|
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 September 06 2011 00:19 neoghaleon55 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 22:10 Thezzy wrote:
As a Terran player I can see why Blueflame got the nerfbat, SlayersS really tore up a lot of opponents with them, although 150/150 for now just +5 dmg against a single unit type (light) on a single unit might be a bit much.
I haven't used Blueflame much myself but I've seen how much it decimates light units in casts and replays.
Terran Barracks buildtime increase I plainly don't get, currently the Barracks and OC upgrade always lined up perfectly with the SCV on 15, now it will be off by 5 seconds.
All these Reapers, Bunkers and Barracks nerfs make me feel as if Blizzard is out to kill off early Terran aggression bit by bit. The only early aggression I considered unbalanced was 5rax Reaper and that died a long time ago.
Are bunker rushes still so powerful on the lower leagues that this is needed? (I don't bunker rush myself so I wouldn't know)
Seeker missile speed buff is nice, but its slow speed wasn't the main issue it doesn't see the light of day, it's mostly the expensiveness of the Raven, the amount of energy the SM needs and the 150/150 upgrade for the missile itself.
The other race changes I can't say much about although I'm curious to see the Immortal change.
+1 range will give it the same range as Stalkers, will have to see how that turns out. It has nothing to do with lower leagues that the bunker rush got nerfed. Bunkers are still taking games in TvZ in the GSL...almost every single match actually, contains at least one bunker rush, and the 11/11, especially with a proxy, can be extremely hard to hold off. And Even if the zerg held it off, they'd be severely behind due to the larvae mechanic.
Hmm, but then why add 5 seconds to the barracks build time, this affects a lot of other stuff as well. I'd rather see a change geared specifically towards offensive bunkering (like maybe make them very weak whilst being built).
|
Heh, last time bunkers were nerfed, terrans groaned & moaned as if it was not viable any more (100% resource return to 75% LoooL). We've now seen for weeks all terrans bunker rush with 0 risk, 0 decision 0 thought invested in it because it doesn't matter if you do damage or not, because the underlying build is OVERPOWERED. That's where the 5 sec build time nerf is coming from.
You could friggin' remove bunkers completely and terran would still have the most versatile, safest and easiest early game of the three races.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 05 2011 22:25 bittman wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 22:21 Amber[LighT] wrote:On September 04 2011 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote:
(1st Post :DDD!)
Well, I Kinda like the patch in General but I have one thing that bothers me: Before the patch, Immortals always got stuck behind Stalkers due to their lower Range. Now when they have equal range they are still slower than Stalkers what results in them getting stuck and not dealing their horrific damage, except against Roaches. Any thoughts on this? Also I hope to be wrong. That's more of a user error than a balance change. If your problem is your immortals keep ending up behind stalkers why not just hotkey them with your zealots so they are always in front of your stalkers, but behind your zealots? I heard Tyler talk about that on SOTG and I was like: "Oh......duh....thanks Tyler" haha So now, Immortals hotkeyed with Zealots. Stalkers in own group. Sentries in own group. Wonder what of the above would Collosus fit best with? Don't think it matters since all of the above walk "under" the Collosus, and their ranges are different. And Archons? I usually hotkey them with zealots too, but is that the best option? (maybe novice questions, I'm only a gold random =P )
immies get hung up on sentries in big fights just like they do stalkers. their bulk and average movement speed play a big part in them getting hung up on other toss ranged units. during the beta, i had an immortal's pathing fuck up so badly that it started backpedaling and became unresponsive until its target died (a CC).
|
On September 06 2011 00:58 taintmachine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 22:25 bittman wrote:On September 05 2011 22:21 Amber[LighT] wrote:On September 04 2011 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote:
(1st Post :DDD!)
