|
On July 12 2014 22:39 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 06:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 12 2014 05:54 Whitewing wrote:On July 12 2014 05:20 Socup wrote:On July 12 2014 04:37 Elendur wrote:Johnbongham is right. And the reverse argument could also be made by the Terran, that if the Protoss is required to have made such a colossal effort to defend his mineral line(s) from two mines spotted on the minimap 6 seconds prior to detonating, it is only because the Terran has already invested a massive amount of resources to put the Medivac/mines into the sky with such early refinery timing... 350 gas for two dropped mines? (like the oracle 300/300 cost argument) But it's not really the same because an unscouted and undefended oracle wins the game immediately. An unscouted WM drop can still be run away from, and since it doesn't shoot buildings or cloaked units, a cannon or observer will clean it up. You can run from an oracle, run towards your marines and have the marines come back. Unscouted oracles usually get maybe 4-5 kills. That's damage certainly, not game ending damage. If by unscouted you actually meant unscouted and terran has no anti-air at all and got blind countered in his build, then that's also the fault of the terran for doing a bad build. What if I didn't make Marines, I made Marauders? edit: so you're fine with Protoss getting two Cannons to shut down WM drops completely? That'll be a good build now. Seeing as no sensible Terran build has delayed stim, +1, combat shield, factory and starport tech for early mass marauders since before Oracles were even designed, if you make them instead of marines then you are doing a bad build anyway But it was so fun going early marauders in WoL and poking/harassing the protoss. Some early micro war is so much fun. More of this, no?
|
On July 13 2014 00:28 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2014 22:39 Teoita wrote:On July 12 2014 06:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 12 2014 05:54 Whitewing wrote:On July 12 2014 05:20 Socup wrote:On July 12 2014 04:37 Elendur wrote:Johnbongham is right. And the reverse argument could also be made by the Terran, that if the Protoss is required to have made such a colossal effort to defend his mineral line(s) from two mines spotted on the minimap 6 seconds prior to detonating, it is only because the Terran has already invested a massive amount of resources to put the Medivac/mines into the sky with such early refinery timing... 350 gas for two dropped mines? (like the oracle 300/300 cost argument) But it's not really the same because an unscouted and undefended oracle wins the game immediately. An unscouted WM drop can still be run away from, and since it doesn't shoot buildings or cloaked units, a cannon or observer will clean it up. You can run from an oracle, run towards your marines and have the marines come back. Unscouted oracles usually get maybe 4-5 kills. That's damage certainly, not game ending damage. If by unscouted you actually meant unscouted and terran has no anti-air at all and got blind countered in his build, then that's also the fault of the terran for doing a bad build. What if I didn't make Marines, I made Marauders? edit: so you're fine with Protoss getting two Cannons to shut down WM drops completely? That'll be a good build now. Seeing as no sensible Terran build has delayed stim, +1, combat shield, factory and starport tech for early mass marauders since before Oracles were even designed, if you make them instead of marines then you are doing a bad build anyway But it was so fun going early marauders in WoL and poking/harassing the protoss. Some early micro war is so much fun. More of this, no?
It'd be nice to see micro encouraged at all stages of the game. It makes the game exponentially more exciting. We should really band together and ask for a mechanics overhaul or even a slower game play speed to allow for more precision micro based play.
|
On July 13 2014 00:31 Novacute wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 00:28 Foxxan wrote:On July 12 2014 22:39 Teoita wrote:On July 12 2014 06:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 12 2014 05:54 Whitewing wrote:On July 12 2014 05:20 Socup wrote:On July 12 2014 04:37 Elendur wrote:Johnbongham is right. And the reverse argument could also be made by the Terran, that if the Protoss is required to have made such a colossal effort to defend his mineral line(s) from two mines spotted on the minimap 6 seconds prior to detonating, it is only because the Terran has already invested a massive amount of resources to put the Medivac/mines into the sky with such early refinery timing... 350 gas for two dropped mines? (like the oracle 300/300 cost argument) But it's not really the same because an unscouted and undefended oracle wins the game immediately. An unscouted WM drop can still be run away from, and since it doesn't shoot buildings or cloaked units, a cannon or observer will clean it up. You can run from an oracle, run towards your marines and have the marines come back. Unscouted oracles usually get maybe 4-5 kills. That's damage certainly, not game ending damage. If by unscouted you actually meant unscouted and terran has no anti-air at all and got blind countered in his build, then that's also the fault of the terran for doing a bad build. What if I didn't make Marines, I made Marauders? edit: so you're fine with Protoss getting two Cannons to shut down WM drops completely? That'll be a good build now. Seeing as no sensible Terran build has delayed stim, +1, combat shield, factory and starport tech for early mass marauders since before Oracles were even designed, if you make them instead of marines then you are doing a bad build anyway But it was so fun going early marauders in WoL and poking/harassing the protoss. Some early micro war is so much fun. More of this, no? It'd be nice to see micro encouraged at all stages of the game. It makes the game exponentially more exciting. We should really band together and ask for a mechanics overhaul or even a slower game play speed to allow for more precision micro based play.
