|
Since this whole topic degenerated into the usual balance flamefest where every topic ends up if unmoderated it's time for it to clean up. Locking this down for a while. Any posts made after my post [page 233] not addressing the changes in this patch directly and containting flames or general balance whine will get banned for at least a week. ~Nyovne
There is way too much flaming in this thread right now. Calm down before you post! (Page 271) ~iamke55 |
On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other.
I dont care. 1 Carrier could have 1000hp and deal 200 DPS, but if I cant survive long enough to get one, it simply doesnt matter.
----> therefor Carrier are useless.
|
On August 30 2011 19:06 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 18:53 shizna wrote:On August 30 2011 18:48 nihlon wrote:On August 30 2011 18:45 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:36 Biggun69 wrote:On August 30 2011 18:30 -Archangel- wrote:On August 30 2011 18:01 Xarayezona wrote:On August 30 2011 17:59 Lordwar wrote:
I think this game is fundamentally flawed If it's balance, that's why it's being patched repeatedly. Please elaborate if it's something else you have an issue with. I agree with him. Spawn larva, mules, chrono, warpgates and reactors are all flawed mechanics. They should have just stuck to BW more in this regard. How are they flawed? That's a pretty random thing to say. Starcraft 2 is a different game to sc1. Artificially create boosts in economy that then in term create imbalances due to them. Also create other oddities I fail to see how economic boost mechanics are "fundamentally flawed." They might or might not be imbalanced but that's another issue. he's completely wrong. if anything, the only fundamentally wrong mechanic is the tendancy for units to 'ball up'. it makes AOE damage completely destroy everything in nano seconds, makes the game look totally unrealistic and reduces the surface area of units making melee sucky. So I am completely wrong but you are perfectly right? It's an opinion, I have my thoughts to back up why I think it creates flaws in the game but that's not a discussion for here. Spawn larvae I believe is what makes zerg units individually so weak when in BW this wasn't the case.
You don't make sense and don't explain anything. You believe that Spawn larva is what makes zerg units individually weak? Where the hell did you get that idea, why? give examples, and you're throwing in words that add to the confusion "individually weak"? I have no clue what you're talking about.
Also you state that artificially create boosts in economy that in turn create imbalances. If you read your sentence you're not saying anything at all that is backed up by any argument whatsoever. You're stating that the moon pulls water... try saying that the moon's gravitational pull attracts water and causes tides.
I for one believe that the economic boosts given to each race mean that greater skill and attention is required to keep up with, or surpass, your opponent's marco. You have one more task to worry about that can be game changing. It is an interesting factor that differentiates the game from it's predecessor and makes it more complex. Is it balanced for all races? I don't know. I think that possably Terran have it easier since you don't lose your OC energy until 200, you can call down multiple mules, if Zergs lose an inject cycle or Protoss forget a chrono boost both cannot recover those...
|
On August 30 2011 19:35 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other. I dont care. 1 Carrier could have 1000hp and deal 200 DPS, but if I cant survive long enough to get one, it simply doesnt matter. ----> therefor Carrier are useless.
That pluss the fact that they don't really serve a purpose. Carriers are countered by something usually already on the field (Vikings, corrupters). That combined with the fact that they take nearly 3 minutes to build after you have the right tech, and costs a fortune, leaves it for very few situations to be used. But the few times they are useable (lategame against mech for instance), they are very good indeed.
|
On August 30 2011 19:35 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other. I dont care. 1 Carrier could have 1000hp and deal 200 DPS, but if I cant survive long enough to get one, it simply doesnt matter. ----> therefor Carrier are useless.
White Ra survives long enough to get plenty of them!
|
On August 30 2011 19:39 Flix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:06 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:53 shizna wrote:On August 30 2011 18:48 nihlon wrote:On August 30 2011 18:45 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:36 Biggun69 wrote:On August 30 2011 18:30 -Archangel- wrote:On August 30 2011 18:01 Xarayezona wrote:On August 30 2011 17:59 Lordwar wrote:
I think this game is fundamentally flawed If it's balance, that's why it's being patched repeatedly. Please elaborate if it's something else you have an issue with. I agree with him. Spawn larva, mules, chrono, warpgates and reactors are all flawed mechanics. They should have just stuck to BW more in this regard. How are they flawed? That's a pretty random thing to say. Starcraft 2 is a different game to sc1. Artificially create boosts in economy that then in term create imbalances due to them. Also create other oddities I fail to see how economic boost mechanics are "fundamentally flawed." They might or might not be imbalanced but that's another issue. he's completely wrong. if anything, the only fundamentally wrong mechanic is the tendancy for units to 'ball up'. it makes AOE damage completely destroy everything in nano seconds, makes the game look totally unrealistic and reduces the surface area of units making melee sucky. So I am completely wrong but you are perfectly right? It's an opinion, I have my thoughts to back up why I think it creates flaws in the game but that's not a discussion for here. Spawn larvae I believe is what makes zerg units individually so weak when in BW this wasn't the case. You don't make sense and don't explain anything. You believe that Spawn larva is what makes zerg units individually weak? Where the hell did you get that idea, why? give examples, and you're throwing in words that add to the confusion "individually weak"? I have no clue what you're talking about.