Well, I Kinda like the patch in General but I have one thing that bothers me: Before the patch, Immortals always got stuck behind Stalkers due to their lower Range. Now when they have equal range they are still slower than Stalkers what results in them getting stuck and not dealing their horrific damage, except against Roaches. Any thoughts on this? Also I hope to be wrong. That's more of a user error than a balance change. If your problem is your immortals keep ending up behind stalkers why not just hotkey them with your zealots so they are always in front of your stalkers, but behind your zealots? I heard Tyler talk about that on SOTG and I was like: "Oh......duh....thanks Tyler" haha So now, Immortals hotkeyed with Zealots. Stalkers in own group. Sentries in own group. Wonder what of the above would Collosus fit best with? Don't think it matters since all of the above walk "under" the Collosus, and their ranges are different. And Archons? I usually hotkey them with zealots too, but is that the best option? (maybe novice questions, I'm only a gold random =P ) immies get hung up on sentries in big fights just like they do stalkers. their bulk and average movement speed play a big part in them getting hung up on other toss ranged units. during the beta, i had an immortal's pathing fuck up so badly that it started backpedaling and became unresponsive until its target died (a CC).
Sentries are slow as well, though. The main problem with Immo and Stalker on the same hotkey is that Stalkers are significantly faster than Immortals so they'll get stuck in front of the Immortals by default. For Sentries and Immortals, they might get jumbled, yes, but it's unlikely that ALL your Immortals will be behind the sentries.
|
On September 06 2011 05:41 DarQraven wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 00:58 taintmachine wrote:On September 05 2011 22:25 bittman wrote:On September 05 2011 22:21 Amber[LighT] wrote:On September 04 2011 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote:
(1st Post :DDD!)
Well, I Kinda like the patch in General but I have one thing that bothers me: Before the patch, Immortals always got stuck behind Stalkers due to their lower Range. Now when they have equal range they are still slower than Stalkers what results in them getting stuck and not dealing their horrific damage, except against Roaches. Any thoughts on this? Also I hope to be wrong. That's more of a user error than a balance change. If your problem is your immortals keep ending up behind stalkers why not just hotkey them with your zealots so they are always in front of your stalkers, but behind your zealots? I heard Tyler talk about that on SOTG and I was like: "Oh......duh....thanks Tyler" haha So now, Immortals hotkeyed with Zealots. Stalkers in own group. Sentries in own group. Wonder what of the above would Collosus fit best with? Don't think it matters since all of the above walk "under" the Collosus, and their ranges are different. And Archons? I usually hotkey them with zealots too, but is that the best option? (maybe novice questions, I'm only a gold random =P ) immies get hung up on sentries in big fights just like they do stalkers. their bulk and average movement speed play a big part in them getting hung up on other toss ranged units. during the beta, i had an immortal's pathing fuck up so badly that it started backpedaling and became unresponsive until its target died (a CC). Sentries are slow as well, though. The main problem with Immo and Stalker on the same hotkey is that Stalkers are significantly faster than Immortals so they'll get stuck in front of the Immortals by default. For Sentries and Immortals, they might get jumbled, yes, but it's unlikely that ALL your Immortals will be behind the sentries.
Immortals also have pathing comparable to Dragoons. The range increase will at least allow you to better position the Immortals with some micro.
|
On September 06 2011 00:52 R3N wrote:
Heh, last time bunkers were nerfed, terrans groaned & moaned as if it was not viable any more (100% resource return to 75% LoooL). We've now seen for weeks all terrans bunker rush with 0 risk, 0 decision 0 thought invested in it because it doesn't matter if you do damage or not, because the underlying build is OVERPOWERED. That's where the 5 sec build time nerf is coming from.
You could friggin' remove bunkers completely and terran would still have the most versatile, safest and easiest early game of the three races.
Say what?
|
On September 05 2011 23:17 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 22:51 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On September 05 2011 22:25 bittman wrote:On September 05 2011 22:21 Amber[LighT] wrote:On September 04 2011 21:42 TotalNightmare wrote:
(1st Post :DDD!)
