EPTOn September 16 2011 03:53 QTIP. wrote:
Burrow'd NP would make it so range isn't even an issue.
Burrow'd NP would make it so range isn't even an issue.
Or would force detection much like DTs and burrowed banelings do.
Patch 1.4 PTR Notes (updated 9/8) - Page 425
| Forum Index > Closed |
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 | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
Or would force detection much like DTs and burrowed banelings do. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:05 dani` wrote: Let's hope "This change will not be reflected on the PTR" indicates patch 1.4.0 will go live next maintenance, i.e. this Tuesday / Wednesday / Thursday depending on server. Or is this already confirmed somewhere? its not confirmed but we can pretty much assume it will be next week. | ||
|
Phoobie
Canada120 Posts
That said this is a much more sensible nerf and it serves it's purpose. Infestors have always been the right choice because they can deal with everything cost effectively, offencively and defensively. now heavy infestor play is considerably weaker vs long rang massive units and Archon with templar support. Infestors are still going to play a key roll in every Zerg matchup, i'm not overly worried, we'll definitly see a lot less NP though  | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:07 DystopiaX wrote: Or would force detection much like DTs and burrowed banelings do. except don't protosses who go collosi in the first place.... at least *should* get an observer *_* (making it like "oh you were *greedy* thus you got your collosi stolen. DURRRP) and terrans can just scan or freaking get a raven. | ||
|
Inane_Asylum
United States196 Posts
| ||
|
BeeNu
615 Posts
On September 16 2011 03:54 Leafs wrote: Of course. It`s all a giant conspiracy as opposed to Blizzard testing out various solutions to make the game better. Ever hear of Occam`s razor? How is this "Blizzard testing out various solutions"? This change isn't even going to be tested out in PTR. The fact that it looks like this change won't actually get any testing before patch suggests to me that Blizzard was intending to force this kind of change all along regardless of public opinion. Before you try forcing out terms like Occam's Razor maybe you should learn how to properly apply the term in the first place. | ||
BluemoonSC
SoCal8907 Posts
seriously. good luck getting in range unless the other player is bad with their army control. reduce the duration or increase the mana cost | ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:07 DystopiaX wrote: Or would force detection much like DTs and burrowed banelings do. Yes it would. I'm not sure what your point is. | ||
|
SaberNodoka
151 Posts
| ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:14 QTIP. wrote: Yes it would. I'm not sure what your point is. Get detection, then your collossi are safe. | ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:14 SaberNodoka wrote: Archon? Arent they massive? Yes, what's your point? They can be Neuraled again. | ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
| ||
|
MattyClutch
United States711 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:13 immortlone wrote: the worst part about this change is that its going to require very little micro to remove the NP if you have any colossi that are not snagged. either a-click on them just move them back and lol as the infestors swim around the back of your army in an attempt to get in range. combine that with some of the tight spaces on the maps and this is just not good. seriously. good luck getting in range unless the other player is bad with their army control. reduce the duration or increase the mana cost Not really anymore difficult than trying to get a piddling HT up to FB without it getting caught. Or keeping pheonixes spread so they can deal with them without being fungaled. | ||
|
inqsolarus
Australia34 Posts
I assume this balance change is aimed at protoss. But if protoss keep a templer level equal to your infestor count, they completely nullify the infestor with feedback and change then turn in a giant ball of death afterwards. Also since protoss units are generally more cost effective than zergs, once the infestors are nullified protoss should come out on top.Its a shame corruptors are so useless or we may still a way to deal with collosi. This would also bring the NP range to the same as the thor which makes thor hellion compostions (or mech in general) far harder to deal with since infestors and brood lords are the only thing that can break a mech push. | ||
|
Telenil
France484 Posts
Blizzard was intending to force this kind of change all along regardless of public opinion. Truth and science are not democratic, nor is game balance. Blizzard never changed anything on the only ground that players complain about it, and never will.Democracy is unarguably a beautiful thing, but "raw" public opinion matters when you are in charge of a country, not a video game. Before you try forcing out terms like Occam's Razor maybe you should learn how to properly apply the term in the first place. Solution 1: Blizzard tested a change, listened to player feedback, and softened the nerf a little bit.Solution 2: masterminds at Blizzard Entertainments introduced a fake change and tested it for no practical reason on the PTR during a week, as part of a conspiracy whose purpose would be to let players believe they listen to their opinion. I do think Occam's Razor applies, and not in favour of solution 2. | ||
|
BeeNu
615 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:25 Telenil wrote: Truth and science are not democratic, nor is game balance. Blizzard never changed anything simply because players complain about it, and never will. If their first idea was to reduce NP range from 9 to 7, they would have done it immediately. There is no need to imagine a complicated conspiracy to manipulate player opinion.Solution 1: Blizzard tested a change, listened to player feedback, and softened the nerf a little bit. Solution 2: masterminds at Blizzard Entertainments introduced a fake change and tested it for no practical reason on the PTR during a week, as part of a conspiracy whose purpose would be to let players believe they listen to their opinion. I do think Occam's Razor applies, and not in favour of solution 2. How does this "soften" the nerf? It's just as bad if not worse than removing it from massive. Colossus will still be untouchable and Mech pushes will be about as untouchable now due to how massively out-ranged Infestors will be by Siege Tanks. | ||
|
SaberNodoka
151 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:19 dani` wrote: Yes, what's your point? They can be Neuraled again. Oh I didnt see the update on the changes. My bad. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:30 BeeNu wrote: How does this "soften" the nerf? It's just as bad if not worse than removing it from massive. Colossus will still be untouchable and Mech pushes will be about as untouchable now due to how massively out-ranged Infestors will be by Siege Tanks. Infestors were still outranged by siege tanks anyways. But yeah yeah... you already set your mind that NP is as good as removed from the game so no point in arguing | ||
|
Leafs
Canada41 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:25 Telenil wrote: Truth and science are not democratic, nor is game balance. Blizzard never changed anything on the only ground that players complain about it, and never will. Democracy is unarguably a beautiful thing, but "raw" public opinion matters when you are in charge of a country, not a video game.Solution 1: Blizzard tested a change, listened to player feedback, and softened the nerf a little bit. Solution 2: masterminds at Blizzard Entertainments introduced a fake change and tested it for no practical reason on the PTR during a week, as part of a conspiracy whose purpose would be to let players believe they listen to their opinion. I do think Occam's Razor applies, and not in favour of solution 2. Thank you. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On September 16 2011 04:12 BeeNu wrote: How is this "Blizzard testing out various solutions"? This change isn't even going to be tested out in PTR. The fact that it looks like this change won't actually get any testing before patch suggests to me that Blizzard was intending to force this kind of change all along regardless of public opinion. Before you try forcing out terms like Occam's Razor maybe you should learn how to properly apply the term in the first place. Blizzard is clearly running the PTR on a schedule. They don't put something on the PTR and then leave it there for an indeterminate period of time until they have it right. There have been several changes in the past that didn't go through the PTR despite the PTR being online. Basically, Blizzard has decided that the PTR will run for X weeks before a patch. X does not change, period. Occam's Razor says that it's not a conspiracy. It's just Blizzard having a schedule and sticking to it. You can argue that it defeats the point of the PTR as a testbed if they can still backdoor untested changes. But there's no conspiracy here. | ||
| ||