It's quite a simple statement. Look at the roach, it's quite terrible a unit but cannot be buffed otherwise all you will see is roach wars in every matchup. The larvae pooling mechanic means Zerg units have to be weak in a big engagement otherwise it would be virtually impossible to deal with zerg production. It's also why you see a small buff to infestors making them prominent in every single matchup. All of a sudden you have a caster that can do things so now zerg can flood the field with them. Non speed zerglings are far weaker than their BW counterparts but you are able to get tons more of them so if they were the same it would be overpowered. Tons of things like that.
It's not even army units that suffer from it. Look at Zerg economy. One second there's 20 drones the next 50 so Blizzard intentially forces Zerg early game to be weaker than other races so as to balance out this aspect.
Sure you can say this is just the "new Zerg" if you want but that doesn't really make sense when you look at all the whining. People don't seem to like the new Zerg.
On August 30 2011 19:39 Flix wrote:
I don't know. i think maybe Terran have it easier since you don't lose your OC energy, you can call down multiple mules, Zergs lose an inject cycle or Protoss forget a chrono boost and noth cannot recover that...
You realise banking energy means you lose out on the potential to use that money earlier so in essence you are still losing out. It's like saying you can have 20 scvs idle and it's fine because you can just put them to work a bit later and get a boost to your income. While the analogy is terrible it's a similar mentality that to me makes no sense.
|
The preigniter upgrade really isn't worth 150/150 now though. They should've reduced its cost to 100/100.
I understand the cost staying the same... But in my opinion the time should've been decrease(even by 10secs).
|
On August 30 2011 19:41 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:35 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other. I dont care. 1 Carrier could have 1000hp and deal 200 DPS, but if I cant survive long enough to get one, it simply doesnt matter. ----> therefor Carrier are useless. White Ra survives long enough to get plenty of them!
White Ra does crazy shit when he streams and destroys bad players. His last replay pack I watched had him fail a 1 gate proxy hard on xel naga and just roll over a terran in a macro game. He also mothership rushes terrans and rolls them. White Ra is just magical and can probably do a double expand first and pull out a win versus most players I watch him play bar the occasional pro.
|
On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other.
Have you actually used Carriers in a game before?
I use to go Carriers in PvZ before the Infestor buff, it was actually a nice change of pace. If you can surprise your opponent, the initial few Carriers are quite deadly, but after they have realized your composition they are incredibly weak to their counters. So much so that Mass Carrier isn't a viable build even at max population, I was still getting steam rolled by just Corrupter/Hydra Spam, mind you, this was when Zerg didn't even bother to build Infestors to NP... I had to go mostly Voidrays with Carriers supporting to make them work, otherwise the Corruptors just ate through them like a hot knife through butter
Carriers are super easy to counter when surprised too. Tyler was trying it out on his stream a few months ago. He went quick Carriers/Air Upgrades off two base on Tal'Darim with a fast third. Zerg scouted it after he had a few Carriers. In the time it took him to make around 6~ Carriers and poke out, the 3base Zerg had enough Corruptors to kill every Carrier and run away with 80% of his Corruptors alive...
Samething applies in PvT. If you watch Ace vs Goody during NASL Season 1, Ace managed to hide 5 Carriers with +2/0 Air upgrades before Goody managed to scout him, at the time Goody had like 1 Viking, 1 Starport and a Marine/Thor/Tank/Hellion mix. In the time it took Ace to get to 7 Carriers with +3/0 to move out, Goody managed to put down two Starports and pump out enough viking to obliterate every single Carrier. The only reason Ace won that game was because of his mechanics and how much bases he was taking :/
|
On August 30 2011 19:50 ScOkamiWolf wrote:Show nested quote +The preigniter upgrade really isn't worth 150/150 now though. They should've reduced its cost to 100/100. I understand the cost staying the same... But in my opinion the time should've been decrease(even by 10secs) making it harder to start this upgrade, forcing a player to make some early sacrifices if he wants a timed-attack.