Well, I Kinda like the patch in General but I have one thing that bothers me: Before the patch, Immortals always got stuck behind Stalkers due to their lower Range. Now when they have equal range they are still slower than Stalkers what results in them getting stuck and not dealing their horrific damage, except against Roaches. Any thoughts on this? Also I hope to be wrong. That's more of a user error than a balance change. If your problem is your immortals keep ending up behind stalkers why not just hotkey them with your zealots so they are always in front of your stalkers, but behind your zealots? I heard Tyler talk about that on SOTG and I was like: "Oh......duh....thanks Tyler" haha So now, Immortals hotkeyed with Zealots. Stalkers in own group. Sentries in own group. Wonder what of the above would Collosus fit best with? Don't think it matters since all of the above walk "under" the Collosus, and their ranges are different. And Archons? I usually hotkey them with zealots too, but is that the best option? (maybe novice questions, I'm only a gold random =P ) Keying colossus with zealots should be a criminal offense, at least. It still is actually not that uncommon - since you need your own group for blink-stalkers (otherwise it will be the usual ball of zealots/stalkers who get in the way of one another) and you need your own group for HTs....obvious reasons. Unless you want to use 4 control-groups, having colossi and zealots on the same hotkey has one advantage: this would be the "a-move" hotkey, while the spells/micro happens on the other ones. Furthermore, colossi can be repositioned by selecting them quite easily, since they are huge. For me, the question how to properly hotkey colossi has always been annoying and harder than I'd want it to be.
I wrote out the same thing (but deleted it)!!!
I've ended up using the fourth hotkey. Goddamn it's difficult to move your whole army. But if I don't, I end up feeling bad about myself for not playing optimally 
You can double HK colli with zeals and another HK was well (but then your zeals and colli clump up pretty bad).
Oh yeah, how do you feel when you open phoenix first. So many hks.......
|
On September 06 2011 00:06 zergrushkekeke wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 19:11 OkidokiSEA wrote:
I had a dream last night that I was playing on Blizzard's newest patch. They made it so that bunkers couldn't be built outside your spawning base area for the first 5 mins. I actually thought that was a good idea by Blizzard in my dream, negating the need for more bunker and barracks nerf. OMGOMGOMG Make bunkers only build-able within range of any supply depot (say the same range as a creep tumor). That way bunker rushing would be as hard to do as spine rushing. Terran could still reasonably defend and there wouldn't have to be any other rules about what constitutes as your base and keeps them available right after the barracks.
You could just make bunkers an upgrade for the supply depot, in the same way that a planetary fortress is an upgrade for a command centre. This would negate their early offensive use as you would have to build a forward depot, then wait for your barracks to build and upgrade the depot. It just would not happen.
On the plus side, you would not have to waste SCV building time to make defensive bunkers. Just make sure you have some well positioned depots in advance.
If you want to add variety you could tie in the bunker upgrade with the orbital commands supply drop. Then bunkers cost no minerals directly but instead cost orbital command energy. You would get +8 supply and a bunker instead of a mule.
The obvious problem with this is that if your bunkers were to die not only would you have no static defenses but may be supply blocked which is a terrible state to be in.
|
On September 05 2011 22:10 Thezzy wrote:
All these Reapers, Bunkers and Barracks nerfs make me feel as if Blizzard is out to kill off early Terran aggression bit by bit.
I SEE WHAT U DID THERE
|
On September 06 2011 06:17 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 00:06 zergrushkekeke wrote:On September 05 2011 19:11 OkidokiSEA wrote:
I had a dream last night that I was playing on Blizzard's newest patch. They made it so that bunkers couldn't be built outside your spawning base area for the first 5 mins. I actually thought that was a good idea by Blizzard in my dream, negating the need for more bunker and barracks nerf. OMGOMGOMG Make bunkers only build-able within range of any supply depot (say the same range as a creep tumor). That way bunker rushing would be as hard to do as spine rushing. Terran could still reasonably defend and there wouldn't have to be any other rules about what constitutes as your base and keeps them available right after the barracks. You could just make bunkers an upgrade for the supply depot, in the same way that a planetary fortress is an upgrade for a command centre. This would negate their early offensive use as you would have to build a forward depot, then wait for your barracks to build and upgrade the depot. It just would not happen. On the plus side, you would not have to waste SCV building time to make defensive bunkers. Just make sure you have some well positioned depots in advance. If you want to add variety you could tie in the bunker upgrade with the orbital commands supply drop. Then bunkers cost no minerals directly but instead cost orbital command energy. You would get +8 supply and a bunker instead of a mule. The obvious problem with this is that if your bunkers were to die not only would you have no static defenses but may be supply blocked which is a terrible state to be in.
lol, okay, i feel like these are starting to get away from the general idea of, "Let's talk about what happened" and getting into the realm of, "wouldn't it be cool IF...."
