|
On December 14 2012 07:01 Mudkipnick wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:50 eviltomahawk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:35 Mudkipnick wrote: I still don't understand why Dark Shrines are more affordable. Are they trying to make DT harass more viable than it already is? Only thing that's been bothering me with this patch note. They wanted to encourage more DT use in the late game. 3. Buff DTs not necessarily for the DT rush case, but to have DTs more often in the late game. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/5966979955Dark Shrine cost reduction
We wanted the Dark Shrine to feel like a more desirable tech option for players. By reducing the cost of the Dark Shrine, Dark Templar can be utilized in more late game scenarios.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7320452623 DTS are already used late game, I don't see why they're encouraging this even more...
Because it's awesome! Just like Stargate units, widow mines and super ultras that can maul marines! Everything aweosme all the time!!!
|
On December 14 2012 07:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 07:01 Mudkipnick wrote:On December 14 2012 05:50 eviltomahawk wrote:On December 14 2012 05:35 Mudkipnick wrote: I still don't understand why Dark Shrines are more affordable. Are they trying to make DT harass more viable than it already is? Only thing that's been bothering me with this patch note. They wanted to encourage more DT use in the late game. 3. Buff DTs not necessarily for the DT rush case, but to have DTs more often in the late game. http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/5966979955Dark Shrine cost reduction
We wanted the Dark Shrine to feel like a more desirable tech option for players. By reducing the cost of the Dark Shrine, Dark Templar can be utilized in more late game scenarios.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7320452623 DTS are already used late game, I don't see why they're encouraging this even more... Because it's awesome! Just like Stargate units, widow mines and super ultras that can maul marines! Everything aweosme all the time!!!
This guy gets it
|
HoTs is going to be a pretty different game by the looks of it. Really exciting :D
|
Between you and me, I have my fingers crossed for one last seismic change:
Burrow moved to Hatchery / Evo Chamber.
If Terran can have reusable super-banelings with burrow after barracks/factory, I don't see why I shouldn't have plain old burrowed banelings after spawning pool/research.
|
On December 14 2012 05:54 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 05:41 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On December 14 2012 05:19 Fig wrote:On December 14 2012 03:43 SarcasmMonster wrote:On December 14 2012 03:38 freetgy wrote: mutas will be so OP in PvZ Stalker already only do 6.9 dps to mutas this will be now further reduced to 5.9 dps due to the healing. Micro the hell out of those Phoenixes lol Exactly! This is actually a blessing in disguise for the PvZ matchup. It creates a greater incentive for mutalisks vs protoss, and at the same time creates more incentive to go phoenixes, which absolutely destroy mutas now. The +1 range encourages more people to use the micro, because it is now doable without the extra range upgrade. Plus the new passive healing doesn't change how fast mutas get eaten alive by phoenixes. And while most other toss options don't do well against mutas, this means that there are more times when toss will want to go for air units in the matchup, which is good news in my opinion, especially with the fungal change to a projectile. Now the whole air tech path is no longer instantly countered when infestors come out. It again plays to the strengths of people with good multitask and micro, who can keep an eye on their phoenixes all the time. And finally, active units like the mutalisk and the phoenix are just more interesting units, and make the matchup much more fun to watch and play than turtle into colossus, or turtle into broodlord/infestor. Blizzard: Hey Protoss players! We know you hated having to do 2 years of Robo play with Stargate only for some gimmicks, so with the Muta buff, we swapped that for you! Enjoy the next 2 years of Stargate only with little possibility of any variation! Blizzard: Hey Protoss players! We know that you don't like playing against mutalisks, so we keep on buffing phoenixes. We know that you hate playing vs Infestors, so we nerf them. We know that you don't like to play against Broodlords, so you get Tempests. We know that roaches are kind of hard to kill if you don't go robo, so we buff the shit out of voidrays. We know you had a hard time harassing in WoL, so we created the Oracle. Protoss: WTF, to do those things I have to do something different then mass robo and gateway units? I think this might be an accurate depiction of the Protoss players who are disappointed in HotS. Really, they won't be happy until they can spam Stalkers from the beginning to the end and run everything over doing minimally anything else.
|
On December 14 2012 08:10 Umpteen wrote: Between you and me, I have my fingers crossed for one last seismic change:
Burrow moved to Hatchery / Evo Chamber.
If Terran can have reusable super-banelings with burrow after barracks/factory, I don't see why I shouldn't have plain old burrowed banelings after spawning pool/research.
actually this is a great idea. Burrow rushes could be a fun strategy to explore, if only temporarily.
|
On December 14 2012 08:17 People_0f_Color wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 08:10 Umpteen wrote: Between you and me, I have my fingers crossed for one last seismic change:
Burrow moved to Hatchery / Evo Chamber.
If Terran can have reusable super-banelings with burrow after barracks/factory, I don't see why I shouldn't have plain old burrowed banelings after spawning pool/research. actually this is a great idea. Burrow rushes could be a fun strategy to explore, if only temporarily.
It would be a legit tech-based opening for Zerg - something I think they lack. Everyone can do econ openings, everyone can do army openings, but only P/T can force a response with tech. Burrowed banelings are no stronger offensively than ordinary banelings - less so, because there are 4 fewer banelings. They just do what other tech openings do: sacrifice economy for delaying your opponent's aggression. Also it gives defensive options versus oracles, banshees, drops etc. I really, really hope they at least test it out.
|
On December 14 2012 08:10 Umpteen wrote: Between you and me, I have my fingers crossed for one last seismic change:
Burrow moved to Hatchery / Evo Chamber.