This does not make any sense. The cost of upgrade actually means it takes longer for the upgrade to finish as it takes time to collect those resources. Reducing the cost of upgrade means almost the same as reducing the upgrade time by the same amount as it takes to collect 50/50 more resources.
|
On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:
To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are?
The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over.
That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other.
Carriers Dps : 26.7 vs everyting (8 interceptor) +5.6 per upgrade
BattleC Dps: 35.6 vs ground +4.4 per upgrade
. . . . . . . . . . 26.7 vs air + 4.4 per upgrade
I dont know why people think carrier dps is off the chart, BC just do has much dmg unless you fire at 0 armor stuff. If you fire at stuff with good armor, lets say 2+, carrier does way less dps than a BC, Each armor point remove 16 dmg for a carrier with 8 interceptor, each armor point remove 6 dmg for a bc i belive, i cant remember exactly how many attack a bc has but i think its 6.
Carrier and BC move at the same speed
Carrier have less armor and shield have 0 armor so take way more dmg
Carrier Cant be repaired
Carrier dps goes down has the battle rage one because they lose interceptor
Carrier require catapult to not suck, BC can get Yamato to own one of their counter (voidray)
Carrier cost 450/250 (interceptor are not free) Bc 400/300
Carrier do have more range and interceptor are great for screwing the AI sometime, but in every other aspect imo bc are superior.
So bc do more dmg, cost about the same, are less expensive to tech too, take less time to build.. people dont use bc much and yet wonder why carrier see no play? whaaaat!?
|
On August 30 2011 19:41 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:35 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other. I dont care. 1 Carrier could have 1000hp and deal 200 DPS, but if I cant survive long enough to get one, it simply doesnt matter. ----> therefor Carrier are useless. White Ra survives long enough to get plenty of them!
Yeah, in some "speshul taktiks" games. But carriers are not his standard strat, exactly because if your opponent knows that you are transitioning you carriers, he can just go kill you. So yeah, carriers are good enough to be used in those 1 of a 100 games, where you just do a nutty strat, to completely catch your opponent with his pants down.
|
On August 30 2011 19:53 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other. Have you actually used Carriers in a game before? I use to go Carriers in PvZ before the Infestor buff, it was actually a nice change of pace. If you can surprise your opponent, the initial few Carriers are quite deadly, but after they have realized your composition they are incredibly weak to their counters. So much so that Mass Carrier isn't a viable build even at max population, I was still getting steam rolled by just Corrupter/Hydra Spam, mind you, this was when Zerg didn't even bother to build Infestors to NP... I had to go mostly Voidrays with Carriers supporting to make them work, otherwise the Corruptors just ate through them like a hot knife through butter Carriers are super easy to counter when surprised too. Tyler was trying it out on his stream a few months ago. He went quick Carriers/Air Upgrades off two base on Tal'Darim with a fast third. Zerg scouted it after he had a few Carriers. In the time it took him to make around 6~ Carriers and poke out, the 3base Zerg had enough Corruptors to kill every Carrier and run away with 80% of his Corruptors alive... Samething applies in PvT. If you watch Ace vs Goody during NASL Season 1, Ace managed to hide 5 Carriers with +2/0 Air upgrades before Goody managed to scout him, at the time Goody had like 1 Viking, 1 Starport and a Marine/Thor/Tank/Hellion mix. In the time it took Ace to get to 7 Carriers with +3/0 to move out, Goody managed to put down two Starports and pump out enough viking to obliterate every single Carrier. The only reason Ace won that game was because of his mechanics and how much bases he was taking :/
That just means those toss players have not found an effective way to use these carriers. In both cases it looks like they waited too long to attack. But probably the problem was they didn't find the right composition/timing to use them to win the game/cripple their opponent.
|
On August 30 2011 19:59 IVN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:41 ZAiNs wrote:On August 30 2011 19:35 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other. I dont care. 1 Carrier could have 1000hp and deal 200 DPS, but if I cant survive long enough to get one, it simply doesnt matter. ----> therefor Carrier are useless. White Ra survives long enough to get plenty of them! Yeah, in some "speshul taktiks" games. But carriers are not his standard strat, exactly because if your opponent knows that you are transitioning you carriers, he can just go kill you. So yeah, carriers are good enough to be used in those 1 of a 100 games, where you just do a nutty strat, to completely catch your opponent with his pants down.