Game speed doesn't change how you micro. It just makes the execution of the already too low amount of micro easier.
One area where they could slow down the pace is the projectile speed. It would actually be a ton more fun if abilities like EMP, Fungal and Abduct could be avoided through good micro (and then compensated in different ways).
|
On July 13 2014 00:34 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 00:31 Novacute wrote:On July 13 2014 00:28 Foxxan wrote:On July 12 2014 22:39 Teoita wrote:On July 12 2014 06:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 12 2014 05:54 Whitewing wrote:On July 12 2014 05:20 Socup wrote:On July 12 2014 04:37 Elendur wrote:Johnbongham is right. And the reverse argument could also be made by the Terran, that if the Protoss is required to have made such a colossal effort to defend his mineral line(s) from two mines spotted on the minimap 6 seconds prior to detonating, it is only because the Terran has already invested a massive amount of resources to put the Medivac/mines into the sky with such early refinery timing... 350 gas for two dropped mines? (like the oracle 300/300 cost argument) But it's not really the same because an unscouted and undefended oracle wins the game immediately. An unscouted WM drop can still be run away from, and since it doesn't shoot buildings or cloaked units, a cannon or observer will clean it up. You can run from an oracle, run towards your marines and have the marines come back. Unscouted oracles usually get maybe 4-5 kills. That's damage certainly, not game ending damage. If by unscouted you actually meant unscouted and terran has no anti-air at all and got blind countered in his build, then that's also the fault of the terran for doing a bad build. What if I didn't make Marines, I made Marauders? edit: so you're fine with Protoss getting two Cannons to shut down WM drops completely? That'll be a good build now. Seeing as no sensible Terran build has delayed stim, +1, combat shield, factory and starport tech for early mass marauders since before Oracles were even designed, if you make them instead of marines then you are doing a bad build anyway But it was so fun going early marauders in WoL and poking/harassing the protoss. Some early micro war is so much fun. More of this, no? It'd be nice to see micro encouraged at all stages of the game. It makes the game exponentially more exciting. We should really band together and ask for a mechanics overhaul or even a slower game play speed to allow for more precision micro based play. Game speed doesn't change how you micro. It just makes the execution of the already too low amount of micro easier. One area where they could slow down the pace is the projectile speed. It would actually be a ton more fun if abilities like EMP, Fungal and Abduct could be avoided through good micro (and then compensated in different ways). To be honest, it's difficult to get used to the slow pace of projectiles in Starbow. I think it would be different if I didn't have Starcraft II to compare it with, but sometimes it's sluggish enough to draw attention to itself.
|
On July 12 2014 18:13 VArsovskiSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2014 20:17 SatedSC2 wrote: This Oracle/Mine discussion is ridiculous.
The Terran can open with Marines and have them positioned defensively to deal with an Oracle. They can open Factory and have a Widow Mine positioned to deal with an Oracle. Once the timing has passed for an Oracle to move in, those units can be re-positioned to deal with other threats. Turrets can be used as static defence/detection as well.
The Protoss can open with Stalkers and have them positioned defensively to deal with a Widow Mine. They can open Robo and have an Observer for detection to deal with a Widow Mine. They can open Stargate and use an Oracle for detection. Once the timing has passed for a Widow Mine drop or a proxy Widow Mine to move in, those units can be re-positioned to deal with other threats. Cannons can be used as static defence/detection as well.
