reaches a max attack speed, the target dies, or moves out of range/breaks the lock.
While locked on, the Cyclone moves significantly slower, it can change target if commanded, and if it’s target dies and another is in range then it can acquire another target without penalty.
If the Cyclone no longer has targets in range after using Lock-on, it is temporarily disabled and cannot attack until the abilities’ cooldown is complete (ie, a "reload timer").
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators.
But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up.
Exactly, this is why everyone in tl strat likes double mining models so much. Of course the balance has to change, but the same can be said about LotV seemingly forcing either quick 4-5 base games, or scrappy one and a half-two base games. The core issue is that, even though our testing is limited and our sample size is small both for lotv beta (which is horribly imbalanced, so it's hard to predict) and DM (which so far, is mostly games played between TL Strat members), we believe DM will ultimately provide the better games, assuming both models end up being balanced out. I agree it's too early to tell, and certainly not conclusive evidence, but it's worth discussing and considering at the very least.
On April 15 2015 20:27 Kira_V wrote: I just don't understand why they are trying to force the Tempest so much. Everyone hates it, the ability they have given to it promotes abusive late-game stalemates (like Raven/SH) and it is not even needed anymore as the Carrier fits the role perfectly and is finally a viable late-game option.
Having your units killed one-by-one and not being able to do anything about it will be very frustrating. I don't understand how they still fail to see after so many years of experience what kind of abilities/units to avoid.
It reminds me so much of the Nexus Cannon. Click a button, boom, problem solved. Everyone hates it, even Protoss players. But it is at least somewhat needed. Now, there is no excuse for Tempests, just get rid of those and don't look back, please!
Other changes seems fine, but as someone else said, they really should attempt more drastic changes early on. Especially the economy change, now is the time to test it, if ever.
That tempest ability it's a pure joke. At best, it should be a support mechanic. I already posted my suggestion, but as everything, it would be ignored by blizzard. IMAO Desintegration should deal far less damage (150-200HP) if some and be a support mechanic. It could reduce armor by -3 for example, and negate healing and energy regen. But low damage or no damage at all. It would be strong vs lategame units, specially air ones, since VoidRays, Phoenixes and Carriers are all burst damage units. Utility > Damage.
I think that David Kim hates Protoss. So much.
BTW, If you ding into the internet, you'll see that since 2009 they started to remove the "standarirzed" design from the Protoss race. They filled gaps with gimmicks and bandaids. We are now paying
Removal of the Obelisk (protoss macrobooster structure at 150 mins, like other macroboosters) - Chronoboost by default. Protoss have econ advantage from the start. Lead to nerf in Gateway production times, nerf of Chronoboost itself. Build time reduction provided by Warpgate. Gateway play effectively removed. Early Warpgate pushed. Some units nerfed, (mainly Zealot and Stalker) Immortals removed from Gateway (Gateway army significantly weaker). Protoss incompetent in early/midgame production, transformed into all-inners, cheesers or turtles. Deathball invented.
HotS: early game problem persists. Let's give Protoss a way to secure 2-base so they can be less vulnerable. 1-click base defense with Siege Tank range. Production problem not solved. Colossus Deathball again as the most reliable response to the superior production of other races.
I'd like it if the tempest ability put a healing/repair debuff, if they really want to go that way. It makes a lot more sense than what they are doing, unavoidable damage for no risk is as silly as the old locusts.
The Tempest chang is HORRIBLE. Cast this spell and run away, repeat, either your opponent dies or he's forced to make mass cheap units. Along with the Carrier why is Blizzard really trying to make this game so gimicky in a stupid way? Maybe that's just the way they want Protoss to be?
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators.
But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up.
I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc)
I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh.
if blizz plans on making econ changes they would be better off doing it sooner rather than later, as the changes will likely break the whole game forcing a whole slew of new testing.. if blizz doesn't plan on making the changes then whatever, i won't be playing the game anyways so the changes are irrelevant to me personally.
I don't understand why don't they just make warpgate units warp-in slower and recieve more damage when warping in the further away they are warped in from their own bases?
I'm really annoyed by this stance that Blizzard currently have, where they try to force units to fit roles/to be used like they would like to...
I mean, the ideal thing should be to give the players interestings units with interesting features and discover what the players can do with them, instead of trying to encourage specific playstyle. "We'd like to see more immortal drop". Why? It may happen if there's a use to it, if it's efficient, or it may not, but why modifying the unit so that it encourages a specific playstyle.. ?
On April 15 2015 23:27 Ragnarork wrote: I'm really annoyed by this stance that Blizzard currently have, where they try to force units to fit roles/to be used like they would like to...
I mean, the ideal thing should be to give the players interestings units with interesting features and discover what the players can do with them, instead of trying to encourage specific playstyle. "We'd like to see more immortal drop". Why? It may happen if there's a use to it, if it's efficient, or it may not, but why modifying the unit so that it encourages a specific playstyle.. ?
Yeah. Give us an interesting set of units and let's see what comes out of that, not a set of strats you'd like to see "because they're cool yeah lasers and action everywhere !!!!".
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators.
But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up.
I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc)
I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh.
I fear they won't and don't want to. I guess they have every right for that because it is their game and their design. But since the LotV announcement I'm not so sure that I will be part of this community after the expansion anymore.
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators.
But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up.
I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc)
I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh.
I fear they won't and don't want to. I guess they have every right for that because it is their game and their design. But since the LotV announcement I'm not so sure that I will be part of this community after the expansion anymore.
So you are saying that you are only part of the sc2 community cause you thought LOTV would be the savior of sc2? I actually think no matter what, it will be enjoyable in the end, there will be stuff i disagree with (just like right now), but that's just how it is. I would love if they at least tried another economy system (let's be real, the LOTV economy is a map change), but i think even with that change the end result will be enjoyable to watch (and play)
I was hoping for another radical change to the economy. I was hoping that they had several possible directions the economy could go and they'd have the beta testers try them all. Maybe that's still true and they need more time to look at the current one.
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators.
But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up.
I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc)
I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh.
Why can't we have both? Why can't we have efficiency vs efficiency gameplay as well gameplay where one player is clearly playing a defensive positional game? Variety is good. And it isn't race specific.
Ideally, Terran could go for Bio and be less strong in a straight up fight and less efficient, but more mobile, and therefore be able to expand and harass more. Zerg would be similar with Ling/Muta or Protoss with Gateway/Stargate compositions. But Terran Mech, Zerg Roach/Hydra/Ravager (Swarmhosts in HOTS), and Protoss Robotics Facility death balls would be the slow moving armies that are really efficient and strong in straight up fights, but lack mobility. Due to a lack of mobility the latter compositions would naturally expand slower and play more defensively.
On April 15 2015 19:28 Teoita wrote: Wrong thread, but no, double mining doesn't make turtling any easier because your opponent can much more easily outexpand and outproduce you.
Which is the whole point. If you could have double the income on 4 base vs 2 (with similar worker counts) you could constantly max out and trade until their bases are dry and it's 6 base vs 0.
*not actually double the income, but considerably more*
Which only really works if the unit interactions allow for it. A real deathball in sc2 usually trades so efficiently that it wouldn't really matter imo. They first would need to change the way how 200 vs 200 fights work in sc2 if you ask me.
Yup, if they would make such a mining change the balance would have to change of course. You can't give a zerg player more money than his opponent while giving him the same costefficiency or free unit value generators.
But that actually sounds rather good for the game, instead of the deathball vs deathball build up.
I am not even only talking balance, i think this is a total design "choice" of sc2. Let's say you allow for turtling with this economy model and give the mobile race the option to have a higher income. That will only help if his more mobile units can actually trade somewhat okish with the deahtball of the turtling player. In the end we already had games which are close to that: When a zerg players drones to around 100 workers and gets a massive bank. It oftentimes didn't really change anything though, the deathball still won cause 200vs200 fights in sc2 are just broken to beginn with (clumping, not enough tools to engage a passive player, etc)
I don't think blizzard will invest enough time into changing all of this, they rather have a efficiency vs efficiency gameplay where the more active player wins in the end. And i can't even say that this is too bad tbh.
I fear they won't and don't want to. I guess they have every right for that because it is their game and their design. But since the LotV announcement I'm not so sure that I will be part of this community after the expansion anymore.
So you are saying that you are only part of the sc2 community cause you thought LOTV would be the savior of sc2? I actually think no matter what, it will be enjoyable in the end, there will be stuff i disagree with (just like right now), but that's just how it is. I would love if they at least tried another economy system (let's be real, the LOTV economy is a map change), but i think even with that change the end result will be enjoyable to watch (and play)
Nonono, that's not what I'm saying. I'm greatly enjoying SC2 as it is now, even though they should have fixed ZvZ in 2013. I'm saying I'm not sure I will enjoy LotV, because it destroys the game I have grown to like, but doesn't rebuild it in the way I would like it to change. In many parts rather the opposite. Flying tanks, Swarm Hosts that don't siege but run around. Increasing hardcounter relations on units such as ultralisks while the unit remains garbage if my opponent just sits behind a wall. Introducing more units instead of fixing the ones we have. Keeping Protoss design bullshit, even though they nerf a lot of things, they eventually will have to find balance for protoss. And they eventually will want to see their units being used. And if they keep the forcefield, and they want to see the sentry being used, you know what that means... yeah, forcefields will exist. Or their unit design will be crappy.
On April 16 2015 00:56 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please increase the supply cap to 250. Without all these 3/4 supply units and huge maps, how is 200 supply sfficient?
Can we even afford 250 supply of units with the new economy?
I remember Zeromus(I think) had the idea of being able to warpin in a fairly large area around your Nexus with no extra damage or extra warping time, felt like it was a great idea, and the offensive warpin with pylons/warp prism could be weakened
On April 16 2015 00:56 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please increase the supply cap to 250. Without all these 3/4 supply units and huge maps, how is 200 supply sfficient?
dude I almost never get to 200 with the new economy, so please
They admit that the Tempest doesn't seem to have a role. What with Protoss having the greatest variety of units, abilities and openers, unit compositions, why don't they just remove the unit already? Tempest is basically an unwanted unit from the start of HoTS, kept for some unknown reason. Perhaps the guy who designed it died and they just want to keep it in to honour him or something.
On April 16 2015 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote: They admit that the Tempest doesn't seem to have a role. What with Protoss having the greatest variety of units, abilities and openers, unit compositions, why don't they just remove the unit already? Tempest is basically an unwanted unit from the start of HoTS.
I've been railing against the Tempest since... it's introduction back before (yes, I bolded and italicized that, nearly underlined it too) the HOTS Beta was released.
At the time, it filled an unneeded role (anti-mutalisk hard counter, when Mutalisks had been solved by Blink/Storm) but then was changed to do exactly the same role as the Carrier... long range capital ship. Why didn't they just fix the Carrier? Now the Carrier is fixed, we see how this unit has no role again. The Carrier does everything it can do, but better.
