|
On October 03 2015 15:09 crazedrat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 15:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 03 2015 14:36 crazedrat wrote:On October 03 2015 14:31 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 03 2015 14:14 crazedrat wrote:Pool now relies more and luck than skill for an advantage. The opening has been very much changed by this patch. Alot of what you say is superfluous, like this: On October 03 2015 14:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't a nerf. Assuming you use 100% of the early queens for injects, which we already see many pros do NOT, The queen might be slightly underused regardless. This: On October 03 2015 14:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
This is coming from a low GM zerg in hots that opened 13 pool almost every single time vs. P as well as opening 15 pool almost every game vs T.
Does not matter. This: On October 03 2015 14:05 FabledIntegral wrote:you're down around 3 larvae max. This doesn't account for the fact there is already a brief moment you can't use all the larvae anyways.
You're down about 3 larvae, to state it plainly. Not sure how that's all you got. The impact is mild, the most you'd be down is 3 larvae, although since most pros use one of the first 3 injects for a tumor when going pool first, you're down 2 in most cases. Since you may not have been able to spend the larvae regardless, this further minimizes the impact. Once again, without actually taking a deeper look, you're doing nothing more than cry end of a build order on day 1, which is quite stupid. It's a major change to pool, not mild. We just don't agree, I think it's a stylistic thing. You already open pool every game regardless (?). It's a hit to pool to a point I am not opening with it anymore. It was already shaky in alot of scenarios, making it weaker just means hatch 1st is the better opening overall. You can use it for a lucky win or a series win, but using it on ladder as a standard skill based build order I don't see why you'd choose to be more disadvantaged. Zerg is now already larvae pressed and you need the earlier hatch. You should also recognize that pool 1st in LOTV is a different build order. The timing of everything - the queen, the hatch, the lings... etc. the metagame, is different. Also it depends on how you use the pool. If you're going gas with it, that's a big impact. Bigger than just 3 larvae. You're going to be using multiple injects because you're building lings. So the speed opening, the fast baneling nest opening are both more strongly nerfed. I use those builds frequently now. You are speaking specifically about a few lings into hatch and droning which is not all pool builds, and you're speaking about HOTS builds and metagame which isn't the same. The hots reference was only to display I am familiar with pool first. I've played LotV since the beta first started. Speed openings are already heavily luck dependent as is, and your argument was revolving around "skill," so I was assuming gasless. Sure baneling busts have been nerfed, but this hardly affects zerg in general non ZvZ. Every change in the beta has created significant changes to how you can open as every race really. Yes and I like Zerg being able to standard open 13 pool on certain maps and rely on skill and execution to almost equalize. Now I have to rely on luck and that is irritating. It's really not a minor change, it changes the metagame. On Terraform how am I going to prevent Protoss from Nexus 1st now? And they can pylon block me. I have to go pool anyway. Well I pretty much have to go pool 1st, now when they open gateway gas I am faililng to equalize. I am forced into a coinflip by the metagame. So you say what?.Well you probably won't say much because you just open pool 1st in every matchup on every map regardless. And if we're talking about ZvZ, it's my favorite matchup right now and the metagame is extremely interesting because of how dynamic it is.
Every race has similar frustrations. I'm sure some terrans would love to open 1/1/1 into a later expand and be highly aggressive against zerg, but some maps and scenarios make it completely unviable - so they have to expand first.
|
On October 03 2015 15:39 deth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 15:09 crazedrat wrote:On October 03 2015 15:05 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 03 2015 14:36 crazedrat wrote:On October 03 2015 14:31 FabledIntegral wrote:On October 03 2015 14:14 crazedrat wrote:Pool now relies more and luck than skill for an advantage. The opening has been very much changed by this patch. Alot of what you say is superfluous, like this: On October 03 2015 14:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
I didn't say it wasn't a nerf. Assuming you use 100% of the early queens for injects, which we already see many pros do NOT, The queen might be slightly underused regardless. This: On October 03 2015 14:05 FabledIntegral wrote:
This is coming from a low GM zerg in hots that opened 13 pool almost every single time vs. P as well as opening 15 pool almost every game vs T.
Does not matter. This: On October 03 2015 14:05 FabledIntegral wrote:you're down around 3 larvae max. This doesn't account for the fact there is already a brief moment you can't use all the larvae anyways.