I think it's also because Colossi are so good/needed and the counter to them is Air so by going colossi your opponent basically counters stargate and robo tech at the same time(Warp prizm)
|
On August 30 2011 19:39 Flix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:06 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:53 shizna wrote:On August 30 2011 18:48 nihlon wrote:On August 30 2011 18:45 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:36 Biggun69 wrote:On August 30 2011 18:30 -Archangel- wrote:On August 30 2011 18:01 Xarayezona wrote:On August 30 2011 17:59 Lordwar wrote:
I think this game is fundamentally flawed If it's balance, that's why it's being patched repeatedly. Please elaborate if it's something else you have an issue with. I agree with him. Spawn larva, mules, chrono, warpgates and reactors are all flawed mechanics. They should have just stuck to BW more in this regard. How are they flawed? That's a pretty random thing to say. Starcraft 2 is a different game to sc1. Artificially create boosts in economy that then in term create imbalances due to them. Also create other oddities I fail to see how economic boost mechanics are "fundamentally flawed." They might or might not be imbalanced but that's another issue. he's completely wrong. if anything, the only fundamentally wrong mechanic is the tendancy for units to 'ball up'. it makes AOE damage completely destroy everything in nano seconds, makes the game look totally unrealistic and reduces the surface area of units making melee sucky. So I am completely wrong but you are perfectly right? It's an opinion, I have my thoughts to back up why I think it creates flaws in the game but that's not a discussion for here. Spawn larvae I believe is what makes zerg units individually so weak when in BW this wasn't the case. You don't make sense and don't explain anything. You believe that Spawn larva is what makes zerg units individually weak? Where the hell did you get that idea, why? give examples, and you're throwing in words that add to the confusion "individually weak"? I have no clue what you're talking about. Also you state that artificially create boosts in economy that in turn create imbalances. If you read your sentence you're not saying anything at all that is backed up by any argument whatsoever. You're stating that the moon pulls water... try saying that the moon's gravitational pull attracts water and causes tides. I for one believe that the economic boosts given to each race mean that greater skill and attention is required to keep up with, or surpass, your opponent's marco. You have one more task to worry about that can be game changing. It is an interesting factor that differentiates the game from it's predecessor and makes it more complex. Is it balanced for all races? I don't know. I think that possably Terran have it easier since you don't lose your OC energy until 200, you can call down multiple mules, if Zergs lose an inject cycle or Protoss forget a chrono boost both cannot recover those...
This post comes to the core of the problem. Yes, these funky new mechanics were made up to make the game harder because Blizzard could not in 2010 get away with not having MBS, automining and up to 12 units per group and no smart casting. But they are not good. Blizzard should find other ways to make players practice their mechanics to be better then others. What they came up with is not good enough. Actually, if they only remove spawn larva and balance other races around this not being in the game (and find another mechanic for zergs to slow them down) sc2 will be a much better game and zerg will be more fun.
|
On August 30 2011 19:46 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:39 Flix wrote:On August 30 2011 19:06 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:53 shizna wrote:On August 30 2011 18:48 nihlon wrote:On August 30 2011 18:45 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:36 Biggun69 wrote:On August 30 2011 18:30 -Archangel- wrote:On August 30 2011 18:01 Xarayezona wrote:On August 30 2011 17:59 Lordwar wrote:
I think this game is fundamentally flawed If it's balance, that's why it's being patched repeatedly. Please elaborate if it's something else you have an issue with. I agree with him. Spawn larva, mules, chrono, warpgates and reactors are all flawed mechanics. They should have just stuck to BW more in this regard. How are they flawed? That's a pretty random thing to say. Starcraft 2 is a different game to sc1. Artificially create boosts in economy that then in term create imbalances due to them. Also create other oddities I fail to see how economic boost mechanics are "fundamentally flawed." They might or might not be imbalanced but that's another issue. he's completely wrong. if anything, the only fundamentally wrong mechanic is the tendancy for units to 'ball up'. it makes AOE damage completely destroy everything in nano seconds, makes the game look totally unrealistic and reduces the surface area of units making melee sucky. So I am completely wrong but you are perfectly right? It's an opinion, I have my thoughts to back up why I think it creates flaws in the game but that's not a discussion for here. Spawn larvae I believe is what makes zerg units individually so weak when in BW this wasn't the case. You don't make sense and don't explain anything. You believe that Spawn larva is what makes zerg units individually weak? Where the hell did you get that idea, why? give examples, and you're throwing in words that add to the confusion "individually weak"? I have no clue what you're talking about. It's quite a simple statement. Look at the roach, it's quite terrible a unit but cannot be buffed otherwise all you will see is roach wars in every matchup. The larvae pooling mechanic means Zerg units have to be weak in a big engagement otherwise it would be virtually impossible to deal with zerg production. It's also why you see a small buff to infestors making them prominent in every single matchup. All of a sudden you have a caster that can do things so now zerg can flood the field with them. Non speed zerglings are far weaker than their BW counterparts but you are able to get tons more of them so if they were the same it would be overpowered. Tons of things like that. It's not even army units that suffer from it. Look at Zerg economy. One second there's 20 drones the next 50 so Blizzard intentially forces Zerg early game to be weaker than other races so as to balance out this aspect. Sure you can say this is just the "new Zerg" if you want but that doesn't really make sense when you look at all the whining. People don't seem to like the new Zerg. Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:39 Flix wrote:
I don't know. i think maybe Terran have it easier since you don't lose your OC energy, you can call down multiple mules, Zergs lose an inject cycle or Protoss forget a chrono boost and both cannot recover that... You realise banking energy means you lose out on the potential to use that money earlier so in essence you are still losing out. It's like saying you can have 20 scvs idle and it's fine because you can just put them to work a bit later and get a boost to your income. While the analogy is terrible it's a similar mentality that to me makes no sense.
Ok now THAT is explained. Even though you're right about the idle worker analogy there is a catchup factor in calling down multiple mules that offsets, even if only partially, the lack in macro while Zergs permanently lose inject time when they forget. I'm not QQ-ing though, I just find there is a non-forgiving aspect to the economic boost of Toss and moreso Zerg if not used PERFECTLY that Terran doesn't fully suffer from.
However I wouldn't like to go back to BW style. I for one like the new Zerg alot better. Waaaaay too much whining out there, agree with you. It's looking to me like people refuse to get better by increasing skill, they want easy, lazy ways like "remove injects, chrono and mules". I'm not saying your suggesting this though.
When you think about it injecting is a much bigger deal for Zerg since without that they would be less than half the strength they are now. Like you said the zergling would need to be back to it's old BW strength and we would all need multiple macro hatches.
|
On August 30 2011 19:59 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:53 Dommk wrote:On August 30 2011 18:57 Qikz wrote:On August 30 2011 18:28 IVN wrote:On August 30 2011 14:45 Ihpares wrote:On August 30 2011 14:41 tuho12345 wrote:On August 30 2011 14:01 KimJongChill wrote:On August 30 2011 13:39 SoKHo wrote:On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game. oh i'm sorry, you must have been living in a cave when nestea won 4 GSL championships He's won three. Zerg isn't a bad race at all, or even very weak. It's just that the design of the race is very stale, and balance changes are really just mediocre attempts to cover up these fundamental flaws. Now obviously, they can't make any large, sweeping changes to the race design now, but hope things will become more interesting in hots. Zerg isn't stale, they're more flexible than Protoss. Protoss has fewer options than Zerg, and weaker response. Can't really tell if you're serious. Protoss has more units, of greater variety. Does that not translate to greater options?
On a brief sidenote, why does no Protoss "Destiny" exist that utilizes almost purely Zealot/Senty/High Templar? It seems like with half-decent unit control and flanking, you could force an opponent into a bubble of Forcefields, then just storm them repeatedly. Caster units really can swing an entire match into one's favor rather quickly. No, not if you have 2 units (Mship, Carrier), which are useless, because they are in the game solely for the casual gamers pleasure. ANd one more unit, which till now was to weak, to be used consistently. (WP) To be honest, have you seen how powerful Carriers are? The only reason why people don't go for them is much like BCs they're a costly investment which doesn't pay off right away. If you can get to like 5 carriers then you're laughing. When people go for Stargate tech I often wonder why they don't go for carriers, but as with BCs if you don't have either a split map game or a window of time to do it, you can't really do it as you'll get rolled over. That's why BCs are mainly only used in TvT as both of you get seige lines and neither of you can really push into the other. Have you actually used Carriers in a game before? I use to go Carriers in PvZ before the Infestor buff, it was actually a nice change of pace. If you can surprise your opponent, the initial few Carriers are quite deadly, but after they have realized your composition they are incredibly weak to their counters. So much so that Mass Carrier isn't a viable build even at max population, I was still getting steam rolled by just Corrupter/Hydra Spam, mind you, this was when Zerg didn't even bother to build Infestors to NP... I had to go mostly Voidrays with Carriers supporting to make them work, otherwise the Corruptors just ate through them like a hot knife through butter Carriers are super easy to counter when surprised too. Tyler was trying it out on his stream a few months ago. He went quick Carriers/Air Upgrades off two base on Tal'Darim with a fast third. Zerg scouted it after he had a few Carriers. In the time it took him to make around 6~ Carriers and poke out, the 3base Zerg had enough Corruptors to kill every Carrier and run away with 80% of his Corruptors alive... Samething applies in PvT. If you watch Ace vs Goody during NASL Season 1, Ace managed to hide 5 Carriers with +2/0 Air upgrades before Goody managed to scout him, at the time Goody had like 1 Viking, 1 Starport and a Marine/Thor/Tank/Hellion mix. In the time it took Ace to get to 7 Carriers with +3/0 to move out, Goody managed to put down two Starports and pump out enough viking to obliterate every single Carrier. The only reason Ace won that game was because of his mechanics and how much bases he was taking :/ That just means those toss players have not found an effective way to use these carriers. In both cases it looks like they waited too long to attack. But probably the problem was they didn't find the right composition/timing to use them to win the game/cripple their opponent.