Blizzard creates more problems than it solves when it just leaves things unfixed. You want to create a new Stargate unit? Great, but first fix the ones we got that no one ever uses, which would be the equivalent of giving us a new unit. Otherwise you might just pull a Browder and create a unit for a role that has already been filled.
And now we are left in this mess. This highlights the problem with the design team. They are clueless. They have no long term planning about what they want SC2 to become or how they can meaningfully add to it, and their unit ideas often are the result of some temporary swing in the meta (read Tempest).
On April 15 2015 23:27 Ragnarork wrote: I'm really annoyed by this stance that Blizzard currently have, where they try to force units to fit roles/to be used like they would like to...
I mean, the ideal thing should be to give the players interestings units with interesting features and discover what the players can do with them, instead of trying to encourage specific playstyle. "We'd like to see more immortal drop". Why? It may happen if there's a use to it, if it's efficient, or it may not, but why modifying the unit so that it encourages a specific playstyle.. ?
This is a really odd stance on the issue. There's good reason to want immortal drops, as it's 1) interesting to watch 2) highly variable outcome and 3) extremely dependent on skill. Blizzard has very good reasons to want these things to be viable.
On April 16 2015 00:25 NonY wrote: I was hoping for another radical change to the economy. I was hoping that they had several possible directions the economy could go and they'd have the beta testers try them all. Maybe that's still true and they need more time to look at the current one.
The problem is the game is so wildly imbalanced at the moment it is hard to really tell what the eco changes are affecting
"Tempest disintegration ability damage increased to 550, and units under the effect of disintegration can’t regenerate, heal, or repair health." Wut!? just why?! so every unit that gets hit with the spell is more less RIP. I know its a beta but its just another weird thing, suddenly stuff cant be repaired or heal.
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
This so much. Good design is often accidental, nearly by definition. I think that was phrased quite nicely in TheDwf's manifesto.
How does one "accidentally" fix the complete shitfest that is ZvZ?
On April 15 2015 05:40 Daralii wrote: They're opting to buff toss instead of nerfing the ravager or completely destroying the cyclone, which I like. I'd rather they do this than outright remove them because people don't know how to deal with them in the first public build.
Considering Cyclones are about as retarded in TvT as they are in TvP I am not happy they are opting to buff Protoss.
Ravagers are way too powerful for Hatch tech, and Cyclones are way too powerful in general. These two points are obvious, I don't understand why Blizzard needs to take their time with changing these units, I can understand that they want people to actually USE the units but as is, they totally break certain match ups to the point where its impossible to test anything else.
Well. In Hots they were thinking of removing units. The argument was that lower number of units made things much more understandable and created more chances for players to learn to use existing things in new ways. Now in LOTV we seem to be keeping all units and ever adding more, at the risk of obsolescence of older units. That has largely happened with the corrupter, the infestor, and the carrier. Heck, even the ghost.
I think it might be time to remove some units. Honestly, I think the corrupter, tempest can go without too many people being mad. I dislike removing the collosus. Sorry, I do like playing with it. If only for the sheer pleasure of watching dumb Terran marines burn like ants.
On April 16 2015 05:23 Isarios wrote: Well. In Hots they were thinking of removing units. The argument was that lower number of units made things much more understandable and created more chances for players to learn to use existing things in new ways. Now in LOTV we seem to be keeping all units and ever adding more, at the risk of obsolescence of older units. That has largely happened with the corrupter, the infestor, and the carrier. Heck, even the ghost.
I think it might be time to remove some units. Honestly, I think the corrupter, tempest can go without too many people being mad. I dislike removing the collosus. Sorry, I do like playing with it. If only for the sheer pleasure of watching dumb Terran marines burn like ants.
I think the Tempest could have a role as an 8-range, semi-mobile air unit. It could outrange static defense and thus synergize with Oracle and Phoenix (Carriers are too slow for that role).
On April 16 2015 05:23 Isarios wrote: Well. In Hots they were thinking of removing units. The argument was that lower number of units made things much more understandable and created more chances for players to learn to use existing things in new ways. Now in LOTV we seem to be keeping all units and ever adding more, at the risk of obsolescence of older units. That has largely happened with the corrupter, the infestor, and the carrier. Heck, even the ghost.
I think it might be time to remove some units. Honestly, I think the corrupter, tempest can go without too many people being mad. I dislike removing the collosus. Sorry, I do like playing with it. If only for the sheer pleasure of watching dumb Terran marines burn like ants.
If we're removing units, the Collosus should be at the absolute top of the list, especially considering that Blizz is already phasing it out with the Disruptor anyway.
It is the main reason that Protoss has the "1A deathball" stigma attached to it. It's a unit that ONLY functions in Deathballs and whose design has bred units like the Corruptor and Tempest which seemingly serve no other purpose in the game than to balance out Collosus play.
It's not fun. It's a cool piece of art, but it's a terrible unit design.
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
This so much. Good design is often accidental, nearly by definition. I think that was phrased quite nicely in TheDwf's manifesto.
How does one "accidentally" fix the complete shitfest that is ZvZ?
On April 16 2015 01:12 ROOTFayth wrote: I remember Zeromus(I think) had the idea of being able to warpin in a fairly large area around your Nexus with no extra damage or extra warping time, felt like it was a great idea, and the offensive warpin with pylons/warp prism could be weakened
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
On April 15 2015 07:21 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
This so much. Good design is often accidental, nearly by definition. I think that was phrased quite nicely in TheDwf's manifesto.
How does one "accidentally" fix the complete shitfest that is ZvZ?
Let's keep our expectations realistic, here. It took five years for Blizzard to admit the Colossus is a trash unit. No way they touch the Roach earlier than 2020.
On April 16 2015 06:10 The_Red_Viper wrote: They fixed the roach though, it now has an ulti from league of legends and attacks as fast as a hydralisk. Beautiful
this is going to be clipped up on the whiteboard during the blizzsters' next development meeting a month from now reinforcing how great their balance decisions thus far have been.
"great job johnny, at least red viper likes your suggestion!"
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
On April 15 2015 07:21 [PkF] Wire wrote:
On April 15 2015 07:19 Aveng3r wrote: The thing about these updates that always get me is when they say stuff like: "we want to see more lurkers used against roach play" or "we want protoss to be able to use this unit for early game harass"
like why not just design each unit with core abilities and let the players decide when and where they should be used?
This so much. Good design is often accidental, nearly by definition. I think that was phrased quite nicely in TheDwf's manifesto.
How does one "accidentally" fix the complete shitfest that is ZvZ?
Please do not give them ideas. I do not want the roach to have a +50health upgrade on Hive tech that after two weeks just gets implemented and a stupid button that makes roaches send out a miniroach that if it dies becomes a Swarm Host or any other random shit on that unit. I'm happy it is not a complete fucked up gimmick at this point and they are busy trying to fuck up Protoss more than ruin my basic shoot-and-run units.
Some changes from what was announced before, notably a damage point reduction for adept
It doesn't have splash anymore, so they reduced it to the standard value (I guess 0.167 is the standard value now, right?). It's not to make it more microable, it's just that they don't see the need to fuck it up anymore.
First time Blizzard changes a damage point value since WOL alpha? Though I still have no clue why they not just put it at 0. Its not like you are gonna see infinitive sick kiting with its 2.25 movement speed.
On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
Yes, yes i know. I honestly refrain from commenting to all the BW posts. Not because i don't care / don't want to correct them. It just seems like a huge waste of time :s. Which is saying a lot because i've been lurking TL almost every day for the past 5.5 years. You just always have these BW wannabe theorists get so much stuff wrong. Over analyzing the shit out of every little thing simply because it doesn't / isn't BW. News flash this is the third installment of Starcraft '2' not BW 3.0
So i entirely agree with you.
Either way to people who want a list of more BW things: Lurker has been added, disruptor is kind of similar to the reaver at least 30%. Terrible terrible damage unit with high micro-ability + warp prism 7range pick up. The ability to store 2 disruptors in them at one moment or an immortal. Secondly i'm 100% aware it's not the same unit but then again blizzard already said they weren't going to bring back the reaver so stop beating the dead horse for more minutes of your life. People who actually like the design of sc2 are getting real tired of this nonsensical complaining about something that will never happen.
Third: current state of the disruptor is nothing compared to how it'll function in the game at lotv launch or even for the next few weeks/months. ( same for cyclone / ravagers) fourth: All current units/stats will still change and be adjusted. fifth: Same thing when it comes to the in game economy... don't believe me ? feel free to be a bitter-ist but i do happily challenge you to reconsider or see if i'm wrong.
As Rotterdam brought up in the lotv showmatches he would like to see if the economy in lotv was distributed equally so all patches can deplete around the same time. If you too like this "concept" then go do something useful and speculate/ do the math. Instead of complaining about all the stuff that hasn't happend yet, you could do something how does that sound?
Or i guess you can continue to drop 3-5 sentences posts(or even less) about how "blizzard bad *grrr* Lol relevance is an entire different thing than just your initial gut feelings/ opinions.
Tldr; please staph with knee jerk non mathematical emotion tantrums on TL. This place should be a safe haven for strategy and analysis/ enjoyment regarding starcraft/ other stuff we like that actually makes sense to be posted here.
this so much. i wonder how much people would complain about the lurker if it wasn't in BW "omg blizzard are you retarded!? a burrow and kill everything unit that requires no skill to use but massive skill to play against. DK should be fired immediately!!!" Now people even want the BW economy and try to convince others with stupid arguments that make no sense like "you get rewarded for expanding but not punished if you don't expand" which is complete bs because you get punished if you have a lower income than your opponent. if you just want sc2 to be BW2 please just say it and don't try to develope ridicolous arguments why BW should be better.
To be fair, the push for tempest doesn't exactly speak highly of the dev team either. And had I the choice, I'd rather they test out even one economic mechanism change rather than trying to cram in disintegration.
Then again, I'd agree to a lot of changes to the opportunity cost of disintegration.
On April 16 2015 08:15 Spect8rCraft wrote: To be fair, the push for tempest doesn't exactly speak highly of the dev team either. And had I the choice, I'd rather they test out even one economic mechanism change rather than trying to cram in disintegration.
Then again, I'd agree to a lot of changes to the opportunity cost of disintegration.
I'd probably really like it as an ability if it was reduced to something like 120 damage and given a moderately brief cooldown. That having been said, I'm not a huge fan of the Tempest as a whole, regardless of disintegration. The Carrier is just so much more interesting as a capital ship. I'd like to see the Tempest slightly redesigned as more of a dedicated artillery unit, or moved to be similar to its iteration in the HotS alpha, where it was designed to be a counter to mass Mutalisks, a problem that Protoss are currently facing int he LotV beta, with the introduction of Parasitic Bomb. Tempests with splash demoed here:
People have a sentimental soft-spot for the BW units. They brought back the Lurker for Zerg, and everyone was happy about that.