Both races have options to defend both harassment possibilities. Neither race is forced to go down a particular tech path because a Terran can open with either Mines or Marines or Turrets for defence, whereas a Protoss can open Robo or Stargate or Twilight/Forge to defend. Neither race is guaranteed scouting information either: Protoss can deflect scouting information using the MSC+Stalker combination (or proxy their tech) whereas Terran can deflect scouting with a Marine or a Reaper (or proxy their tech).
This is basically a really silly slap-fight. Both races have early harassment options that can do a lot of damage if the opponent makes even the slightest mistake. Protoss can obviously go Dark Templar or Oracles, both of which are very strong, but both of these things are essentially countered by having Marines in position or having Turrets. Meanwhile, Terran can go for Widow Mine drops, Hellion drops, or Cloaked Banshees, which are again all strong options that are essentially countered by having units in position along with some sort of detection. If you don't know what your opponent is doing (but you do know they didn't FE) and you don't get detection/put units in position for harassment, you fucked up. This type of whining doesn't help the balance designers at all, because it is unjustified... And what can ZERG do vs buffed WM drops ? The poll I made earlier is a clear indicative of what Terrans want: 1 - vs Protoss they want to nerf the MSC (that poor thing can't stand up for a single patch alone, lol), which is kinda "considerate", but the problem is that it's a very needed unit in PvZ/PvP, and I doubt that there's still a "maneuverable space" for it to be nerfed furthermore 2 - vs Zerg however the problem are Mutalisks, which CAN be addressed upon Now the problem is that buffing the WMines DO address that problem, but - the real question is - in what way, AND - at what cost ? - we'll end up seeing (or playing) shitty games again where 2WMs dropped in a mineral line solve the whole game right then & there vs BOTH Protoss and Zerg.. Don't get me wrong - I want to watch & see (or play) Terran win, BUT - certainly NOT in that way lol What I'm surprised about however is that nearly no-one voted for the "Colossus deathball" being a big Terran problem option, and yet - in the pole I made a week ago - nearly 70% of people voted for late-game TvP was the real problem overall (well probably because of the discrepancy of the fact that in that previous poll I guess all could've voted, whilest this one is probably "asking only Terrans" more).. Now if that same option (under the name of "Colossus deathball") was voted the most again - THAT might've been a very easy solvable solution overall - cause both "petitions" would be indicative on nearly the same thing - buffing the Viking anti-air missile vs both Shields and Light Armor.. Like - both would "Scream" buff the Vikings in any way possible This way - buffing the WM - it's just no bueno IMO.. Let's not mistake - It DOES address the both most-voted problems vs Zerg, BUT - at what gameplay cost ?
No, i think the difference in the pool is different because the question is different. Colossus deathball is not the same as colossus, high templar and archon deathball. As for the MSC core votes, people think that terran is not as weak in the early game as they are in late game TvP, but the MSC is effective in all stages of the game.
I think this widow mine buff will just reduce the diversity in TvZ and TvP, so its a bad change. People might be in a hurry to take any buff, but terran was buffed recently and other changes (in my opinion) should take the proper time, since its no emergency. For TvP protoss is just going to get robo or forge earlier, or both, so stargate and twilight concil openers are going to be worse. For TvZ zerg will have to engage carefully and micro is going to be harder, but terran is relying on luck since you cannot manually target 10 mines while splitting. Its a big buff vs mass banes but a small buff vs mutas on your backdoor, since the radius was already good vs clumped mutas (and they always are when harassing mineral lines), while the damage is unchanged.
Lastly, i think the other changes are good, since they help with balance with no relevant harmful effects.