You're down about 3 larvae, to state it plainly. Not sure how that's all you got. The impact is mild, the most you'd be down is 3 larvae, although since most pros use one of the first 3 injects for a tumor when going pool first, you're down 2 in most cases. Since you may not have been able to spend the larvae regardless, this further minimizes the impact. Once again, without actually taking a deeper look, you're doing nothing more than cry end of a build order on day 1, which is quite stupid. It's a major change to pool, not mild. We just don't agree, I think it's a stylistic thing. You already open pool every game regardless (?). It's a hit to pool to a point I am not opening with it anymore. It was already shaky in alot of scenarios, making it weaker just means hatch 1st is the better opening overall. You can use it for a lucky win or a series win, but using it on ladder as a standard skill based build order I don't see why you'd choose to be more disadvantaged. Zerg is now already larvae pressed and you need the earlier hatch. You should also recognize that pool 1st in LOTV is a different build order. The timing of everything - the queen, the hatch, the lings... etc. the metagame, is different. Also it depends on how you use the pool. If you're going gas with it, that's a big impact. Bigger than just 3 larvae. You're going to be using multiple injects because you're building lings. So the speed opening, the fast baneling nest opening are both more strongly nerfed. I use those builds frequently now. You are speaking specifically about a few lings into hatch and droning which is not all pool builds, and you're speaking about HOTS builds and metagame which isn't the same. The hots reference was only to display I am familiar with pool first. I've played LotV since the beta first started. Speed openings are already heavily luck dependent as is, and your argument was revolving around "skill," so I was assuming gasless. Sure baneling busts have been nerfed, but this hardly affects zerg in general non ZvZ. Every change in the beta has created significant changes to how you can open as every race really. Yes and I like Zerg being able to standard open 13 pool on certain maps and rely on skill and execution to almost equalize. Now I have to rely on luck and that is irritating. It's really not a minor change, it changes the metagame. On Terraform how am I going to prevent Protoss from Nexus 1st now? And they can pylon block me. I have to go pool anyway. Well I pretty much have to go pool 1st, now when they open gateway gas I am faililng to equalize. I am forced into a coinflip by the metagame. So you say what?.Well you probably won't say much because you just open pool 1st in every matchup on every map regardless. And if we're talking about ZvZ, it's my favorite matchup right now and the metagame is extremely interesting because of how dynamic it is. Every race has similar frustrations. I'm sure some terrans would love to open 1/1/1 into a later expand and be highly aggressive against zerg, but some maps and scenarios make it completely unviable - so they have to expand first.
On a map like Terraform Zerg needs the ability to almost equalize with some kind of early pool. They'll still be behind against gate gas, but it'll be playable. WIth 3 less larvae, compared with the irrelevant nerf to CB in this scenario, there's nothing to prevent Nexus 1st... now it is a coinflip due to map; and not a coinflip by choice, but forced onto Zerg at an early stage in the game. That's not gona be the only map where having a viable 13 pool against gateway gas is important for preventing nexus 1st dominating at the 3rd, either.
|
apart from the sillyness of these patches, the fact that blizzard cannot even formulate the patch notes in a way that makes sense, not even to start on undocumented changes, is an incredible display of incompetence
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Blizzard posted the WRONG PATCH NOTE when talking about the adept attack speed upgrade (looking back some pages, i see other people talking about this)
Adept
Replace shield upgrade with an upgrade which reduces attack period by 45%
The attack period right now is every 1.61 seconds. Reducing it by 45% would make it 0.885 seconds, a 1.82x DPS upgrade.
They actually increased the attack rate by 45%, making the period 1.11 seconds - that's 31% lower. 31 vs 45 doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's a huge deal when talking about exponential increases.
We got a 45% DPS increase when they wrote an 82% DPS increase in the note.
The correct value is written ingame.
I really don't get how you can mess that up, it's math that will fail you before high school - almost doubling the attack speed would have been ridiculous (a 50% reduction in attack period) but that's what it said, a 45% reduction
not even to start on undocumented changes
Which ones did i miss?
|
Such a pity. I guess the time of major changes is over.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
I think it should be health nerf instead of shield nerf.