If Blizz was smart, they would find a way to bring back one of the core units for Protoss and Terran. Imagine how much more excited players would be if the Goliath and Reaver made it back for LOTV? If they made the lurker work in SC2 they can make these units work too.
On April 16 2015 03:12 cheekymonkey wrote: Its funny how most people are positive towards each change, but negative overall.
LOTV is Obamacare in space?
On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
Look at the DotA model. Respect a great platform and tweak it.
And a slightly more accessible touched up BW would do work on the multiplayer level. How many westerners really played the multiplayer?
they did adjust the damage point, but i wish they had mentioned it in the first post. i was frustrated when i did not see any mention of it, then was relieved when i read it in these notes. they still didn't talk about it...
for someone who doesnt have a beta key...could anyone give a brief statement whats not looking good in the beta and why is everybody talking about the economy? is this 12worker thing not doing good for the game?
On April 16 2015 19:30 Terence Chill wrote: for someone who doesnt have a beta key...could anyone give a brief statement whats not looking good in the beta and why is everybody talking about the economy? is this 12worker thing not doing good for the game?
Protoss = Fucked. Ravager = Too strong (but maybe that can be fixed by buffing protoss?) Cyclone = Insane range and damage. Can't be attacked in the proces. Very OP.
Economy =/ 12 starting workers.
Economy = You mine out much faster.
This means you have to constantly take bases at a faster rate. In BW on the other hand: You didn't mine out faster but if you took extra bases you had more income than someone with less bases. This meant you could have a higher income than someone with on fewer bases --> you could armytrade efficiently more easy (even without being cost efficient). Hence the economy created an addiitonal counter to turtling than just cost efficieny.
In LOTV you just constantly take bases and everyone is super mobile. You can't stay on fewer bases with an immobile defensive composition as in BW --> Results in less diversity and a feeling of constantly being in the midgame.
The question is ofc whether a defensive (and perhaps semi-turtly) midgame style should be viable or whether the game should be all about constant action with mobile armies in the midgame?
On April 16 2015 00:56 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please increase the supply cap to 250. Without all these 3/4 supply units and huge maps, how is 200 supply sfficient?
dude I almost never get to 200 with the new economy, so please
To be honest, I think the 200 supply cap is a very artificial and arbitrary limitation on the game. There is no cap on how many buildings or defensive structures you can build, so why should there be one for units?
It is the main reason why we see late game deathball/stalemate situation with each side banking thousands of resources and maxed out armies yet afraid to engage in each other or commit to decisive battles. This is because when both players are maxed out and have equivalent quality of army compositions, it becomes very hard to exploit economical advantages to gain an advantage and overwhelm the enemy through superior numbers. Similarly, it is also hard to attain superiority in army composition since each new unit your produce has to replace some other unit you have.
If there no supply cap, we would actually see interesting battles where small amounts of high tech expensive fight against hordes of cheap low tech units. Also, it would make enemy death balls impractical since you have both the supply to defend against it yet and also counter attack/harass the enemy's base. A player would have wider set of strategic options to counter how his opponent plays.
Blizzard should experiment with removing the supply cap and simply make supply depots/pylons/overlords give steadily less supply as more are built. For example, after building 20 supply depots, a new supply depot gives 6 supply. After 40, new supply depot gives 4 supply and so on.
This way, the supply of both the player and his opponent is ultimately determined through their strategic and tactical interactions (build order, economy, battles, etc) as well as the amount of resources of the map. Of course, Blizzard needs to adjust macro mechanics like larva inject for balancing reasons.
TLDR: Supply caps are bad for the game because they encourage deathballs and stalemate situations and limit the strategic depth of the game.
On April 16 2015 00:56 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please increase the supply cap to 250. Without all these 3/4 supply units and huge maps, how is 200 supply sfficient?
dude I almost never get to 200 with the new economy, so please
To be honest, I think the 200 supply cap is a very artificial and arbitrary limitation on the game. There is no cap on how many buildings or defensive structures you can build, so why should there be one for units?
It is the main reason why we see late game deathball/stalemate situation with each side banking thousands of resources and maxed out armies yet afraid to engage in each other or commit to decisive battles. This is because when both players are maxed out and have equivalent quality of army compositions, it becomes very hard to exploit economical advantages to gain an advantage and overwhelm the enemy through superior numbers. Similarly, it is also hard to attain superiority in army composition since each new unit your produce has to replace some other unit you have.
If there no supply cap, we would actually see interesting battles where small amounts of high tech expensive fight against hordes of cheap low tech units. Also, it would make enemy death balls impractical since you have both the supply to defend against it yet and also counter attack/harass the enemy's base. A player would have wider set of strategic options to counter how his opponent plays.
Blizzard should experiment with removing the supply cap and simply make supply depots/pylons/overlords give steadily less supply as more are built. For example, after building 20 supply depots, a new supply depot gives 6 supply. After 40, new supply depot gives 4 supply and so on.
This way, the supply of both the player and his opponent is ultimately determined through their strategic and tactical interactions (build order, economy, battles, etc) as well as the amount of resources of the map. Of course, Blizzard needs to adjust macro mechanics like larva inject for balancing reasons.
TLDR: Supply caps are bad for the game because they encourage deathballs and stalemate situations and limit the strategic depth of the game.
A supply cap isn't so much a problem (and it needs to be there considering computers start dying when you try to make too many units), the problem is that the cap of 200 is very outdated at this point. The cap is reached insanely fast and, as you say, at that point there is not a lot you can do to capitalize on an economic advantage, since you can't produce more units.
They should either raise the cap, do something to make reaching 200 supply take a lot longer.
They fixed the lag that was very noticeable when controlling protoss units. For example if you tried to issue a move command right after a spell cast on an adept or stalker they would not blink or send their shade out. However, it seems as if that has been fixed and the units are more responsive in that manner once again.
The upgrade on the adept is actually pretty nice I think. It helps the unit fulfill a greater role in the late game and still offers it good end game harassment options. The only grudge I have with it is that it is 100 second upgrade. Considering DT shrine is only 71 seconds now I feel like this upgrade should be a little bit lower since it is only a 100/100 upgrade. Maybe 85 or 80?
Lastly, why are all of the unit movement speeds completely changed? I am pretty sure a lot of them are just arbitrarily changed for LotV and perhaps the timer in game change; but seriously, I am 100% positive the zealot has been nerfed.
On April 15 2015 05:58 MrMatt wrote: I was hoping for at least a mention of all the economy discussion happening lately.
Some have a hard time to adapt to the changes after years of classic SC2 economy, so within two weeks they rather criticise the Lotv economy which was internally tested for many weeks/months at Blizzard, because that company just don't know how to make good games.
On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
Yes, yes i know. I honestly refrain from commenting to all the BW posts. Not because i don't care / don't want to correct them. It just seems like a huge waste of time :s. Which is saying a lot because i've been lurking TL almost every day for the past 5.5 years. You just always have these BW wannabe theorists get so much stuff wrong. Over analyzing the shit out of every little thing simply because it doesn't / isn't BW. News flash this is the third installment of Starcraft '2' not BW 3.0
So i entirely agree with you.
Either way to people who want a list of more BW things: Lurker has been added, disruptor is kind of similar to the reaver at least 30%. Terrible terrible damage unit with high micro-ability + warp prism 7range pick up. The ability to store 2 disruptors in them at one moment or an immortal. Secondly i'm 100% aware it's not the same unit but then again blizzard already said they weren't going to bring back the reaver so stop beating the dead horse for more minutes of your life. People who actually like the design of sc2 are getting real tired of this nonsensical complaining about something that will never happen.
Third: current state of the disruptor is nothing compared to how it'll function in the game at lotv launch or even for the next few weeks/months. ( same for cyclone / ravagers) fourth: All current units/stats will still change and be adjusted. fifth: Same thing when it comes to the in game economy... don't believe me ? feel free to be a bitter-ist but i do happily challenge you to reconsider or see if i'm wrong.
As Rotterdam brought up in the lotv showmatches he would like to see if the economy in lotv was distributed equally so all patches can deplete around the same time. If you too like this "concept" then go do something useful and speculate/ do the math. Instead of complaining about all the stuff that hasn't happend yet, you could do something how does that sound?
Or i guess you can continue to drop 3-5 sentences posts(or even less) about how "blizzard bad *grrr* Lol relevance is an entire different thing than just your initial gut feelings/ opinions.
Tldr; please staph with knee jerk non mathematical emotion tantrums on TL. This place should be a safe haven for strategy and analysis/ enjoyment regarding starcraft/ other stuff we like that actually makes sense to be posted here.
this so much. i wonder how much people would complain about the lurker if it wasn't in BW "omg blizzard are you retarded!? a burrow and kill everything unit that requires no skill to use but massive skill to play against. DK should be fired immediately!!!" Now people even want the BW economy and try to convince others with stupid arguments that make no sense like "you get rewarded for expanding but not punished if you don't expand" which is complete bs because you get punished if you have a lower income than your opponent. if you just want sc2 to be BW2 please just say it and don't try to develope ridicolous arguments why BW should be better.
I'm a bit confused by such small changes, but hope they have an internal deadline for larger changes... e.g. "After 2 months we begin crafting larger changes (economy core unit design etc.), once people have just begin figuring out the integration opportunities for new units, new economies, maps, etc..
On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote: Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split - Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented...
Yes, yes i know. I honestly refrain from commenting to all the BW posts. Not because i don't care / don't want to correct them. It just seems like a huge waste of time :s. Which is saying a lot because i've been lurking TL almost every day for the past 5.5 years. You just always have these BW wannabe theorists get so much stuff wrong. Over analyzing the shit out of every little thing simply because it doesn't / isn't BW. News flash this is the third installment of Starcraft '2' not BW 3.0
So i entirely agree with you.
Either way to people who want a list of more BW things: Lurker has been added, disruptor is kind of similar to the reaver at least 30%. Terrible terrible damage unit with high micro-ability + warp prism 7range pick up. The ability to store 2 disruptors in them at one moment or an immortal. Secondly i'm 100% aware it's not the same unit but then again blizzard already said they weren't going to bring back the reaver so stop beating the dead horse for more minutes of your life. People who actually like the design of sc2 are getting real tired of this nonsensical complaining about something that will never happen.
Third: current state of the disruptor is nothing compared to how it'll function in the game at lotv launch or even for the next few weeks/months. ( same for cyclone / ravagers) fourth: All current units/stats will still change and be adjusted. fifth: Same thing when it comes to the in game economy... don't believe me ? feel free to be a bitter-ist but i do happily challenge you to reconsider or see if i'm wrong.
As Rotterdam brought up in the lotv showmatches he would like to see if the economy in lotv was distributed equally so all patches can deplete around the same time. If you too like this "concept" then go do something useful and speculate/ do the math. Instead of complaining about all the stuff that hasn't happend yet, you could do something how does that sound?