|
On July 13 2014 01:24 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 00:34 Hider wrote:On July 13 2014 00:31 Novacute wrote:On July 13 2014 00:28 Foxxan wrote:On July 12 2014 22:39 Teoita wrote:On July 12 2014 06:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 12 2014 05:54 Whitewing wrote:On July 12 2014 05:20 Socup wrote:On July 12 2014 04:37 Elendur wrote:Johnbongham is right. And the reverse argument could also be made by the Terran, that if the Protoss is required to have made such a colossal effort to defend his mineral line(s) from two mines spotted on the minimap 6 seconds prior to detonating, it is only because the Terran has already invested a massive amount of resources to put the Medivac/mines into the sky with such early refinery timing... 350 gas for two dropped mines? (like the oracle 300/300 cost argument) But it's not really the same because an unscouted and undefended oracle wins the game immediately. An unscouted WM drop can still be run away from, and since it doesn't shoot buildings or cloaked units, a cannon or observer will clean it up. You can run from an oracle, run towards your marines and have the marines come back. Unscouted oracles usually get maybe 4-5 kills. That's damage certainly, not game ending damage. If by unscouted you actually meant unscouted and terran has no anti-air at all and got blind countered in his build, then that's also the fault of the terran for doing a bad build. What if I didn't make Marines, I made Marauders? edit: so you're fine with Protoss getting two Cannons to shut down WM drops completely? That'll be a good build now. Seeing as no sensible Terran build has delayed stim, +1, combat shield, factory and starport tech for early mass marauders since before Oracles were even designed, if you make them instead of marines then you are doing a bad build anyway But it was so fun going early marauders in WoL and poking/harassing the protoss. Some early micro war is so much fun. More of this, no? It'd be nice to see micro encouraged at all stages of the game. It makes the game exponentially more exciting. We should really band together and ask for a mechanics overhaul or even a slower game play speed to allow for more precision micro based play. Game speed doesn't change how you micro. It just makes the execution of the already too low amount of micro easier. One area where they could slow down the pace is the projectile speed. It would actually be a ton more fun if abilities like EMP, Fungal and Abduct could be avoided through good micro (and then compensated in different ways). To be honest, it's difficult to get used to the slow pace of projectiles in Starbow. I think it would be different if I didn't have Starcraft II to compare it with, but sometimes it's sluggish enough to draw attention to itself.
Hmm it's only really EMP which is slow. All other projectiles are fast. Ensnare at one point was slow as well, but IMO the issue here was that it just sucked in every other way as well.
Abilities that just hits instantly and doesn't create any dynamic after they have been casted are IMO absolutely pointless for the game besides functioning as APM-spam for the spellcaster race.
Wouldn't it be cool if there was a skill-element to dodging? What if you could watch a game and people would go crazy over a specific players ability to split his units against Fungal Growth, EMP or Abduct? (rather than just presplitting before the battle).
|
On July 13 2014 04:13 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 01:24 Grumbels wrote:On July 13 2014 00:34 Hider wrote:On July 13 2014 00:31 Novacute wrote:On July 13 2014 00:28 Foxxan wrote:On July 12 2014 22:39 Teoita wrote:On July 12 2014 06:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On July 12 2014 05:54 Whitewing wrote:On July 12 2014 05:20 Socup wrote:On July 12 2014 04:37 Elendur wrote:Johnbongham is right. And the reverse argument could also be made by the Terran, that if the Protoss is required to have made such a colossal effort to defend his mineral line(s) from two mines spotted on the minimap 6 seconds prior to detonating, it is only because the Terran has already invested a massive amount of resources to put the Medivac/mines into the sky with such early refinery timing... 350 gas for two dropped mines? (like the oracle 300/300 cost argument) But it's not really the same because an unscouted and undefended oracle wins the game immediately. An unscouted WM drop can still be run away from, and since it doesn't shoot buildings or cloaked units, a cannon or observer will clean it up. You can run from an oracle, run towards your marines and have the marines come back. Unscouted oracles usually get maybe 4-5 kills. That's damage certainly, not game ending damage. If by unscouted you actually meant unscouted and terran has no anti-air at all and got blind countered in his build, then that's also the fault of the terran for doing a bad build. What if I didn't make Marines, I made Marauders? edit: so you're fine with Protoss getting two Cannons to shut down WM drops completely? That'll be a good build now. Seeing as no sensible Terran build has delayed stim, +1, combat shield, factory and starport tech for early mass marauders since before Oracles were even designed, if you make them instead of marines then you are doing a bad build anyway But it was so fun going early marauders in WoL and poking/harassing the protoss. Some early micro war is so much fun. More of this, no? It'd be nice to see micro encouraged at all stages of the game. It makes the game exponentially more exciting. We should really band together and ask for a mechanics overhaul or even a slower game play speed to allow for more precision micro based play. Game speed doesn't change how you micro. It just makes the execution of the already too low amount of micro easier. One area where they could slow down the pace is the projectile speed. It would actually be a ton more fun if abilities like EMP, Fungal and Abduct could be avoided through good micro (and then compensated in different ways). To be honest, it's difficult to get used to the slow pace of projectiles in Starbow. I think it would be different if I didn't have Starcraft II to compare it with, but sometimes it's sluggish enough to draw attention to itself. Hmm it's only really EMP which is slow. All other projectiles are fast. Ensnare at one point was slow as well, but IMO the issue here was that it just sucked in every other way as well. I might be wrong, I took a break from Starbow&SC2 for several months and Starbow probably changed a lot in between. I was specifically thinking of viking missiles being slow, but I noticed those had been changed recently, and maybe other projectiles have been adjusted too.