Or the unit builds so slow, cost so much and is so easily countered by cheaper units that it has no place in any match up. There might be nothing to figure out.
Personally I have never seem them in a pro match where both players where on even footing. I've been watching for a year now. How much longer do we need to wait before we declare the unit as bad.
|
On August 30 2011 11:49 pwadoc wrote:
The more I play the PTR, the more I realize how much a joke this game is. The zerg race is fundamentally broken. It's poorly designed, and no amount of patching is going to fix it. Blizzard expects us to wait a year and pay money just to give them the chance to actually balance the game. It's absurd. It's a sign for zergs to invest their time in a different game.
The more I read TL, I wonder why does zerg whines never get banned...
|
I strongly disagree with the helions nerf.
Helions 2 shooting harvesters after the upgrade was pretty clear and interisting, it was creating suspence and tension easily understandable.
Like with the 4 infantries upgrade of Terran, 3 roaches upgrade, this will overly complicate the game once again and make it more abstruse and less spectator oriented.
Dustin Browder keeps repeating that he wants a limited and very clear number of units and upgrades, yet he keeps adding/complicating upgrades before even the expansion comes out.
|
planetary fortress needs to get handled
|
On August 30 2011 19:46 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2011 19:39 Flix wrote:On August 30 2011 19:06 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:53 shizna wrote:On August 30 2011 18:48 nihlon wrote:On August 30 2011 18:45 Numy wrote:On August 30 2011 18:36 Biggun69 wrote:On August 30 2011 18:30 -Archangel- wrote:On August 30 2011 18:01 Xarayezona wrote:On August 30 2011 17:59 Lordwar wrote:
I think this game is fundamentally flawed If it's balance, that's why it's being patched repeatedly. Please elaborate if it's something else you have an issue with. I agree with him. Spawn larva, mules, chrono, warpgates and reactors are all flawed mechanics. They should have just stuck to BW more in this regard. How are they flawed? That's a pretty random thing to say. Starcraft 2 is a different game to sc1. Artificially create boosts in economy that then in term create imbalances due to them. Also create other oddities I fail to see how economic boost mechanics are "fundamentally flawed." They might or might not be imbalanced but that's another issue. he's completely wrong. if anything, the only fundamentally wrong mechanic is the tendancy for units to 'ball up'. it makes AOE damage completely destroy everything in nano seconds, makes the game look totally unrealistic and reduces the surface area of units making melee sucky. So I am completely wrong but you are perfectly right? It's an opinion, I have my thoughts to back up why I think it creates flaws in the game but that's not a discussion for here. Spawn larvae I believe is what makes zerg units individually so weak when in BW this wasn't the case. You don't make sense and don't explain anything. You believe that Spawn larva is what makes zerg units individually weak? Where the hell did you get that idea, why? give examples, and you're throwing in words that add to the confusion "individually weak"? I have no clue what you're talking about. It's quite a simple statement. Look at the roach, it's quite terrible a unit but cannot be buffed otherwise all you will see is roach wars in every matchup.
Roach a terrible unit? Do we play the same game?
Roaches are a heavy core unit in PvZ, most of the games consist of 90% pure roaches.
ZvZ currently is also extremely roach and infestor heavy.
They are insanely good for their cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