Or i guess you can continue to drop 3-5 sentences posts(or even less) about how "blizzard bad *grrr* Lol relevance is an entire different thing than just your initial gut feelings/ opinions.
Tldr; please staph with knee jerk non mathematical emotion tantrums on TL. This place should be a safe haven for strategy and analysis/ enjoyment regarding starcraft/ other stuff we like that actually makes sense to be posted here.
this so much. i wonder how much people would complain about the lurker if it wasn't in BW "omg blizzard are you retarded!? a burrow and kill everything unit that requires no skill to use but massive skill to play against. DK should be fired immediately!!!" Now people even want the BW economy and try to convince others with stupid arguments that make no sense like "you get rewarded for expanding but not punished if you don't expand" which is complete bs because you get punished if you have a lower income than your opponent. if you just want sc2 to be BW2 please just say it and don't try to develope ridicolous arguments why BW should be better.
I don't think you understand rewards and punishment.
Rewarding someone is giving them something the like, or removing something they don't like when they do something or don't do something.Jimmy cleaned his room and didn't swear today, I'll give him a cookie. (That assumes Jimmy likes cookies).
BW rewarded a player for expanding far more than SC2, because multiple bases increased income with the same amount of workers.
However, you don't lose anything you already have if you don't expand in WOL, HOTS or BW. You just don't improve your income. That isn't a form of punishment. If Jimmy is only rewarded for his behavior, then if he doesn't clean his room the only result is that he doesn't earn a cookie. He doesn't lose anything, he just missed out on an opportunity to gain something.
Applying that to SC, I can forgo an expansion (more income) while building 3 more Gates so I can 4 Gate you. That is my choice, not a punishment. I'm choosing to stay on one base income so I can attack as powerfully as possible.
Punishing someone is removing something someone wants or applying something they don't want when they do something or don't do something.Jimmy didn't clean his room and swore today, I'm going to give him a spanking. (That assumes Jimmy doesn't like spankings).
LOTV punishes a player much more than HOTS, WOL or BW for not expanding, because it decreases your income by 50% when the reduced nodes run out. Therefore, it is a form of punishment because you lose 50% of the income you normally would have had in HOTS or WOL after those nodes run out, and being on such a limited income is crippling. So you must expand faster in LOTV, that isn't a choice. And that is the problem there are less choices to make in LOTV, and thus less strategies to play.
So, if I choose to forgo my expansion (more income) while building 3 more Gates so I can 4 Gate you, I can, but I'm on a much shorter timer than in HOTS or WOL because my reduced nodes run out. Therefore strategic variety, is limited by a reduction of income to the reduced mineral nodes.
And this isn't just a problem with one base all-ins, it is a problem for anyone who wants to expand at a slower rate as a strategic choice.
So there you have it. The argument is not complete "bs", it is logically sound. But to you it probably seems like I just "develope a ridicolous" argument. But that isn't my fault.
On April 15 2015 05:58 MrMatt wrote: I was hoping for at least a mention of all the economy discussion happening lately.
Some have a hard time to adapt to the changes after years of classic SC2 economy, so within two weeks they rather criticise the Lotv economy which was internally tested for many weeks/months at Blizzard, because that company just don't know how to make good games.
I know right, I mean they make such great units! I'm going to go play HOTS now and build some Warhounds and wreck face.
But, like the universe, BW's success was not due to intelligent design. BW simply happened to be balanced when things like Muta-stacking that Blizzard never intended to happen, happened and balanced the game. So it wasn't Blizzard that made BW what it was.
Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing. There is more than enough evidence to show that.
So Blizzard wants adept to be viable in small numbers just for early harassment but it should still be viable in mid/late game. Does anyone see a problem with that? :D
On April 17 2015 02:44 darkness wrote: So Blizzard wants adept to be viable in small numbers just for early harassment but it should still be viable in mid/late game. Does anyone see a problem with that? :D
The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
On April 17 2015 02:44 darkness wrote: So Blizzard wants adept to be viable in small numbers just for early harassment but it should still be viable in mid/late game. Does anyone see a problem with that? :D
Hint: you can't have both.
Unless some sort of sarcasm is escaping me, isn't this exactly what widow mines does?
On April 17 2015 01:15 BronzeKnee wrote: (That assumes Jimmy doesn't like spankings).
Oh boy.
In all seriousness, the peanut gallery that is attacking these proposals simply because bw is used in the discussion is sadly missing the point, I'm glad you took the time to explain it.
Someone might prefer the paired worker system, but they shouldn't prefer it solely because it wasn't in bw, no more than someone should prefer a non paired system solely because it was. As it happens, the people who put this together went to great lengths to explain the strategic impact both systems have on the game and the only reason bw comes up is because it makes a good point of comparison, not because anyone is trying to rob sc2 of its identity.
The tribalism (which is what all this "don't make my game anymore like bw" amounts to, at least in this thread) is not constructive.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
If [# of workers] > [8], building an expansion ("expanding") without any additional worker production increases your income only when there is less than 100% efficiency for two workers on one mineral patch. Therefore you have increased income (you are "rewarded") for expanding in harvesting systems like double-harvest while you would not be rewarded for expanding in similar situations in the current SC2 harvesting system.
Concerning the accelerated loss of income ("punishment"), from what I can understand LotV mineral layout cuts income by 50% 1/3 of the way through the normal duration of a base's total mineral supply.
You may disagree with the semantics of "reward/punishment," but phrased instead as income increase without additional worker production and accelerated income loss respectively I am sure we can agree on the existence of these trends and perhaps move on to more substantial discussion of the merits or demerits of each system.
On April 15 2015 05:58 MrMatt wrote: I was hoping for at least a mention of all the economy discussion happening lately.
Some have a hard time to adapt to the changes after years of classic SC2 economy, so within two weeks they rather criticise the Lotv economy which was internally tested for many weeks/months at Blizzard, because that company just don't know how to make good games.
I know right, I mean they make such great units! I'm going to go play HOTS now and build some Warhounds and wreck face.
But, like the universe, BW's success was not due to intelligent design. BW simply happened to be balanced when things like Muta-stacking that Blizzard never intended to happen, happened and balanced the game. So it wasn't Blizzard that made BW what it was.
Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing. There is more than enough evidence to show that.
Yeah, since there is no other successful game from Blizzard beside Broodwar, it is further proof they are clueless. Oh, wait ...
Also, to the rest: the economy forum post was made on April 12th for the economy. They released this patch 3 days later. I'm sure they discussed what they thought they wanted to change first right after Blizzcon. It takes time to plan, change, and make small tests and then implement. Obviously they aren't going to try something so huge as this economy change in that short a time...
You can't be surprised that Blizzard is having a hard time making SC2 a fun and balanced game. Balancing a game like this is very new, nobody is really mastering that "art", you can't be graduated with a phd in balancing video games... So... This might explain also that we see some good ideas on TL forums because some dedicated time to think about that.
On April 16 2015 00:56 Loccstana wrote: Blizzard please increase the supply cap to 250. Without all these 3/4 supply units and huge maps, how is 200 supply sfficient?
dude I almost never get to 200 with the new economy, so please
To be honest, I think the 200 supply cap is a very artificial and arbitrary limitation on the game. There is no cap on how many buildings or defensive structures you can build, so why should there be one for units?
It is the main reason why we see late game deathball/stalemate situation with each side banking thousands of resources and maxed out armies yet afraid to engage in each other or commit to decisive battles. This is because when both players are maxed out and have equivalent quality of army compositions, it becomes very hard to exploit economical advantages to gain an advantage and overwhelm the enemy through superior numbers. Similarly, it is also hard to attain superiority in army composition since each new unit your produce has to replace some other unit you have.
If there no supply cap, we would actually see interesting battles where small amounts of high tech expensive fight against hordes of cheap low tech units. Also, it would make enemy death balls impractical since you have both the supply to defend against it yet and also counter attack/harass the enemy's base. A player would have wider set of strategic options to counter how his opponent plays.
Blizzard should experiment with removing the supply cap and simply make supply depots/pylons/overlords give steadily less supply as more are built. For example, after building 20 supply depots, a new supply depot gives 6 supply. After 40, new supply depot gives 4 supply and so on.
This way, the supply of both the player and his opponent is ultimately determined through their strategic and tactical interactions (build order, economy, battles, etc) as well as the amount of resources of the map. Of course, Blizzard needs to adjust macro mechanics like larva inject for balancing reasons.
TLDR: Supply caps are bad for the game because they encourage deathballs and stalemate situations and limit the strategic depth of the game.
A supply cap isn't so much a problem (and it needs to be there considering computers start dying when you try to make too many units), the problem is that the cap of 200 is very outdated at this point. The cap is reached insanely fast and, as you say, at that point there is not a lot you can do to capitalize on an economic advantage, since you can't produce more units.
They should either raise the cap, do something to make reaching 200 supply take a lot longer.
I don't know if the supply cap is still a problem, since there might be more action in LotV and there might be generally lower economy in LotV. Both lead to reaching the supply cap less often.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
The idea about punishment vs reward is that in one scenario you are encouraged to slowly gain an advantage by carefully managing the risks associated with expanding, while in the other if you fail to march in lockstep and can no longer catch your breath you are shot and you will die. In both scenarios one player wins and the other loses, but the framing is rather different.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
If [# of workers] > [8], building an expansion ("expanding") without any additional worker production increases your income only when there is less than 100% efficiency for two workers on one mineral patch. Therefore you have increased income (you are "rewarded") for expanding in harvesting systems like double-harvest while you would not be rewarded for expanding in similar situations in the current SC2 harvesting system.
Concerning the accelerated loss of income ("punishment"), from what I can understand LotV mineral layout cuts income by 50% 1/3 of the way through the normal duration of a base's total mineral supply.
You may disagree with the semantics of "reward/punishment," but phrased instead as income increase without additional worker production and accelerated income loss respectively I am sure we can agree on the existence of these trends and perhaps move on to more substantial discussion of the merits or demerits of each system.
I'm in favour of trying the DH system, or something similar.
I just don't like the reward/punishment narrative because it's distracting and emotive. Someone looking at this article who might be tempted to dismiss it as BW nostalgia will take this as confirmation. BW rewards, SC2 punishes. It also tacitly assumes the conclusion: reward is by definition better than punishment; do you want a system that rewards, or one that punishes?
What DH does is:
1. Smooth out the bump in a fast expand. The investment in the extra base is paid off more quickly even without making extra workers, so you're less behind. Is that a good thing? Sounds to me like it punishes one base aggression.
2. Accelerate the economy. The 12 worker start cuts a chunk from the start of the game, but the subsequent curve is unchanged and the half-patches actually tend to retard growth. DH on the other hand steepens the curve: workers bring in more resources which means supply increases faster at any given level of supply. Is that a good thing? Surely that means smaller timing windows and less time to act, which (I'm told) negates strategy.
3. Soften the effective base limit, soften the effect of losing half a saturated mineral line - all the intended benefits.