I watched the recent Xiphias casts and constantly had to remind myself that it was played on the highest game speed, it's just that the units and animations all feel a bit slower. I don't see it as a dark side to Starbow, but I'm simply more used to SC2. And I also suspect that there are some projectiles you can't slow down without breaking suspension of disbelief. It's one thing for self-propelled guided bombs to be slow, and quite another for cannon shots to move at snail-pace after all.
It reminds me of WC3 actually, a game that always felt a little bit slow to me when watching (I would watch replays for enjoyment on 2x, and actually YouTube casters sometimes do the same). However, you never notice this slowness while playing because there is enough to do in the game. Similarly, I never played Brood War on the fastest game speeds because I played the game mostly offline and the high speed felt oppressive and too mechanically taxing to me. There was enough to do in the game after all, yet I suspect that if you would watch my replays on the same speed I played them that they would be quite uneventful (and I don't have horrible mechanics or anything). Starcraft II is different though.
On July 13 2014 04:13 Hider wrote: ...
Abilities that just hits instantly and doesn't create any dynamic after they have been casted are IMO absolutely pointless for the game besides functioning as APM-spam for the spellcaster race.
Wouldn't it be cool if there was a skill-element to dodging? What if you could watch a game and people would go crazy over a specific players ability to split his units against Fungal Growth, EMP or Abduct? (rather than just presplitting before the battle).
I don't think you can make fungal growth too slow because it's a standard projectile and therefore it needs a certain speed to be believable. EMP is similar. I know the Starbow team has done well with what little resources they have, but I don't think they can be expected to create new spell effects that live up to Blizzard's standards. So I don't mind it too much, but I never thought all the spell effects looked absolutely amazing.
Also, I never liked Flamestrike in Warcraft 3, it punishes newer players and is useless at a high level. Psionic storm is superior as it does guaranteed damage but some of it can still be mitigated by skilled maneuvering.
|
I don't think you can make fungal growth too slow because it's a standard projectile and therefore it needs a certain speed to be believable Not necessarily do projectiles need to be slow, lets say after u cast it on the ground the effect comes into play after 1 or 2 sec.
|
I might be wrong, I took a break from Starbow&SC2 for several months and Starbow probably changed a lot in between. I was specifically thinking of viking missiles being slow, but I noticed those had been changed recently, and maybe other projectiles have been adjusted too.
Oh Vikings missile used to be annoyingly slow. I aree it felt much better with Sc2-missiles as that slow attack speed never really accomplished anything (besides more overkill I guess) as you still couldn't avoid it.
I watched the recent Xiphias casts and constantly had to remind myself that it was played on the highest game speed, it's just that the units and animations all feel a bit slower.
Game is way too slow indeed. It's basically 7% slower, but all that accomplishes is to reduce the skill-cap. The argument that we want to incentvize longer battles is bascially nonsense IMO since that can be accomplished by increasing the HP of certain units/reducing damage. For most units that should be somewhat easy to "rebalance". Reducing the movement speed as well makes the control feel annoying.
I like Sc2 more, but even then I think there is room for improvement. I would like to see large maps as default, and units which are good at harassing/light pressure gets an increase in movement speed, while "killer-units" gets slower. That will increase the defenders advantage, but at the same time incentivize pressure and overall increase the skillcap of controlling units (because there simply is more you can do with the units when they move faster).