Which i feel like is a dangerous place to stay most of the time when discussing balance.
I'm interested to see how much of this pans out, I'm a little disappointed on the immortal range increase, but other than that, i'm willing to wait and see how everything else plays out.
Also, i'm glad they're finally moving towards a dnd mode
|
I hear bunker rushes aren't as good if the Zerg doesn't fast expand.
|
On September 06 2011 06:22 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 06:17 hzflank wrote:On September 06 2011 00:06 zergrushkekeke wrote:On September 05 2011 19:11 OkidokiSEA wrote:
I had a dream last night that I was playing on Blizzard's newest patch. They made it so that bunkers couldn't be built outside your spawning base area for the first 5 mins. I actually thought that was a good idea by Blizzard in my dream, negating the need for more bunker and barracks nerf. OMGOMGOMG Make bunkers only build-able within range of any supply depot (say the same range as a creep tumor). That way bunker rushing would be as hard to do as spine rushing. Terran could still reasonably defend and there wouldn't have to be any other rules about what constitutes as your base and keeps them available right after the barracks. You could just make bunkers an upgrade for the supply depot, in the same way that a planetary fortress is an upgrade for a command centre. This would negate their early offensive use as you would have to build a forward depot, then wait for your barracks to build and upgrade the depot. It just would not happen. On the plus side, you would not have to waste SCV building time to make defensive bunkers. Just make sure you have some well positioned depots in advance. If you want to add variety you could tie in the bunker upgrade with the orbital commands supply drop. Then bunkers cost no minerals directly but instead cost orbital command energy. You would get +8 supply and a bunker instead of a mule. The obvious problem with this is that if your bunkers were to die not only would you have no static defenses but may be supply blocked which is a terrible state to be in. lol, okay, i feel like these are starting to get away from the general idea of, "Let's talk about what happened" and getting into the realm of, "wouldn't it be cool IF...." Which i feel like is a dangerous place to stay most of the time when discussing balance. I'm interested to see how much of this pans out, I'm a little disappointed on the immortal range increase, but other than that, i'm willing to wait and see how everything else plays out. Also, i'm glad they're finally moving towards a dnd mode
Sorry, that was not a serious suggestion so much as an amusing twist on a previous post. Offensive bunker building vs zerg did need a little tweak though (as in barracks timing change).
I really do not think the immortal change is a big deal. They are still slow and bulky so if you do not micro well they will still get stuck behind stalkers. I dont really have a problem with immortals as it is and I do use them often enough. I think they just get slightly overshadowed by colossi.
|
The obvious problem with this is that if your bunkers were to die not only would you have no static defenses but may be supply blocked which is a terrible state to be in.
That's pretty much what it's like to lose a pylon: you're supply blocked and your cannons are unpowered ^^.
|
Blue Flame Analysis
Live Blue Flame @ +0 Attack: Blue Flame deducts 1 shot from Probes&Drones, 2 shots on SCVs, 1 shot on Zerglings, 2 shots on Marines, and 3 shots on Zealots.
PTR Blue Flame @ +0 Attack: Blue Flame deducts 1 shot on SCVs, 0 shots on Probes&Drones, 1 shot on Zerglings, 1 shot on Marines, and 2 shots on Zealots
PTR Blue Flame @ +1 Attack: Results: Both upgrades combined deduct 1 shot on SCVs, Probes, and Drones, 1 shot on Zerglings, 1 shot on Marines, and 3 shots on Zealots.
So getting +1 only helps vs Probes, Drones, and Zealots.
Predictions:
TvT: We will see very, very little BFH play now. The BFH change is a huge buff to Marine/SCV defense, by like 50%. There will be less 1 base blueflame drops in TvT because you'll kill half the amount of workers. And in the lategame, even with +1 attack, Marines will be 50% better vs hellions than the way they are now. Because both ground and air mech are heavily dependent on Hellions killing the Marines in TvT, this change will essentially kill both ground and air mech play. Which is a really bad thing imo, right now the matchup has a lot of variety in it. I'm afraid that this change will send us back to all Marine/Tank/Viking, all the time.