I'm not convinced yet. Gut feeling is that DH could result in everyone going for three or four bases before doing anything interesting, because the advantage of spreading workers out sooner rather than later is too great to overcome with early aggression.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
The idea about punishment vs reward is that in one scenario you are encouraged to slowly gain an advantage by carefully managing the risks associated with expanding, while in the other if you fail to march in lockstep and can no longer catch your breath you are shot and you will die. In both scenarios one player wins and the other loses, but the framing is rather different.
It still makes no sense to frame it as punishment vs reward. It's a question of severity and rapidity of consequences.
It's fine to argue "LotV is too unstable. The income drop from the half patches creates too large an income discrepancy between someone who has taken a fast third versus someone whose expansion has been delayed. Instead of ramping up to 24 vs 16 mining patches, it very abruptly becomes 20 vs 12 or even 8. The window to recover from that is too small and depends on coin-flippy harassment."
I just find punishment/reward to be a false distinction that distracts more than it explains.
On April 17 2015 09:23 Umpteen wrote: What DH does is:
1. Smooth out the bump in a fast expand. The investment in the extra base is paid off more quickly even without making extra workers, so you're less behind. Is that a good thing? Sounds to me like it punishes one base aggression.
I agree with you that a double-harvest model makes expanding easier to do and harder to pressure. Additionally, if I understand how LotV works versus how the proposed double-harvest (or similar) models work, the LotV harvesting model makes one-base aggression win-or-die. What is your understanding here?
2. Accelerate the economy. The 12 worker start cuts a chunk from the start of the game, but the subsequent curve is unchanged and the half-patches actually tend to retard growth. DH on the other hand steepens the curve: workers bring in more resources which means supply increases faster at any given level of supply. Is that a good thing? Surely that means smaller timing windows and less time to act, which (I'm told) negates strategy.
Barrin's recent graph in the parent thread of this conversation shows the following about one-base income:
reducing the amount of total minerals gathered per harvester per trip to 8 puts double-harvest income at roughly 25 minerals per minute more than HotS with 5-10 workers, after which point HotS income increases much more rapidly. Specifically, at 12 workers 8-mineral double-harvest income is roughly 25 minerals per minute below HotS income.
reducing the amount of total minerals gathered per harvester per trip to 9 puts double-harvest income at roughly 50 minerals per minute (on average) higher than HotS until 14/15 workers, after which point HotS income increases moderately over double-harvest. Specifically, at 12 workers 9-mineral double-harvest income is roughly 25 minerals per minute above HotS income.
I think it is a mistake to assume that double-harvest must mean 10-minerals-per-trip. ZeromuS wrote that he tended toward a higher income in order to follow what he perceives to be Blizzard's intent of speeding up the game, but the numbers can easily be tweaked.
I'm not convinced yet. Gut feeling is that DH could result in everyone going for three or four bases before doing anything interesting, because the advantage of spreading workers out sooner rather than later is too great to overcome with early aggression.
As noted by ZeromuS, worker harassment actually becomes much more effective in systems where workers are spread over more bases. I think the early game interaction would not necessarily pan out as stale as your gut tells you, however that would have to be observed to tell either way. It is possible, for example, that two base would become the standard early game while simultaneously providing for a broader range of strategy.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
The idea about punishment vs reward is that in one scenario you are encouraged to slowly gain an advantage by carefully managing the risks associated with expanding, while in the other if you fail to march in lockstep and can no longer catch your breath you are shot and you will die. In both scenarios one player wins and the other loses, but the framing is rather different.
It still makes no sense to frame it as punishment vs reward. It's a question of severity and rapidity of consequences.
It's fine to argue "LotV is too unstable. The income drop from the half patches creates too large an income discrepancy between someone who has taken a fast third versus someone whose expansion has been delayed. Instead of ramping up to 24 vs 16 mining patches, it very abruptly becomes 20 vs 12 or even 8. The window to recover from that is too small and depends on coin-flippy harassment."
I just find punishment/reward to be a false distinction that distracts more than it explains.
Sure, but this is the same community that obsesses about "you should buff, not nerf" which is equally meaningless. Reward instead of punishment sounds catchy and is a useful phrase to repeat as it does highlight an important nuance in the difference between lotv and dh.
At one point he was asked: "What is the purpose/role of the Raven?"
David Kim answers: We hope to see it in battles, but just not these prolonged battles".
What is that for an answer? ? A role =/ whether its useful or not. A role on the other hand is supposed to fit a strategic purpose. Allow you to be more cost efficient vs certain compositions. Allow you play more aggressive or secure expansions safer. A proper answer would instead have looked at whether its really good for the game if terran can block ranged shots when going for Ravens.
There wasn't even any mentioning of micro interactions either (where its pretty bad since PDD is still a spam-ability w/ no realistic counterplay).
Sure, but this is the same community that obsesses about "you should buff, not nerf" which is equally meaningless.
I blame DOTA and people in the SC community for misapplying the "If everything is OP, nothing is OP"-phrases. Dota is designed around hardcounters and P/B-system, which cannot in anyway be applied into Starcraft. One would think that rational people would have reassessed whether the concept made sense after WOL-Fungal became a reality.
I'm not convinced yet. Gut feeling is that DH could result in everyone going for three or four bases before doing anything interesting, because the advantage of spreading workers out sooner rather than later is too great to overcome with early aggression.
In a game balanced around mobile units (such as in LOTV), you can both attack and take bases at the same time. In a game balanced around immobile vs mobile units, the defensive player has to choose. If there is no benefit to have +16 workers in a base, this type of econ could indeed result in more passive gameplay.
On April 17 2015 09:23 Umpteen wrote: What DH does is:
1. Smooth out the bump in a fast expand. The investment in the extra base is paid off more quickly even without making extra workers, so you're less behind. Is that a good thing? Sounds to me like it punishes one base aggression.
I agree with you that a double-harvest model makes expanding easier to do and harder to pressure. Additionally, if I understand how LotV works versus how the proposed double-harvest (or similar) models work, the LotV harvesting model makes one-base aggression win-or-die. What is your understanding here?
Oh, the LotV version probably punishes one base aggression too That's the problem with using that kind of language: the reader is free to imagine what you're talking about 'punishment' being relative to. HotS? LotV? Doing something else in the same game?
To me it looks inevitable that DH will reduce the viability of one base aggression compared to HotS because your opponent won't be as far behind (if at all) when you get to him. My worry is the same might be true for two-base aggression versus a fast third.
In LotV, it's not the half patches that punishes early aggression so much as the extra starting workers. Because you're both starting further along the worker curve, the economic gap widens more quickly, earlier, meaning that again the investment in an expansion pays off sooner and the window for aggression to work is shrunk. Half patches in themselves would merely make the outcome of early aggression more extreme, one way or another.
2. Accelerate the economy. The 12 worker start cuts a chunk from the start of the game, but the subsequent curve is unchanged and the half-patches actually tend to retard growth. DH on the other hand steepens the curve: workers bring in more resources which means supply increases faster at any given level of supply. Is that a good thing? Surely that means smaller timing windows and less time to act, which (I'm told) negates strategy.
Barrin's recent graph in the parent thread of this conversation shows the following about one-base income:
reducing the amount of total minerals gathered per harvester per trip to 8 puts double-harvest income at roughly 25 minerals per minute more than HotS with 5-10 workers, after which point HotS income increases much more rapidly. Specifically, at 12 workers 8-mineral double-harvest income is roughly 25 minerals per minute below HotS income.
reducing the amount of total minerals gathered per harvester per trip to 9 puts double-harvest income at roughly 50 minerals per minute (on average) higher than HotS until 14/15 workers, after which point HotS income increases moderately over double-harvest. Specifically, at 12 workers 9-mineral double-harvest income is roughly 25 minerals per minute above HotS income.
I think it is a mistake to assume that double-harvest must mean 10-minerals-per-trip. ZeromuS wrote that he tended toward a higher income in order to follow what he perceives to be Blizzard's intent of speeding up the game, but the numbers can easily be tweaked. [/quote]
Absolutely. I think experimenting with different numbers of starting workers returning different amounts of minerals could well prove fruitful.
I'm not convinced yet. Gut feeling is that DH could result in everyone going for three or four bases before doing anything interesting, because the advantage of spreading workers out sooner rather than later is too great to overcome with early aggression.
As noted by ZeromuS, worker harassment actually becomes much more effective in systems where workers are spread over more bases. I think the early game interaction would not necessarily pan out as stale as your gut tells you, however that would have to be observed to tell either way. It is possible, for example, that two base would become the standard early game while simultaneously providing for a broader range of strategy.
[/quote]
Maybe. The harassment might be more effective in terms of killing workers, but then the guy on more bases can afford to lose (and replace) more because he's streaking ahead in economy. A tricky balancing act.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
Dude, then Nexus first and I will Proxy 2 Gate you. You expanded, how did that reward work out for ya? I mean, how could you lose, I should have been punished for not expanding... right? That is what you just said.
Does it make sense now? Expanding is a strategic choice with risks and rewards in HOTS, it isn't always better. And not expanding, isn't always worse, this is a strategy game.
I am going to assume that this assumption that people must expand, and that is it is the better choice no matter what comes from low level players because it ignores the history of Starcraft. Because timing attacks is what made the Protoss race successful. MC won a GSL title with timing attacks against July.
He didn't constantly expand. Puma didn't expand when he ran over everyone with the 1-1-1. And the Soultrain is powered by two bases baby, who cares how many bases the Zerg takes.
Expanding isn't always better. Expanding should be a choice with risks and reward. Just like doing a timing attack should be. And with the idea that expanding is always better shown to be clearly wrong, the rest of your argument fails.
The point here is that expanding is being forced in LOTV. And that is a bad thing because it reduces strategic variation. As someone else put it, Starcraft is starting to lose the S in RTS because you don't choose if you want to expand anymore or not, you just expand now because it always better. That one less choice has a massive effect on the strategies that can employed.
And that is actually really sad, because I loved Starcraft. And the thing I loved was most is that back in WOL you made the game your own. If you put enough time into it, you could make any style function, whether it was gaulzi's cannon rushes, MC's timing attacks, or Idra's macro. Starcraft was what you wanted it to be.
My point is that just because Blizzard made some good games, doesn't mean they will continue to make good games. It doesn't give them a free pass for anything.
I like HotS and I think it is fairly close to be a really good game. I dont think LotV, in general, improve the state of HotS, so far.
I hope Blizzard keeps this update rate of 2 weeks but with bigger changes.
Wouldn't the easiest thing just be to reduce the number of patches at each base but increase the mineral count to where each base still has the same total minerals?
This has the same effect as BW of reducing the number of workers that can efficiently mine at once base. So it rewards players for taking more bases without REQUIRING them to because they've run out of minerals in their main 2 minutes in.