It reminds me of WC3 actually, a game that always felt a little bit slow to me when watching (I would watch replays for enjoyment on 2x, and actually YouTube casters sometimes do the same). However, you never notice this slowness while playing because there is enough to do in the game. Similarly, I never played Brood War on the fastest game speeds because I played the game mostly offline and the high speed felt oppressive and too mechanically taxing to me. There was enough to do in the game after all, yet I suspect that if you would watch my replays on the same speed I played them that they would be quite uneventful (and I don't have horrible mechanics or anything). Starcraft II is different though.
Well Wc3 isn't alone here. It seems to me after watching clips of many other RTS, that they generally are a ton slower. That's unfortunate, becasue I actually think that Starcraft has a ton of weakness's to it's overall design. But controlling and moving around with units just seems a ton better than in any other game (at least when you look at it from a competitive POV).
I don't think you can make fungal growth too slow because it's a standard projectile and therefore it needs a certain speed to be believable. EMP is similar. I know the Starbow team has done well with what little resources they have, but I don't think they can be expected to create new spell effects that live up to Blizzard's standards. So I don't mind it too much, but I never thought all the spell effects looked absolutely amazing.
It depends on the radius though. I think you can make it even slower with a 25%-40% larger radius. As I remember it, the speed is around 13 now, but I think you can go down to around 8.Further, it should also slow instead of lock and then deal more damage instead.
For Abduct, here is what could have been done;
- Energy cost reduced to 50 from 75 - Projectile speed of Abduct reduced to around 7. - A dot shows on a the targetted unit (perhaps also a casting range increase)
This bascially means that the enemy can pull back his Collosus/immortals/Thors when the enemy casts Abduct to it. Right now Abduct is one of the most lame abilities in the game, but it could easily have a lot of countermicro to it. Second thing to though is get rid of the Viking as the counter AA vs armored counter since that creates some really terrible interactions. What BW did made a ton more sense.
I really feel like there is a ton of potenital for adding countermicro to abilities in Sc2. The game could be fucking awesome if the developers had simply made sure that there actually existed practical countermicro after abilties were casted so it wasn't just about "prebattle micro".
|
On July 13 2014 06:08 Hider wrote: Game is way too slow indeed. It's basically 7% slower, but all that accomplishes is to reduce the skill-cap. The argument that we want to incentvize longer battles is bascially nonsense IMO since that can be accomplished by increasing the HP of certain units/reducing damage. For most units that should be somewhat easy to "rebalance". Reducing the movement speed as well makes the control feel annoying. I don't know, I think it's fine for playing the game. It's an interesting dilemma though: should you balance game speeds keeping spectators in mind, or just players?
Maybe this is funny: I used to campaign for a +20%game-speed-replay-watching mode in WoL beta because I thought this could be a preferable speed to the standard. In retrospect it was a bad idea, but in my defense I was only familiar with "replay of the week" & YouTube casts, not with live e-sports broadcasting. I think we're stuck with watching the game at the same speed it's been played.
|
On July 13 2014 06:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 06:08 Hider wrote: Game is way too slow indeed. It's basically 7% slower, but all that accomplishes is to reduce the skill-cap. The argument that we want to incentvize longer battles is bascially nonsense IMO since that can be accomplished by increasing the HP of certain units/reducing damage. For most units that should be somewhat easy to "rebalance". Reducing the movement speed as well makes the control feel annoying. I don't know, I think it's fine for playing the game. It's an interesting dilemma though: should you balance game speeds keeping spectators in mind, or just players? Maybe this is funny: I used to campaign for a +20%game-speed-replay-watching mode in WoL beta because I thought this could be a preferable speed to the standard. In retrospect it was a bad idea, but in my defense I was only familiar with "replay of the week" & YouTube casts, not with live e-sports broadcasting. I think we're stuck with watching the game at the same speed it's been played.
I think both comeptitive players and viewers would like to see units with faster movement speed, but perhaps slightly slower damage values in some situations (as it rewards more micro and slightly longer battles).
