EPTAnd ultra redesign.
Community Feedback Update - October 8 - Page 4
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
And ultra redesign. | ||
|
Musicus
Germany23579 Posts
| ||
|
cmdspinner1
140 Posts
On October 09 2015 09:30 Pugfarmer wrote: The problem with Mech being overpowered vs Zerg, and creating the same slow turtle games that the old swarm hosts did. Are there any statistics that prove that mech is overpowered vs. Zerg? A lot of people just claim that, but i don't get the impression from watching pro games. | ||
|
BlyOnFire
Ukraine74 Posts
| ||
|
AyaaLa
Spain629 Posts
Mods: Please ban me, I am never coming back to discuss this game anyways. bye User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Asturas
Finland587 Posts
But I really would like Blizzard to rethink photon overcharge on pylons. I still can't see the point of this. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
Viking vs Mutalisk sucks because mutas are just too fast for vikings to catch and even in a head to head engagement mutalisks would still trade favorably due to glaive bounce. BC vs Carrier vs Corrupter is terrible because there isn't any micro you can insert to make it more dynamic and fun. And no, Phoenix vs Muta isn't a good example either, because its a asymmetric match up where for the first couple of minutes the protoss has to work his ass off because mutas will destroy his small phoenix force, then the protoss just rolls over the zerg because phoenixes in big numbers destroy mutalisks. What air units actually need in SC2 is a BW esque interaction. Think back to wraith vs muta, it was fun, dynamic, wasn't extremely one sided, and required a lot of control from each side. Unfortunately that kind of dynamic can't exist in SC2 partially because of how well mutalisks scale in numbers and partially because of how fast zergs can amass said numbers of mutalisks. Also Blizzard lost their window of time to rework mutalisks before Legacy launch. | ||
|
Phaenoman
568 Posts
On October 09 2015 17:03 AyaaLa wrote: LOTV is going to kill the name Starcraft. The dev team is a bunch of stubborn imbeciles. The reality is that this game is horrible atm Mods: Please ban me, I am never coming back to discuss this game anyways. bye Ppl are so short-sighted. On topic: I do not like another Adept nerf. And the cyclone is not fun at all. | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On October 09 2015 17:01 AcerBly wrote: why still no info about carriers? omfg. worst unit in the game.... I still wonder why P is given THREE huge late-late-game air units - Tempest, Carrier and Mothership - while none of them is more threatening than 3/3 zealot prism warp-in everywhere if a game has really progressed into that stage. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
But that's the nature of those things, you nerf the pace of the game and then you feel like you are behind all the time, but the truth is that you just haven't adjusted your inner Starcraft-clock to the new pace. That being said I would like it if they also nerfed the zerg remax potential from injects, not just the injects. Put the maximum amount of larva a hatchery can hold down to a more restrictive number from 19, maybe 9 maybe even go to 6 (can't store more than 1inject). Back to Terran: Terran is weak because there are obvious unit problems, at least in TvZ. Like the Ultralisk vs bio. Or the Viper vs Mech. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 09 2015 17:50 Big J wrote: @ the Mule nerf: I don't believe that this makes Terran weak and should be undone. Of course Terran is weaker, Zerg also feels mega-weak since the larva nerf. But that's the nature of those things, you nerf the pace of the game and then you feel like you are behind all the time, but the truth is that you just haven't adjusted your inner Starcraft-clock to the new pace. That being said I would like it if they also nerfed the zerg remax potential from injects, not just the injects. Put the maximum amount of larva a hatchery can hold down to a more restrictive number from 19, maybe 9 maybe even go to 6 (can't store more than 1inject). Back to Terran: Terran is weak because there are obvious unit problems, at least in TvZ. Like the Ultralisk vs bio. Or the Viper vs Mech. I actually like the larva stack mechanic. It adds macro skill to zerg after 200 supply. It allows for the zerg end game composition to be a bit weaker and getting hard countered by other races end game composition (while the opposite wouldn't work well). It allows for more zergy style where you have to send waves and waves of units to win. But if you don't like that, and want three end game compositions of more equal strength, then yeah, lowering the Max larva is probably the way to go. | ||
|
TedCruz2016
Hong Kong271 Posts
On October 09 2015 17:50 Big J wrote: @ the Mule nerf: I don't believe that this makes Terran weak and should be undone. Of course Terran is weaker, Zerg also feels mega-weak since the larva nerf. But that's the nature of those things, you nerf the pace of the game and then you feel like you are behind all the time, but the truth is that you just haven't adjusted your inner Starcraft-clock to the new pace. That being said I would like it if they also nerfed the zerg remax potential from injects, not just the injects. Put the maximum amount of larva a hatchery can hold down to a more restrictive number from 19, maybe 9 maybe even go to 6 (can't store more than 1inject). Back to Terran: Terran is weak because there are obvious unit problems, at least in TvZ. Like the Ultralisk vs bio. Or the Viper vs Mech. Well, I guess ground mech is expected to become the new norm in TvZ. If it's countered with roach/ravager/hydra/lurker, ultra will be in disadvantage because its weapon upgrade will fall behind. Viper and corruptor are pretty broken, though. I think they should be fixed. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 09 2015 18:03 Cascade wrote: I actually like the larva stack mechanic. It adds macro skill to zerg after 200 supply. It allows for the zerg end game composition to be a bit weaker and getting hard countered by other races end game composition (while the opposite wouldn't work well). It allows for more zergy style where you have to send waves and waves of units to win. But if you don't like that, and want three end game compositions of more equal strength, then yeah, lowering the Max larva is probably the way to go. I don't think the balance will ever work out well in the endgame without somewhat similar production and army strenght, given the SC2 economy. It's been a common theme in SC2 that players win matchups "because they got there" and other advantages couldn't be used properly against "that army". It's the root of all turtle games. It might end up balanced in some numbers, but you give players a clear incentive to play horseshit playstyles because they know their opponent has to come to them eventually. | ||