So for example, you could have 6-7 patches instead of 8. This makes it so that your 13th or 15th worker mine a lot more efficiently at an expansion. Currently it's 8x2 so 16 workers per base x 3 = 48 workers on minerals.
At 6 patches, you'd need 4 bases to mine as efficently At 7 patches it's about 3.5 bases (so you still gain something from taking a 4th).
Wouldn't the easiest thing just be to reduce the number of patches at each base but increase the mineral count to where each base still has the same total minerals?
This has the same effect as BW of reducing the number of workers that can efficiently mine at once base. So it rewards players for taking more bases without REQUIRING them to because they've run out of minerals in their main 2 minutes in.
So for example, you could have 6-7 patches instead of 8. This makes it so that your 13th or 15th worker mine a lot more efficiently at an expansion. Currently it's 8x2 so 16 workers per base x 3 = 48 workers on minerals.
At 6 patches, you'd need 4 bases to mine as efficently At 7 patches it's about 3.5 bases (so you still gain something from taking a 4th).
Thoughts?
Good idea, but it would slow down the game considerably unless you also sped up working mining.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
Dude, then Nexus first and I will Proxy 2 Gate you. You expanded, how did that reward work out for ya? I mean, how could you lose, I should have been punished for not expanding... right? That is what you just said.
Thanks for further proving my point - which, if you check, was that it makes no sense to say one game punishes and the other rewards. I'll happily take your examples as further support for that.
The point here is that expanding is being forced in LOTV. And that is a bad thing because it reduces strategic variation. As someone else put it, Starcraft is starting to lose the S in RTS because you don't choose if you want to expand anymore or not, you just expand now because it always better. That one less choice has a massive effect on the strategies that can employed.
This, too, I'm perfectly happy to agree with. If you read my other posts, I was not in any way suggesting otherwise. I can totally get behind the idea that LotV's half patch system makes the game 'all about dat (next) base'.
ALL I was arguing against was the use of 'punish vs reward' because it's a terrible, ambiguous, misleading way to describe what's going on, because it relies entirely on the reader's interpretation of what 'punishment' or 'reward' is relative to. If it happens to match what you intended, understanding will occur. If it doesn't - and it clearly often hasn't - it just gets in the way.
Wouldn't the easiest thing just be to reduce the number of patches at each base but increase the mineral count to where each base still has the same total minerals?
This has the same effect as BW of reducing the number of workers that can efficiently mine at once base. So it rewards players for taking more bases without REQUIRING them to because they've run out of minerals in their main 2 minutes in.
So for example, you could have 6-7 patches instead of 8. This makes it so that your 13th or 15th worker mine a lot more efficiently at an expansion. Currently it's 8x2 so 16 workers per base x 3 = 48 workers on minerals.
At 6 patches, you'd need 4 bases to mine as efficently At 7 patches it's about 3.5 bases (so you still gain something from taking a 4th).
Thoughts?
Good idea, but it would slow down the game considerably unless you also sped up working mining.
So speed up worker mining a little bit to compensate. Voila.
You know... We had aggressive play in WoL because of map design. Look at Xel'Naga Caverns and Metalopolis. Community hates those maps now, mainly because protoss cannot survive without being able to turtle.
In any case I don't see why we can only have one standard for resources in the map pool. I think there ought to be a diversity of maps with scarce resources, as well as maps reflecting the current HOTS standard, and easy money maps like BGH for the unranked queue. Just give people more vetoes to compensate. Maps are the easiest way to rebalance the game and enable/prevent different playstyles. It's crazy to not make full use of the flexibility they give.
Didn't want to make a new thread about it. Hopefully a lot more people will get into beta and start testing the crap out of these stuff and we could see more frequent patches too.
I would just like to say that I hate this community so incredibly much, I can't even begin to explain it. Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning. No wonder Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you guys. This is such an incredible game and the people surrounding the game are just fucking ruining it. If they just never released LOTV, I would say we had it coming to us.
On April 18 2015 09:54 ohmylanta1003 wrote: I would just like to say that I hate this community so incredibly much, I can't even begin to explain it. Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning. No wonder Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you guys. This is such an incredible game and the people surrounding the game are just fucking ruining it. If they just never released LOTV, I would say we had it coming to us.
To calmly retort your statement with your own words:
Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning.
The other, undesirable extreme to infinitesimal complaining is blind yesmanning. Fact of the matter is, there are things right about their finagling around this expansion, but there are also things wrong about it.
On April 18 2015 09:54 ohmylanta1003 wrote: I would just like to say that I hate this community so incredibly much, I can't even begin to explain it. Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning. No wonder Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you guys. This is such an incredible game and the people surrounding the game are just fucking ruining it. If they just never released LOTV, I would say we had it coming to us.
To calmly retort your statement with your own words:
The other, undesirable extreme to infinitesimal complaining is blind yesmanning. Fact of the matter is, there are things right about their finagling around this expansion, but there are also things wrong about it.
It's not blind, yo. Every time there is a thread even remotely related to Starcraft, it's littered with people complaining about the current state of the game, theorycrafting through there silver league games (not saying I'm good, just saying most people don't have the skill necessary to properly complain), and shouting blasphemies at Blizzard, the worst fucking company in the whole world (or at least that's what I'm led to believe by everyone here). I'm sick of such a beautiful game being surrounded by such an awful community and I know I'm not the only one. It literally pushes people away from the game, which is the last thing we need.
On April 18 2015 09:54 ohmylanta1003 wrote: I would just like to say that I hate this community so incredibly much, I can't even begin to explain it. Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning. No wonder Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you guys. This is such an incredible game and the people surrounding the game are just fucking ruining it. If they just never released LOTV, I would say we had it coming to us.
To calmly retort your statement with your own words:
Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning.
The other, undesirable extreme to infinitesimal complaining is blind yesmanning. Fact of the matter is, there are things right about their finagling around this expansion, but there are also things wrong about it.
It's not blind, yo. Every time there is a thread even remotely related to Starcraft, it's littered with people complaining about the current state of the game, theorycrafting through there silver league games (not saying I'm good, just saying most people don't have the skill necessary to properly complain), and shouting blasphemies at Blizzard, the worst fucking company in the whole world (or at least that's what I'm led to believe by everyone here). I'm sick of such a beautiful game being surrounded by such an awful community and I know I'm not the only one. It literally pushes people away from the game, which is the last thing we need.
I don't know which forum you're using, but there's probably as many threads on TL about rooting for players and general camaraderie as there are fairly toxic ones. And even ones like these, where forumers are clearly disgruntled about changes, orderly and useful feedback can be had. Most of the live report threads are lively; map threads are filled with critiques and beautiful art; in the LotV section, there are several incredibly detailed or floral threads regarding player suggestions, and many forumers are actively testing their own theorycrafted suggestions.
Yes, there's gonna be a "dead gaem" post here, a scandal there (real unfortunate, but it's a reality), and some hissyfits every so often. Tough shit; that's the Internet for you. It shouldn't surprise you that forums aren't exactly a positive playing ground, since those who are satisfied with the game are already playing it.
Is the game beautiful? Sure. Is it perfect? Hell no. That's what we're here for. We want a better game as much as Blizzard wants LotV to be a successful game. And neither Blizzard nor the community have a particularly good track record when it comes to both balancing and designing units. They have their tools of implementation, and we have ours of suggestion. Neither tools are perfect, and both can be abused. Such is life.
Besides, your scathing review of the community does no better at retaining the fanbase than those who actively try to alter the game to a better state.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
Dude, then Nexus first and I will Proxy 2 Gate you. You expanded, how did that reward work out for ya? I mean, how could you lose, I should have been punished for not expanding... right? That is what you just said.
Thanks for further proving my point - which, if you check, was that it makes no sense to say one game punishes and the other rewards. I'll happily take your examples as further support for that.
The point here is that expanding is being forced in LOTV. And that is a bad thing because it reduces strategic variation. As someone else put it, Starcraft is starting to lose the S in RTS because you don't choose if you want to expand anymore or not, you just expand now because it always better. That one less choice has a massive effect on the strategies that can employed.
This, too, I'm perfectly happy to agree with. If you read my other posts, I was not in any way suggesting otherwise. I can totally get behind the idea that LotV's half patch system makes the game 'all about dat (next) base'.
ALL I was arguing against was the use of 'punish vs reward' because it's a terrible, ambiguous, misleading way to describe what's going on, because it relies entirely on the reader's interpretation of what 'punishment' or 'reward' is relative to.If it happens to match what you intended, understanding will occur. If it doesn't - and it clearly often hasn't - it just gets in the way.
Everything everyone writes can be interpreted by people however they want to interpret it, that is free will. My definition of reward and punishment was based purely on behavioral psychology (though it is referred to a reinforcement, not reward, in psychology).
So this isn't really left up to interpretation for anyone who submits themselves to science, there is no relativity in these definitions. People confuse punishment and negative reinforcement all the time, but that doesn't mean behaviorists shouldn't use those terms because people are too stupid to understand them. And everyone is free to think what they want, and do whatever they want and talk about how global warming isn't man made, that evolution is a liberal conspiracy or other dumb things...
On April 18 2015 09:54 ohmylanta1003 wrote: I would just like to say that I hate this community so incredibly much, I can't even begin to explain it. Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning. No wonder Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you guys. This is such an incredible game and the people surrounding the game are just fucking ruining it. If they just never released LOTV, I would say we had it coming to us.
...but for people that submit themselves to science, then there is only one way to interpret what I said, based on the definitions of the words I used.
To your other point, a single arbitrary baseline across two games, well seems like a great powerful statement, but this isn't exactly black and white because the games are so incredibly similar. I mean it isn't like we are talking about mini-golf and basketball, this is like we are talking about the NBA and International Basketball which are incredibly similar, though they do have some differences in rules, size of the rim, ect. But the strategies and tactics that work in one, work in the other...
Anyway, in this case we are talking about the changes to Starcraft HOTS that will make it into Starcraft LOTV. In this case I think it makes perfect sense to refer to the mineral node changes as a punishing players who don't expand quickly, because they will be losing something they currently have (minerals) if the changes go through and there ability to win games will suffer.
That fits the definition of (negative) punishment very well. If you want to keep your income decent, you must expand.
And I think the proposed change of the TL Strategy team do the opposite, they reinforce expanding. You don't lose anything you already have in HOTS if you don't expand, but they make it more appealing to expand. If you want to make your income better, you can expand.
What you said, which is exactly this: "You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't" is completely untrue. You are rewarded for expanding sometimes if the risk pays off in both games. It is not relative to what happens if you didn't, it is in the context of the strategy the other player plays.
However LOTV, you are also punished for not expanding far more so than in HOTS. Thats the difference. The reward for expanding is the same, but the punishment for not expanding is much harsher in LOTV, because you run out of half your minerals quite quickly.
But that is enough of this semantics argument for me. Take the last word on it.
On April 15 2015 09:19 MrFreeman wrote: Oh great, so they added kill any chosen unit button that doesn´t really help you much, but will really frustrate your opponent, gr8 job.