Casuals might want to see both slower movement speed damage values. However, I agree with Lalush's argument that you cannot design the games for both casuals and competitve players. You need different "products" for each target group.
|
Reading over the Thor comments, do people not realize Thor targeted AA as priority in WoL? This is just reverting to WoL. They also specifically addressed that it would only target air that aggroed (ie. ground is targeted over ovies or medivacs). I'm assuming Blizzard is smart enough to revert back to this.
|
On July 13 2014 07:03 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 06:42 Grumbels wrote:On July 13 2014 06:08 Hider wrote: Game is way too slow indeed. It's basically 7% slower, but all that accomplishes is to reduce the skill-cap. The argument that we want to incentvize longer battles is bascially nonsense IMO since that can be accomplished by increasing the HP of certain units/reducing damage. For most units that should be somewhat easy to "rebalance". Reducing the movement speed as well makes the control feel annoying. I don't know, I think it's fine for playing the game. It's an interesting dilemma though: should you balance game speeds keeping spectators in mind, or just players? Maybe this is funny: I used to campaign for a +20%game-speed-replay-watching mode in WoL beta because I thought this could be a preferable speed to the standard. In retrospect it was a bad idea, but in my defense I was only familiar with "replay of the week" & YouTube casts, not with live e-sports broadcasting. I think we're stuck with watching the game at the same speed it's been played. I think both comeptitive players and viewers would like to see units with faster movement speed, but perhaps slightly slower damage values in some situations (as it rewards more micro and slightly longer battles). Casuals might want to see both slower movement speed damage values. However, I agree with Lalush's argument that you cannot design the games for both casuals and competitve players. You need different "products" for each target group. Reminds me of real sports. I'm a part of, say, the recreational sports circuit at university and I've done basketball, football, squash, tennis, volleyball, and it's interesting to note that rules are often different for us compared to professional variants of those games.
With squash we use heavier balls that are less fickle. Our tennis courts are extremely slow. The baskets are lower for basketball, the net is lower for volleyball. With football we play on artificial grass where you can't tackle, the field is smaller and we don't use offside, and we don't have goalies but instead you have to shoot the ball directly into the net.
I'm sure there are more differences, but the point is that casual Starcraft players should not be forced to play on Alterzim Stronghold on the fastest game speeds. There is precedent from many other games after all, even for Brood War I doubt that most players played on fastest for the first few years of its existence, before the only players left playing ladder were too influenced by the Korean scene to care for anything else. But for some reason Blizzard had the brilliant idea to force everyone into the 1v1 ladder scene.
|
I'm sure there are more differences, but the point is that casual Starcraft players should not be forced to play on Alterzim Stronghold on the fastest game speeds. There is precedent from many other games after all, even for Brood War I doubt that most players played on fastest for the first few years of its existence, before the only players left playing ladder were too influenced by the Korean scene to care for anything else. But for some reason Blizzard had the brilliant idea to force everyone into the 1v1 ladder scene.
Yes, there should have been a 10 tims larger focus on making the Arcade as casualfriendly as possible, and centered the game around the arcade too a much larger extent. That could have freed up the 1on1 ladder as only something that was relevant for "competitive" players
|
On July 13 2014 07:53 FabledIntegral wrote: Reading over the Thor comments, do people not realize Thor targeted AA as priority in WoL? This is just reverting to WoL. They also specifically addressed that it would only target air that aggroed (ie. ground is targeted over ovies or medivacs). I'm assuming Blizzard is smart enough to revert back to this. After I tested the balance map, I came to realize that the Thors will still prioritize aggressive ground units over passive air. That was basically the key concern for a lot of people. Still, one can't help but feel like this sort of change is just another reduction in micro. A-move is increasingly becoming the more ideal method of engagement, and that upsets me; Thors derping on lings vs. Thors crushing muta flocks was a key indicator of a better player exercising unit control.
|
United States7483 Posts
On July 13 2014 11:41 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 07:53 FabledIntegral wrote: Reading over the Thor comments, do people not realize Thor targeted AA as priority in WoL? This is just reverting to WoL. They also specifically addressed that it would only target air that aggroed (ie. ground is targeted over ovies or medivacs). I'm assuming Blizzard is smart enough to revert back to this. After I tested the balance map, I came to realize that the Thors will still prioritize aggressive ground units over passive air. That was basically the key concern for a lot of people. Still, one can't help but feel like this sort of change is just another reduction in micro. A-move is increasingly becoming the more ideal method of engagement, and that upsets me; Thors derping on lings vs. Thors crushing muta flocks was a key indicator of a better player exercising unit control.