I disagree, shields contribute to raising harassment power against terran more than any other race and they're the race struggling ATM. They also contribute to adept being disproportionately weak when ghosts were on the field. I'm quite pleased to see them have 60 shields instead of 140 - it would very often be EMP'd away and forced you to focus your army production on zealots (which have only 50 shields)
What is so bad about volatility? The only place you feel it is in ZvZ or lower leagues
That's not really true, zergs with 2-3 hatches are building about 20-30 drones and then suddenly having 30-40 zerglings or 0 zerglings in a lot of my games (protoss), particularly since they rebuffed inject. It's worse since 2 or 3 hatcheries before a pool has become very common
---------
I would like to see colossus outright removed or rebalanced, it obviously needs it right now. Maybe making the attack fire much more often?
Two of the biggest issues i see at the moment are combat power(absolute or vs the 6 supply cost) and expense to get up. Those first 2 colossi are still just as expensive as ever (a lot more so than disruptors, which don't require a 200/200 research to function properly and cost 150/150 instead of 300/200). Maybe in adressing that, default colossus range could be made 9, upgrade removed and supply reduced to 5? A 6-supply colossus with a 1.25x damage nerf is still not going to be in the best place.
|
It's nice to see they are removing tools so people can't deal with liberators. Now they are even more broken.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 03 2015 17:36 Tuczniak wrote:
It's nice to see they are removing tools so people can't deal with liberators. Now they are even more broken.
This is just leading up to the liberator nerfs
|
On October 03 2015 16:47 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +What is so bad about volatility? The only place you feel it is in ZvZ or lower leagues That's not really true, zergs with 2-3 hatches are building about 20-30 drones and then suddenly having 30-40 zerglings or 0 zerglings in a lot of my games (protoss), particularly since they rebuffed inject. It's worse since 2 or 3 hatcheries before a pool has become very common
That's an early gas.
|
In what sort of contexts are Liberators overpowered? I'm seeing Polt and ForGG use them in macro games and they seem pretty well balanced. It takes lots of attention to get results out of them.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 03 2015 17:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
In what sort of contexts are Liberators overpowered? I'm seeing Polt and ForGG use them in macro games and they seem pretty well balanced. It takes lots of attention to get results out of them.
When you throw 4-8 of them onto the regular marine marauder medivac ghost comp. Zergs seem to be having more trouble earlier in the game
|
On October 03 2015 16:42 Cyro wrote:Blizzard posted the WRONG PATCH NOTE when talking about the adept attack speed upgrade (looking back some pages, i see other people talking about this) Show nested quote +Adept
Replace shield upgrade with an upgrade which reduces attack period by 45% The attack period right now is every 1.61 seconds. Reducing it by 45% would make it 0.885 seconds, a 1.82x DPS upgrade. They actually increased the attack rate by 45%, making the period 1.11 seconds - that's 31% lower. 31 vs 45 doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's a huge deal when talking about exponential increases. We got a 45% DPS increase when they wrote an 82% DPS increase in the note. The correct value is written ingame. I really don't get how you can mess that up, it's math that will fail you before high school - almost doubling the attack speed would have been ridiculous (a 50% reduction in attack period) but that's what it said, a 45% reduction Which ones did i miss?
Not that the difference between 31% and 45% isn't significant, but what's exponential about this?
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 03 2015 18:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 16:42 Cyro wrote:Blizzard posted the WRONG PATCH NOTE when talking about the adept attack speed upgrade (looking back some pages, i see other people talking about this) Adept
Replace shield upgrade with an upgrade which reduces attack period by 45% The attack period right now is every 1.61 seconds. Reducing it by 45% would make it 0.885 seconds, a 1.82x DPS upgrade. They actually increased the attack rate by 45%, making the period 1.11 seconds - that's 31% lower. 31 vs 45 doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's a huge deal when talking about exponential increases. We got a 45% DPS increase when they wrote an 82% DPS increase in the note. The correct value is written ingame. I really don't get how you can mess that up, it's math that will fail you before high school - almost doubling the attack speed would have been ridiculous (a 50% reduction in attack period) but that's what it said, a 45% reduction not even to start on undocumented changes Which ones did i miss? Not that the difference between 31% and 45% isn't significant, but what's exponential about this?
A 31% reduction in attack speed period is a 45% DPS gain.
A 45% reduction in attack speed period is an 82% DPS gain.
A 75% reduction in attack speed period is a 300% DPS gain.