|
FireCake
151 Posts
On October 09 2015 16:48 cmdspinner1 wrote: Are there any statistics that prove that mech is overpowered vs. Zerg? A lot of people just claim that, but i don't get the impression from watching pro games. Why do you care so much about statistics ? They give no explanation about how the game works and thus how to change the game if it needs to be done. Mech is overpowered against zerg because : 1) Their late game army destroys with ease everything zerg has 2) It became very easy to play mech (combined upgrade, tanks buff, hellbat buff, SH nerf, banshee buff...) 3) Zerg has no tools to harass the terran player in a somehow cost-effective way Terrans players played bio everytime they play a zerg for years, suddendly terrans play mech... This strategy needs to be insanely broken for terran to do something else than 3 CCs into bio. | ||
|
mCon.Hephaistas
Netherlands891 Posts
Losing hope  | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
On October 09 2015 15:03 PinheadXXXXXX wrote: To elaborate on avilo's post about the strength of air units above: One thing that blizzard has done in HotS and LotV is severely screwed with the dynamic of long-range air to ground units. Units like the broodlord, the tempest, and to an extent the carrier, and now the liberator, require air-based responses most of the time if they are massed; killing these units with ground usually requires a hail-mary flank or blink underneath to pick them off. This is an arguably bad dynamic, and Blizzard has made it significantly worse by buffing broodlord range, buffing carriers, adding tempests, creating the oracle's revelation for the tempests, and adding liberators. These progressive buffs to long-range AtG units are perhaps the single most important factor in creating this shift to air that avilo mentions. This becomes a bad direction for blizzard to go in when despite forcing races into air-based armies, they do not make them interesting, and they insert hard counters to air (like parasitic bomb) into the game. Does it make even an iota of sense that zerg should have a unit that forces terran to make air or lose (the broodlord) but also has a spell that slaughters the air that terran must make? It's out of the game, but did the tempest's ability to kill units over time and force vikings/corruptors to commit into fights in storms make any sense, given that terran and zerg were forced to make air units to kill tempests? Of course not; none of these make any sense at all. But blizzard is, for some unknown reason, creating these situations with unbeatable compositions (carriers, broodlord-viper), turtle games (as avilo mentions), and plain boring unit interactions (anything with corruptors at all.) The solution to this would be to either nerf the air units in some way, lower their range (average range of these units has just slowly gone up for no apparent reason), or create better ground-based anti-air for every race. If Blizzard is going to put these strong long-range AtG units in the game, then every race needs something like the goliath, which provided good long-range GtA damage against armored. There isn't really much in the game like this currently, except maybe the cyclone, but it's awful. The thor had an attack that filled this role but it was always too weak to work properly and thors were too clunky to fight well anyway. If blizzard refuses to do that, then the least they could do would be to at least make the air vs air fights interesting and fair. Currently they are neither. And BigJ's posts above are pretty good too. Even with being able to remax very fast it's necessary to have an army very costefficient in the lategame. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On October 09 2015 17:40 TedCruz2016 wrote: I still wonder why P is given THREE huge late-late-game air units - Tempest, Carrier and Mothership - while none of them is more threatening than 3/3 zealot prism warp-in everywhere if a game has really progressed into that stage. Because that'd either require a nerf to zealots (or any other unit that is as threatening) resulting other problems with that unit, or buffing those late game air units resulting in potential power creep. The best thing I read in this update is that scratching units is still an option for Kim. This is great to hear. Hopefully they actually have the guts to do it if it turns out that the Cyclone is just not good enough. | ||
Zealously
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On October 09 2015 16:16 Creager wrote: Haha, could you please hop on your time machine and go tell Mvp of 2011? That's not what I mean. One player can very well influence patches, but a single player performing well does not say anything about balance on the whole. | ||
|
Penev
28536 Posts
On October 09 2015 15:56 Nezgar wrote: Since it came up a few times, this is how the balance in the past 12 months looked like (according to Aligulac): ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/O7yam0P.png) That's... the most balanced period this game ever had. The win rates in each match-up have been between 46-53% the entire time. For comparison, this is how the entire graph for SC2 looks like: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NA9G39q.png) I've highlighted the past 12 months. If we can trust Aligulac ratings then yes, the game has near perfect balance right now. Whether or not the individual match-ups have their own problems or not is a different matter entirely, though. I dislike watching Mech vZ atm, but that doesn't mean that the races are severely imbalanced right now. These are very interesting, thanks. Lol at clearly visible GomTvT and BL Infestor era's. But most importantly, the highlighted (current) era that indeed looks to be the most balanced ever. | ||
|
cmdspinner1
140 Posts
On October 09 2015 18:58 FireCake wrote: Why do you care so much about statistics ? They give no explanation about how the game works and thus how to change the game if it needs to be done. Mech is overpowered against zerg because : 1) Their late game army destroys with ease everything zerg has 2) It became very easy to play mech (combined upgrade, tanks buff, hellbat buff, SH nerf, banshee buff...) 3) Zerg has no tools to harass the terran player in a somehow cost-effective way Terrans players played bio everytime they play a zerg for years, suddendly terrans play mech... This strategy needs to be insanely broken for terran to do something else than 3 CCs into bio. Because statistics is the only reliable, non subjective way to measure balance. If Mech has <50% win percentage vs Zerg in high level HOTS games, mech is not imbalanced obviously. | ||
| ||