You're still better off targeting thors on the muta most centralized to try to maximize splash, this is merely so you can actually micro your other units and have the thor not be an idiot at the start of the fight, and so during the fight your thor isn't shooting lings every time it's muta target died.
|
On July 13 2014 14:31 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 11:41 iamcaustic wrote:On July 13 2014 07:53 FabledIntegral wrote: Reading over the Thor comments, do people not realize Thor targeted AA as priority in WoL? This is just reverting to WoL. They also specifically addressed that it would only target air that aggroed (ie. ground is targeted over ovies or medivacs). I'm assuming Blizzard is smart enough to revert back to this. After I tested the balance map, I came to realize that the Thors will still prioritize aggressive ground units over passive air. That was basically the key concern for a lot of people. Still, one can't help but feel like this sort of change is just another reduction in micro. A-move is increasingly becoming the more ideal method of engagement, and that upsets me; Thors derping on lings vs. Thors crushing muta flocks was a key indicator of a better player exercising unit control. You're still better off targeting thors on the muta most centralized to try to maximize splash, this is merely so you can actually micro your other units and have the thor not be an idiot at the start of the fight, and so during the fight your thor isn't shooting lings every time it's muta target died. I suppose it depends on the army composition. Bio + Thor, what you're saying makes sense. Mech... right now Thors are the only thing I have to micro, really. Well, aside from placing down a PDD or two.
|
On July 13 2014 15:07 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 14:31 Whitewing wrote:On July 13 2014 11:41 iamcaustic wrote:On July 13 2014 07:53 FabledIntegral wrote: Reading over the Thor comments, do people not realize Thor targeted AA as priority in WoL? This is just reverting to WoL. They also specifically addressed that it would only target air that aggroed (ie. ground is targeted over ovies or medivacs). I'm assuming Blizzard is smart enough to revert back to this. After I tested the balance map, I came to realize that the Thors will still prioritize aggressive ground units over passive air. That was basically the key concern for a lot of people. Still, one can't help but feel like this sort of change is just another reduction in micro. A-move is increasingly becoming the more ideal method of engagement, and that upsets me; Thors derping on lings vs. Thors crushing muta flocks was a key indicator of a better player exercising unit control. You're still better off targeting thors on the muta most centralized to try to maximize splash, this is merely so you can actually micro your other units and have the thor not be an idiot at the start of the fight, and so during the fight your thor isn't shooting lings every time it's muta target died. I suppose it depends on the army composition. Bio + Thor, what you're saying makes sense. Mech... right now Thors are the only thing I have to micro, really. Well, aside from placing down a PDD or two. That's pretty arbitrary micro to add, having thors deliberately target the wrong units so you're forced to retarget.
|
On July 13 2014 11:41 iamcaustic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2014 07:53 FabledIntegral wrote: Reading over the Thor comments, do people not realize Thor targeted AA as priority in WoL? This is just reverting to WoL. They also specifically addressed that it would only target air that aggroed (ie. ground is targeted over ovies or medivacs). I'm assuming Blizzard is smart enough to revert back to this. After I tested the balance map, I came to realize that the Thors will still prioritize aggressive ground units over passive air. That was basically the key concern for a lot of people. Still, one can't help but feel like this sort of change is just another reduction in micro. A-move is increasingly becoming the more ideal method of engagement, and that upsets me; Thors derping on lings vs. Thors crushing muta flocks was a key indicator of a better player exercising unit control.
Not really. Thors barely were effective vs mutas as is. Think about it - Thors had this priority in WoL, mutas were slower AND didn't regen and Thors STILL did not dominate mutas. They were good, and they were mixed in, but they absolutely were not the solution, and that's why so many Terrans still didn't make them in WoL. They were simply neutered in HOTS to be a desperate measure more than anything.
EDIT: Was thinking for the more "standard" bio
|
Yeah, the Thor AI was really annoying. Say the zerg comes to attack you and flies mutas in (a bit stacked but gradually splits them more and more). The Thors won't attack the mutas though, so they waste at least one hit, unless you want to see terrans having to click Mutas at ~10 range away and find that impressive and entertaining to watch. Thors are to zone out mutas, it should start attacking them ASAP, not punish players for not clicking mutas that are 10 units away.
|
|
|
|