TvZ: We will no longer see 1 base BFH drops, but other than that we will see just as much BFH play as we did before. Reactor RFH is still really good, and +1 Vehicle Attack is usually researched very early because of the critical Tank vs Zergling upgrade. The +1 Vehicle Attack essentially "rolls back" the PTR fix with respect to Zerg, so Zergs will continue to cry OP like they always do.
TvP: Its very rare to see BFH or mech in general vs Protoss because the majority of their army is either Armored or safely forcefielded away. This nerf will make BFH drops even less likely than they were before, and mech even weaker in the overall matchup.
So yeah. Zergs are up for a rude surprise if they think that this nerf is going to help them. But the change is huge for TvT, to the point where the change will completely shuts down two huge branches of playstyles. I don't play BFH in TvT and I still think that sucks because TvT is very dynamic now and this will stagnate it.
|
I like this, the only issue i have now is the fact that i think the ultra buff is neccessary, i just think that research time for fungal should be increased, its worth as much as storm and correct me if i am wrong but i believe storm takes longer. Yes i know that you can chrono it out faster, but i'm pretty sure that most people would rather chrono out their attack/defense/shields upgrades and their WG's than have to use their chronos to make sure an upgrade time matches up that or get rid of infestor and ghost mana upgrades so that all races must wait to cast spells. IMHO, i might be severely wrong if so, plz feel free to correct me :D
|
On September 06 2011 06:48 docvoc wrote:
I like this, the only issue i have now is the fact that i think the ultra buff is neccessary, i just think that research time for fungal should be increased, its worth as much as storm and correct me if i am wrong but i believe storm takes longer. Yes i know that you can chrono it out faster, but i'm pretty sure that most people would rather chrono out their attack/defense/shields upgrades and their WG's than have to use their chronos to make sure an upgrade time matches up that or get rid of infestor and ghost mana upgrades so that all races must wait to cast spells. IMHO, i might be severely wrong if so, plz feel free to correct me :D
Fungal does not require research. What Zergs do is research the +25 energy so that when the Infestors hatch they are ready to fungal.
|
On September 06 2011 06:25 Empirimancer wrote:
I hear bunker rushes aren't as good if the Zerg doesn't fast expand.
You realize that hatch first isn't like nexus or CC first right? It gives a lot of defensive properties - larva, creep, production, queens, placement for spines. It's not as simple as "zerg hatching first is being super greedy'. Building a hatch first can, sometimes, be likened to building 2 rax. It can also just be greedy.
If you get walled in with bunkers when going 14/14, for example, you lose, when going hatch first could've saved you. Going hatch first may also be better against proxy rax, when you need to get that hatch up faster.
It's just different, that's all. And you can hold bunker rushes with hatch first. I don't think there's any build out there that auto-kills a Zerg going hatch first in ZvT.
And to the person who says infestors were OP - did you not read my post at all? Everything dies in the same number of fungals except in ZvZ, void rays, and colossi. And medivac/marine still function the same before and after this, any marine healed by a medivac will survive FG, this is true now, this is true with this PTR. And a medivac will only heal a single marine, given the DOT nature of FG.
|
Blizzard doesn't want to negate bunker rushes. They don't want them to break the game, of course, but they still want them to exist as an option.
They're not going to take steps to remove bunkers from being used offensively. That's part of the game.
|
Make bunkers temporarily take up less space during early stages of construction. Bunkers have the footprint of a 2x2 depot from 1-49% completion. At 50% construction a bunker fills out to 3x3. If there are any units in the way, they get shunted out a la forcefield push effect. To begin construction they still need the clearance of a regular 3x3 building.
Now bunkers can't be used to suddenly form a solid wall directly in front of an opponent and it is also easier to target the scv with melee units.
Doesn't affect bunkers that get put up early for defense, or even ones that are only sort of early and need a couple extra seconds to finish. Also doesn't seriously affect bunkers put up out of sight of a newly morphing hatchery, etc.
|
Why do you guys come up with your own future patch notes in the thread thats meant to discuss the current patch notes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