It's ok, no one is even making Tempests anyway. Protoss either dies before they can get there (mostly this) or make Carriers (which are better/more fun)
Yep, that is why I have written that it doesn´t help you much, but it is in game and it could be quite frustrating watching your unit slowly die and not being able to do anything about it. Just no chance at all to play the "perfect game" .
Anyone else thinks that Adepts look way more old dragoons? First, they were some gimmicky unit, close to an harass/scout role Now they become a tanky stalker Remove the blink, we got a dragoon :|
On April 15 2015 09:19 MrFreeman wrote: Oh great, so they added kill any chosen unit button that doesn´t really help you much, but will really frustrate your opponent, gr8 job.
It's ok, no one is even making Tempests anyway. Protoss either dies before they can get there (mostly this) or make Carriers (which are better/more fun)
Yep, that is why I have written that it doesn´t help you much, but it is in game and it could be quite frustrating watching your unit slowly die and not being able to do anything about it. Just no chance at all to play the "perfect game" .
I think that's a good point. Watching your units slowly die without counterplay being available is frustrating, much like how killing free units feels pointless even if it's just a game mechanic. And at least irradiate had some control aspects to it, but with the tempest you'll feel helpless.
On April 15 2015 09:19 MrFreeman wrote: Oh great, so they added kill any chosen unit button that doesn´t really help you much, but will really frustrate your opponent, gr8 job.
It's ok, no one is even making Tempests anyway. Protoss either dies before they can get there (mostly this) or make Carriers (which are better/more fun)
Yep, that is why I have written that it doesn´t help you much, but it is in game and it could be quite frustrating watching your unit slowly die and not being able to do anything about it. Just no chance at all to play the "perfect game" .
I think that's a good point. Watching your units slowly die without counterplay being available is frustrating, much like how killing free units feels pointless even if it's just a game mechanic. And at least irradiate had some control aspects to it, but with the tempest you'll feel helpless.
sounds like Plaguuuuuu, though it was an AoE and not that powerful, but basically killed 50% of the Protoss army, Tempest ability is basically force an attack, just like abduct etc. But Tempest was basically a bad easy to use Carrier and in the current beta they made the Carrier super easy to control.
Still don't like any change, but I like longer games and most changes are supposed to speed up the already fastest Blizzard RTS. They shouldn't make every one of their games have a 20 minute duration xD. But I gonna get it anyway for the CGs an Single player. And for multiplayer luckily there are custom games and gamespeed options. And there is always WoL release version that I still enjoy the most somehow. So it doesn't matter that they can't make it right for everyone.
On April 18 2015 04:55 BaronVonOwn wrote: You know... We had aggressive play in WoL because of map design. Look at Xel'Naga Caverns and Metalopolis. Community hates those maps now, mainly because protoss cannot survive without being able to turtle.
In any case I don't see why we can only have one standard for resources in the map pool. I think there ought to be a diversity of maps with scarce resources, as well as maps reflecting the current HOTS standard, and easy money maps like BGH for the unranked queue. Just give people more vetoes to compensate. Maps are the easiest way to rebalance the game and enable/prevent different playstyles. It's crazy to not make full use of the flexibility they give.
exactly. i hate that the teamliquid forum is apparently so biased towards slow and boring macro games that take 20 minutes to wind up.
why is their so much opposition to more starting workers??????? does nobody watch streams? the first 5-10 minutes of every single game are boring as fuck..... im sure the players get bored too...
On April 18 2015 19:28 TurboMaN wrote: When is the release of the new Terran unit and what will it be?
Don´t know the release but DK said it will be a fast air to air fighter with small damage as attack with splash. It can transform into a stationary air unit that attacks ground with 9 range. They want to implement it mostly for Mutas. Hope they change the Thor then. Im pumped for this unit.
And people should calm down. Its a beta , it should be clear that they test things out. Im sure most of the people here have not even beta access and judge the game just by watching it.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
Dude, then Nexus first and I will Proxy 2 Gate you. You expanded, how did that reward work out for ya? I mean, how could you lose, I should have been punished for not expanding... right? That is what you just said.
Thanks for further proving my point - which, if you check, was that it makes no sense to say one game punishes and the other rewards. I'll happily take your examples as further support for that.
The point here is that expanding is being forced in LOTV. And that is a bad thing because it reduces strategic variation. As someone else put it, Starcraft is starting to lose the S in RTS because you don't choose if you want to expand anymore or not, you just expand now because it always better. That one less choice has a massive effect on the strategies that can employed.
This, too, I'm perfectly happy to agree with. If you read my other posts, I was not in any way suggesting otherwise. I can totally get behind the idea that LotV's half patch system makes the game 'all about dat (next) base'.
ALL I was arguing against was the use of 'punish vs reward' because it's a terrible, ambiguous, misleading way to describe what's going on, because it relies entirely on the reader's interpretation of what 'punishment' or 'reward' is relative to.If it happens to match what you intended, understanding will occur. If it doesn't - and it clearly often hasn't - it just gets in the way.
Everything everyone writes can be interpreted by people however they want to interpret it, that is free will. My definition of reward and punishment was based purely on behavioral psychology (though it is referred to a reinforcement, not reward, in psychology).
So this isn't really left up to interpretation for anyone who submits themselves to science, there is no relativity in these definitions. People confuse punishment and negative reinforcement all the time, but that doesn't mean behaviorists shouldn't use those terms because people are too stupid to understand them. And everyone is free to think what they want, and do whatever they want and talk about how global warming isn't man made, that evolution is a liberal conspiracy or other dumb things...
On April 18 2015 09:54 ohmylanta1003 wrote: I would just like to say that I hate this community so incredibly much, I can't even begin to explain it. Fuck all your whining, bitching, and moaning. No wonder Blizzard doesn't give a shit about you guys. This is such an incredible game and the people surrounding the game are just fucking ruining it. If they just never released LOTV, I would say we had it coming to us.
...but for people that submit themselves to science, then there is only one way to interpret what I said, based on the definitions of the words I used.
To your other point, a single arbitrary baseline across two games, well seems like a great powerful statement, but this isn't exactly black and white because the games are so incredibly similar. I mean it isn't like we are talking about mini-golf and basketball, this is like we are talking about the NBA and International Basketball which are incredibly similar, though they do have some differences in rules, size of the rim, ect. But the strategies and tactics that work in one, work in the other...
Anyway, in this case we are talking about the changes to Starcraft HOTS that will make it into Starcraft LOTV. In this case I think it makes perfect sense to refer to the mineral node changes as a punishing players who don't expand quickly, because they will be losing something they currently have (minerals) if the changes go through and there ability to win games will suffer.
That fits the definition of (negative) punishment very well. If you want to keep your income decent, you must expand.
And I think the proposed change of the TL Strategy team do the opposite, they reinforce expanding. You don't lose anything you already have in HOTS if you don't expand, but they make it more appealing to expand. If you want to make your income better, you can expand.
What you said, which is exactly this: "You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't" is completely untrue. You are rewarded for expanding sometimes if the risk pays off in both games. It is not relative to what happens if you didn't, it is in the context of the strategy the other player plays.
However LOTV, you are also punished for not expanding far more so than in HOTS. Thats the difference. The reward for expanding is the same, but the punishment for not expanding is much harsher in LOTV, because you run out of half your minerals quite quickly.
But that is enough of this semantics argument for me. Take the last word on it.
Lol. At least everyone banded together to shit all over me. I'm so proud of you guys. And I ain't no dummy. I have no idea what would have given you that impression.
On April 18 2015 09:54 ohmylanta1003 wrote: I would just like to say that I hate this community so incredibly much,
Why are you still here then? Good riddance.
I'M STILL HERE, LOL! And I plan on staying here to refute the ridiculous shit that people post around these forums. It's gonna be a fun ride.
You wont stay long with this attitude anyway.
I'm just expressing my opinion, just like everyone else. So far, I haven't singled any one person out or insulted anyone in anyway that could get me in trouble. However, it seems that I've been called "dumb" by at least one other person so far. I'm sorry my attitude isn't, "Wah Wah Wah, my race sucks and Blizzard doesn't care about me!"
On April 18 2015 20:31 PostNationalism wrote: exactly. i hate that the teamliquid forum is apparently so biased towards slow and boring macro games that take 20 minutes to wind up.
why is their so much opposition to more starting workers??????? does nobody watch streams? the first 5-10 minutes of every single game are boring as fuck..... im sure the players get bored too...
In Brood War we had a term for this. It's called playing SimCity, because all you do is build your town and never fight. And there were also the noobs who would call for "nr20" at the beginning of every game. By the end of WoL, that's what SC2 became. Well, 5 years later we've relearned that spending the first 15 minutes of every game building the same things in the same exact order with no action every single time isn't that fun to play or watch. I don't know if it was because of all the new players who didn't already learn this in Brood War, or because people feel embarrassed when they lose in the first 10 minutes because their opponent didn't give them time to lovingly craft their master plan unstoppable deathball army with 24 carriers and 3 arbiters.
Low resources is definitely one way to force action, maybe it's better than having wide open seconds and thirds like in Xel'Naga Caverns. I think it's going to make the game harder all-around but especially for new players. Having to take and defend lots of bases is very APM-heavy. Sadly it seems to be the only way though, because protoss is incapable of surviving in this game without turtling.
Is it just me or I think that the new Adepts are still worthless like crap. Maybe it should fit in the glass canon DPS role instead of the tank role? Right now the small size(it has alot of HP+shield but don't exactly TANK) and low DPS as well as low range of this unit means the opponent can igonore it and target something else(that possess greater threat).
My idea would make the Adept unit look like HP/Shield 10/50 Cost 100/25 Armor 0 Range 4(+3 with upgrade) Damage 20+5 vs light(so that they 2shot marines) Attack speed 1 Speed same as reaper
On April 19 2015 00:57 HallofPain4444 wrote: Is it just me or I think that the new Adepts are still worthless like crap. Maybe it should fit in the glass canon DPS role instead of the tank role? Right now the small size(it has alot of HP+shield but don't exactly TANK) and low DPS as well as low range of this unit means the opponent can igonore it and target something else(that possess greater threat).
I don't see why they felt protoss needed ANOTHER harass unit. They introduced the oracle for exactly this reason, when protoss already had phoenix and blink stalker. If anything, protoss has nothing that can deal with roaches and marauders until immortals are on the field. I don't like being forced into robo builds every game. I guess you could also count void rays as a hard counter to armored ground, but that seems pretty risky when marines and hydralisks exist.
On April 19 2015 00:57 HallofPain4444 wrote: Is it just me or I think that the new Adepts are still worthless like crap. Maybe it should fit in the glass canon DPS role instead of the tank role? Right now the small size(it has alot of HP+shield but don't exactly TANK) and low DPS as well as low range of this unit means the opponent can igonore it and target something else(that possess greater threat).