If Terran can have reusable super-banelings with burrow after barracks/factory, I don't see why I shouldn't have plain old burrowed banelings after spawning pool/research.
You really should try to think more critically when you make suggestions — "another race has it so I don't see why my race can't have it" isn't a valid reasoning in asymmetric design. By your reasoning Terran should also have the ability to conveniently insta-remax from their Command Center.
I'm not saying your suggestion itself is fundamentally bad, but that your thinking is a bit blind-sided. If you think burrow deserves to be a T1 tech then you need to provide something more insightful other than "he has something I don't".
|
Instead of removing colossus and broodlord out of the game, they are buffing tempest to counteract these two units. Just get rid of them already, both units are terrible design wise.
|
How many patches still coming? It is just confusing!
|
Patches will keep coming untill they are happy I guess.
|
I played against AI an hour ago, and it happend that one of my carriers "dodged" a seeker missle. I wasn't able to reproduce it, 'cause i don't play Protoss regularly enough, but it could be a very deadly bug, since a seeker missle one shoots a carrier. Maybe you could watch out if it happens to you too.
|
On December 14 2012 09:37 Striker.superfreunde wrote: I played against AI an hour ago, and it happend that one of my carriers "dodged" a seeker missle. I wasn't able to reproduce it, 'cause i don't play Protoss regularly enough, but it could be a very deadly bug, since a seeker missle one shoots a carrier. Maybe you could watch out if it happens to you too. Seeker missiles don't 1 shot carriers - carriers have 450 total HP, the missile does 300 dmg.
|
Thinking about it more, it's a bit concerning that mutas are receiving a huge stack of buffs in a futile attempt to get them used against Teran's invisible instadeath.... and those buffs instead make them so powerful against protoss that stargate is mandatory.
They're repeatedly failing to fix ZvT, and badly mangling ZvP in the process.
Just. Make. The. Mine. Shoot. Ground. It's really not that hard.
EDIT: Huh, reaver. That was inauspicious.
|
On December 14 2012 09:51 Belisarius wrote: Thinking about it more, it's a bit concerning that mutas are receiving a huge stack of buffs in a futile attempt to get them used against Teran's invisible instadeath.... and those buffs instead make them so powerful against protoss that stargate is mandatory.
They're repeatedly failing to fix ZvT, and badly mangling ZvP in the process.
Just. Make. The. Mine. Shoot. Ground. It's really not that hard.
EDIT: Huh, reaver. That was inauspicious.
Since people keep talking about it in this thread...
Poll: Widow Mine rebalanced to only attack ground?Yes (38) 67% No (19) 33% 57 total votes Your vote: Widow Mine rebalanced to only attack ground? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
|
On December 14 2012 09:38 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:37 Striker.superfreunde wrote: I played against AI an hour ago, and it happend that one of my carriers "dodged" a seeker missle. I wasn't able to reproduce it, 'cause i don't play Protoss regularly enough, but it could be a very deadly bug, since a seeker missle one shoots a carrier. Maybe you could watch out if it happens to you too. Seeker missiles don't 1 shot carriers - carriers have 450 total HP, the missile does 300 dmg.
What have i played than @.@ I have to re-check the replay, probably i was confused because they have 300 hp, but still, if it's reproducable - not good.
|
On December 14 2012 09:58 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 09:51 Belisarius wrote: Thinking about it more, it's a bit concerning that mutas are receiving a huge stack of buffs in a futile attempt to get them used against Teran's invisible instadeath.... and those buffs instead make them so powerful against protoss that stargate is mandatory.
They're repeatedly failing to fix ZvT, and badly mangling ZvP in the process.
Just. Make. The. Mine. Shoot. Ground. It's really not that hard.
EDIT: Huh, reaver. That was inauspicious. Since people keep talking about it in this thread... Poll: Widow Mine rebalanced to only attack ground?Yes (38) 67% No (19) 33% 57 total votes Your vote: Widow Mine rebalanced to only attack ground? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Widow mines are fairly bad for the game in their present incarnation - the fact that they suck late game is a blessing if anything. An "army" comprised of mines with a bit of mech/bio support ... support for mines!... is a dumb concept to begin with. Maybe if Terran was the race of sacrificial / automated units like its two rivals. It makes far more sense, game wise and thematically, to give Terran a mine-laying unit which also has a decent standalone attack, and make the mines somewhat less effective than they are presently.
I just don't like this "unit" at all. A mine is not a unit, dammit. Maybe it's possible to balance it as one, but I doubt it can be done in an interesting way.
Edit - if they really wanted to keep mines as a unit and not an ability. Make the mine have one mode to shoot ground and another to shoot air, and have it be visible when in air targetting mode. That would at least make it less effective vs air harass. Then they could reverse that stupid muta regen buff and replace it with, I don't know, moving shot.
|
wow...first mutalisk speed buff...now HP buff? It's like a flying super reaper...
|
I am not to happy with the way this game is going. Every unit and their mother has an ability.
|
i think the mutalisk change is done wrong. when you go mutas you're not paying for the damage they do directly, you pay for the indirect economical(forcing turrets) and attention resources you force on you're opponent. i think that there's a better way to go about the change, but the only thing i can think of that would work well is to make maps with more surface area that you need to defend at your base. although this change can help your mutas stay in combat for more time, i usually found that that wasn't the problem I had with mutas. anyway i hope this works well and doesn't buff them too much. i also don't quite know what to think of the other changes. new aesthetics(medivac change) are always fun.
|
|
|
|