They used the wrong math. They didn't reduce the period by 45%, they increased the rate by 45% - those are two very different things
|
Sounds good to get it started! Reduction of MM efficiency is overall good for the game I am sure. Can later finetune it still.
|
On October 03 2015 18:33 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 18:30 ChristianS wrote:On October 03 2015 16:42 Cyro wrote:Blizzard posted the WRONG PATCH NOTE when talking about the adept attack speed upgrade (looking back some pages, i see other people talking about this) Adept
Replace shield upgrade with an upgrade which reduces attack period by 45% The attack period right now is every 1.61 seconds. Reducing it by 45% would make it 0.885 seconds, a 1.82x DPS upgrade. They actually increased the attack rate by 45%, making the period 1.11 seconds - that's 31% lower. 31 vs 45 doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's a huge deal when talking about exponential increases. We got a 45% DPS increase when they wrote an 82% DPS increase in the note. The correct value is written ingame. I really don't get how you can mess that up, it's math that will fail you before high school - almost doubling the attack speed would have been ridiculous (a 50% reduction in attack period) but that's what it said, a 45% reduction not even to start on undocumented changes Which ones did i miss? Not that the difference between 31% and 45% isn't significant, but what's exponential about this? A 31% reduction in attack speed period is a 45% DPS gain. A 45% reduction in attack speed period is an 82% DPS gain. A 75% reduction in attack speed period is a 300% DPS gain. They used the wrong math. They didn't reduce the period by 45%, they increased the rate by 45% - those are two very different things
Huh. Strictly speaking, DPS goes as 1/(100-x) if x is the percent reduction, right? So not technically exponential? Not that it particularly matters for these purposes, it's still a clumsy mistake for the patch notes to get it wrong.
|
I want manual cronoboost back, you can nerf it by it's effectiveness or by it's energy cost (which I prefer). Feel very bad if Protoss is the only race which doesn't get rid of the auto mechanics.
|
On October 03 2015 18:53 Aenur wrote:
I want manual cronoboost back, you can nerf it by it's effectiveness or by it's energy cost (which I prefer). Feel very bad if Protoss is the only race which doesn't get rid of the auto mechanics.
I don't even want to imagine 8 chronoboosted gateways with the prism adept allin ^_-
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 03 2015 18:38 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2015 18:33 Cyro wrote:On October 03 2015 18:30 ChristianS wrote:On October 03 2015 16:42 Cyro wrote:Blizzard posted the WRONG PATCH NOTE when talking about the adept attack speed upgrade (looking back some pages, i see other people talking about this) Adept
Replace shield upgrade with an upgrade which reduces attack period by 45% The attack period right now is every 1.61 seconds. Reducing it by 45% would make it 0.885 seconds, a 1.82x DPS upgrade. They actually increased the attack rate by 45%, making the period 1.11 seconds - that's 31% lower. 31 vs 45 doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's a huge deal when talking about exponential increases. We got a 45% DPS increase when they wrote an 82% DPS increase in the note. The correct value is written ingame. I really don't get how you can mess that up, it's math that will fail you before high school - almost doubling the attack speed would have been ridiculous (a 50% reduction in attack period) but that's what it said, a 45% reduction not even to start on undocumented changes Which ones did i miss? Not that the difference between 31% and 45% isn't significant, but what's exponential about this? A 31% reduction in attack speed period is a 45% DPS gain. A 45% reduction in attack speed period is an 82% DPS gain. A 75% reduction in attack speed period is a 300% DPS gain. They used the wrong math. They didn't reduce the period by 45%, they increased the rate by 45% - those are two very different things Huh. Strictly speaking, DPS goes as 1/(100-x) if x is the percent reduction, right? So not technically exponential? Not that it particularly matters for these purposes, it's still a clumsy mistake for the patch notes to get it wrong.
Exponential might be the wrong word (i lack math education) but the scaling is different if you reduce the delay by a percentage, rather than increase the rate by a percentage. A 100% increase in attack speed is double damage but a 100% reduction in the cooldown between attacks is infinite damage.
I don't even want to imagine 8 chronoboosted gateways with the prism adept allin ^_-
Even if completely un-nerfed, that's a ton of energy. If you're worried about 8 gates on 2 nexii with three "HOTS-minutes" of banked energy, you should probably be more worried about him simply building 2 more gateways 
|
It continues to amaze me how shortsited this community persists to be. x) And at the same time its a bit sad, i used to expect more from the sc2 people.
|
Yeah it is kinda sad that whoever wrote the patchnotes would had failed basic high school maths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