I don't see why they felt protoss needed ANOTHER harass unit. They introduced the oracle for exactly this reason, when protoss already had phoenix and blink stalker. If anything, protoss has nothing that can deal with roaches and marauders until immortals are on the field. I don't like being forced into robo builds every game. I guess you could also count void rays as a hard counter to armored ground, but that seems pretty risky when marines and hydralisks exist.
I would say void rays still do quite well against hydras.
On April 19 2015 00:57 HallofPain4444 wrote: Is it just me or I think that the new Adepts are still worthless like crap. Maybe it should fit in the glass canon DPS role instead of the tank role? Right now the small size(it has alot of HP+shield but don't exactly TANK) and low DPS as well as low range of this unit means the opponent can igonore it and target something else(that possess greater threat).
I don't see why they felt protoss needed ANOTHER harass unit. They introduced the oracle for exactly this reason, when protoss already had phoenix and blink stalker. If anything, protoss has nothing that can deal with roaches and marauders until immortals are on the field. I don't like being forced into robo builds every game. I guess you could also count void rays as a hard counter to armored ground, but that seems pretty risky when marines and hydralisks exist.
I would say void rays still do quite well against hydras.
what?
On April 18 2015 10:27 ohmylanta1003 wrote: Every time there is a thread even remotely related to Starcraft, it's littered with people complaining about the current state of the game, theorycrafting through there silver league games (not saying I'm good, just saying most people don't have the skill necessary to properly complain), and shouting blasphemies at Blizzard, the worst fucking company in the whole world (or at least that's what I'm led to believe by everyone here). I'm sick of such a beautiful game being surrounded by such an awful community and I know I'm not the only one. It literally pushes people away from the game, which is the last thing we need.
you would be right with that, but even good players complain about the same design issues the community is moaning about for 5 years. I am sorry if a game is boring to watch AND frustrating to play it is ill suited to be a lasting E-sports title. Sc2 isnt bad for a strategy game, (even though it pales compared to its predecessor and Warcraft 3) but it could be so much better, if Blizzard would be willing to use formulas that have proven to work instead of reeinventing the wheel completely.
On April 18 2015 19:28 TurboMaN wrote: When is the release of the new Terran unit and what will it be?
Don´t know the release but DK said it will be a fast air to air fighter with small damage as attack with splash. It can transform into a stationary air unit that attacks ground with 9 range. They want to implement it mostly for Mutas. Hope they change the Thor then. Im pumped for this unit.
And people should calm down. Its a beta , it should be clear that they test things out. Im sure most of the people here have not even beta access and judge the game just by watching it.
Can somebody explain to me why in this game everything has to have either extreme speed or range?
On April 18 2015 19:28 TurboMaN wrote: When is the release of the new Terran unit and what will it be?
Don´t know the release but DK said it will be a fast air to air fighter with small damage as attack with splash. It can transform into a stationary air unit that attacks ground with 9 range. They want to implement it mostly for Mutas. Hope they change the Thor then. Im pumped for this unit.
And people should calm down. Its a beta , it should be clear that they test things out. Im sure most of the people here have not even beta access and judge the game just by watching it.
Can somebody explain to me why in this game everything has to have either extreme speed or range?
because every unit has to be extreme in this game or it doesnt fit in.
The cyclone is the new warhound in disguise. It's stupid, doesn't have place in the game and too easy to use. At the end they will remove it and not bother with it. The adept mechanic is just dumb. I don't know why some people think its cool. No it's not. It's dumb gimmick and doesn't work against most early game units - zerglings, marines, stalkers. Just remove the unit and bring us another... This time actually useful. The disruptor needs to go too. It's basicaly the condemn ability from Diablo 3. Even the animation is similar. The unit is not good, not fun , not a good replacment for the colossus.
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote: The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
Dude, then Nexus first and I will Proxy 2 Gate you. You expanded, how did that reward work out for ya? I mean, how could you lose, I should have been punished for not expanding... right? That is what you just said.
Thanks for further proving my point - which, if you check, was that it makes no sense to say one game punishes and the other rewards. I'll happily take your examples as further support for that.
The point here is that expanding is being forced in LOTV. And that is a bad thing because it reduces strategic variation. As someone else put it, Starcraft is starting to lose the S in RTS because you don't choose if you want to expand anymore or not, you just expand now because it always better. That one less choice has a massive effect on the strategies that can employed.
This, too, I'm perfectly happy to agree with. If you read my other posts, I was not in any way suggesting otherwise. I can totally get behind the idea that LotV's half patch system makes the game 'all about dat (next) base'.
ALL I was arguing against was the use of 'punish vs reward' because it's a terrible, ambiguous, misleading way to describe what's going on, because it relies entirely on the reader's interpretation of what 'punishment' or 'reward' is relative to.If it happens to match what you intended, understanding will occur. If it doesn't - and it clearly often hasn't - it just gets in the way.
Everything everyone writes can be interpreted by people however they want to interpret it, that is free will. My definition of reward and punishment was based purely on behavioral psychology (though it is referred to a reinforcement, not reward, in psychology).
If you could just take a moment out from being smarter than everyone and pay attention:
First of all, you jump into a discussion about how the game - the economic system of the game - punishes or rewards players and start talking about how you as the other player would punish my actions. Fine, I let that go because you were raising a perfectly valid point: it's even more imprecise to delineate punishment and reward across two different games when there's another agent involved whose actions may well be obliged to be different in those two games. In point of fact, proxies and (iirc) cannon rushes have already proved less effective in LotV's economy, making it harder to punish that early expand.
Secondly, you start lecturing me about behavioural psychology. If, as you say, we're all too stupid to understand these things properly, I'm even more right that these terms are a poor choice for communicating a concept to the intended audience.
Thirdly, that diagram? The bit at the top? That's the baseline. The status-quo from which punishment and reward deviate. And as I already said a couple of times, provided everyone intuits what the status quo is intended to be, talking about punishment and reward is fine. But they haven't. Read the thread and see.
So, one more time:
In HotS, you are punished for staying on one base because eventually your mineral income will drop to zero. In LotV, you are punished for staying on one base because eventually your mineral income will halve, and later drop to zero. In HotS you are rewarded with superior (note: relative) income if you secure an expansion before your opponent. That's all that matters. Not that you have more, but that you have more than him. In LotV you are rewarded even more if you secure an expansion before your opponent.
You don't like that last line, because the 'reward' is supremacy, something measured relative to your opponent, rather than purely in terms of your own income. Yet you were perfectly happy to dive in with both feet and talk about how your one-base proxy would 'punish' me. and to compare relative incomes across two games.
So this isn't really left up to interpretation for anyone who submits themselves to science, there is no relativity in these definitions.
Do you need a fork to eat those words, or can you manage with your fingers?
But that is enough of this semantics argument for me. Take the last word on it.
Thanks, I will. Works out better for everyone that way.
On April 19 2015 00:57 HallofPain4444 wrote: Is it just me or I think that the new Adepts are still worthless like crap. Maybe it should fit in the glass canon DPS role instead of the tank role? Right now the small size(it has alot of HP+shield but don't exactly TANK) and low DPS as well as low range of this unit means the opponent can igonore it and target something else(that possess greater threat).
I don't see why they felt protoss needed ANOTHER harass unit. They introduced the oracle for exactly this reason, when protoss already had phoenix and blink stalker. If anything, protoss has nothing that can deal with roaches and marauders until immortals are on the field. I don't like being forced into robo builds every game. I guess you could also count void rays as a hard counter to armored ground, but that seems pretty risky when marines and hydralisks exist.
I would say void rays still do quite well against hydras.
On April 18 2015 10:27 ohmylanta1003 wrote: Every time there is a thread even remotely related to Starcraft, it's littered with people complaining about the current state of the game, theorycrafting through there silver league games (not saying I'm good, just saying most people don't have the skill necessary to properly complain), and shouting blasphemies at Blizzard, the worst fucking company in the whole world (or at least that's what I'm led to believe by everyone here). I'm sick of such a beautiful game being surrounded by such an awful community and I know I'm not the only one. It literally pushes people away from the game, which is the last thing we need.
you would be right with that, but even good players complain about the same design issues the community is moaning about for 5 years. I am sorry if a game is boring to watch AND frustrating to play it is ill suited to be a lasting E-sports title. Sc2 isnt bad for a strategy game, (even though it pales compared to its predecessor and Warcraft 3) but it could be so much better, if Blizzard would be willing to use formulas that have proven to work instead of reeinventing the wheel completely.
Hmm. Yeah. Sorry about that one. I was wrong. You're right, hydras would win in a straight up fight, but you would need almost a pure hydra comp to compete with mass void rays, which is also risky, as hydras are easily killed by AOE attacks, which Protoss has plenty of.
On April 20 2015 00:17 royalroadweed wrote: I wish they would have fixed the minimap with this patch. Looking at it feels like I don't have my glasses on.
On April 20 2015 00:17 royalroadweed wrote: I wish they would have fixed the minimap with this patch. Looking at it feels like I don't have my glasses on.
Cyclone should get some major overhaul, right now the ability of this unit is just... oh well at least it's less broken than disintegrate but pretty much insane. While playing HOTS I really felt like Terran needed reliable antiair in the Factory tech but I fell this is just a horrible design even I'm a Terran player. The lock-on is supposed to help fight against air harrass like Banshees, Phoenixes, and Oracles, so maybe transfer the lock-on ability to missile turrets? What do you guys think?
On April 18 2015 20:31 PostNationalism wrote: exactly. i hate that the teamliquid forum is apparently so biased towards slow and boring macro games that take 20 minutes to wind up.
why is their so much opposition to more starting workers??????? does nobody watch streams? the first 5-10 minutes of every single game are boring as fuck..... im sure the players get bored too...
In Brood War we had a term for this. It's called playing SimCity, because all you do is build your town and never fight. And there were also the noobs who would call for "nr20" at the beginning of every game.
The term Sim City was almost exclusively used for strategic building placement in Broodwar, e.g. a Zerg putting his evo chambers in a way that makes his sunken colonies harder to reach for melee units. Turtling was just called turtling.
Anyone seen lurkers being used vs. Terran bio? I see lurkers a lot in ZvP and in ZvZ if it goes past early game. Any games (vods?) out there with lurkers vs. bio?
In 3 years, someone will say in an LR "remember lotv beta when protoss was so weak?" and that's the point when Zest wins his 5th GSL and surpasses Mvp. mind my words. the guy will be temp banned for balance whining.
On April 20 2015 05:44 SoleSteeler wrote: Anyone seen lurkers being used vs. Terran bio? I see lurkers a lot in ZvP and in ZvZ if it goes past early game. Any games (vods?) out there with lurkers vs. bio?
in my mediocre experience they look strong, by the time you get into range to attack them you have lost a lot of units/hp and they feel really tanky.
also, marauders dont do shit to ultras now T_T bio doesnt look too good right now as far i can tell