EPTGamers8 Main Tournament - Page 65
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Kashim
Poland1221 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
The actual problem is just shitloads of banes lategame swarming everything, when armies are so big you can’t optimally spread your damage. Prior to that judicious positioning and targeting can work fine. I’m sure a fair amount of damage numbers are based on what it takes to 1 shot units, if you change this dynamic it affects early/midgame more IMO. Iirc most HP/damage changes tend to be around specific interactions and attacks to kill/die between specific units. I.e the SCV getting a little help to tank an extra adept shot, a very specific change. In a big giant ball though, perhaps arbitrary drops to bane HP may have the requisite effect in the ‘I have fuck you money here’s 100 banes’, without fundamentally altering interactions at earlier stages. If it were me I’d experiment in dropping bane HP in increments of 1 until a nice equilibrium is met. Banes hit fucking hard, if even a handful of them get cut out of getting on top of a T with a small HP nerf, or especially P, that could be bloody impactful | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On August 09 2023 22:13 WombaT wrote: Tank timings might end up too potent TvZ, TvP would be a concern as well. The actual problem is just shitloads of banes lategame swarming everything, when armies are so big you can’t optimally spread your damage. Prior to that judicious positioning and targeting can work fine. I’m sure a fair amount of damage numbers are based on what it takes to 1 shot units, if you change this dynamic it affects early/midgame more IMO. Iirc most HP/damage changes tend to be around specific interactions and attacks to kill/die between specific units. I.e the SCV getting a little help to tank an extra adept shot, a very specific change. In a big giant ball though, perhaps arbitrary drops to bane HP may have the requisite effect in the ‘I have fuck you money here’s 100 banes’, without fundamentally altering interactions at earlier stages. If it were me I’d experiment in dropping bane HP in increments of 1 until a nice equilibrium is met. Banes hit fucking hard, if even a handful of them get cut out of getting on top of a T with a small HP nerf, or especially P, that could be bloody impactful I feel like if they wanted to redesign the unit entirely, mabye we could have something where baneling deal a certain amount of friendly fire but only to other baneling. Obviously it couldn't be full damage, but just something to slow the scaling of mass banes. | ||
|
jack_less
78 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 09 2023 22:13 WombaT wrote: Tank timings might end up too potent TvZ, TvP would be a concern as well. The actual problem is just shitloads of banes lategame swarming everything, when armies are so big you can’t optimally spread your damage. Prior to that judicious positioning and targeting can work fine. I’m sure a fair amount of damage numbers are based on what it takes to 1 shot units, if you change this dynamic it affects early/midgame more IMO. Iirc most HP/damage changes tend to be around specific interactions and attacks to kill/die between specific units. I.e the SCV getting a little help to tank an extra adept shot, a very specific change. In a big giant ball though, perhaps arbitrary drops to bane HP may have the requisite effect in the ‘I have fuck you money here’s 100 banes’, without fundamentally altering interactions at earlier stages. If it were me I’d experiment in dropping bane HP in increments of 1 until a nice equilibrium is met. Banes hit fucking hard, if even a handful of them get cut out of getting on top of a T with a small HP nerf, or especially P, that could be bloody impactful I generally think (outside of reworking the 'economy changes') that the best bet would be to focus on the queen, which is simply THE cornerstone of zerg players getting into the lategame as well as they do. Both due to defensive capabilities of the unit, and the creep spread making it almost impossible to really challenge bases. Ofc this is a balancing act which is very delicate, but imo there needs to be more energy drainage on the unit, i personally think it potentially shouldn't have an autoattack but attack with energy use (like the oracle in principle). If the enemy is active, that would lead to less creep and more importance on micro for the zerg / plus more decision making. I am sure there are potential problems with this (ofc also depending on the actual numbers), but i think broadly speaking it would be good for the game, even if you have to nerf some other things as a result. Much of this could also be challenged with map design, but i probably have even less hope in maps being all the same than in some design / balance changes happening. | ||
|
Slydie
1935 Posts
On August 10 2023 02:44 The_Red_Viper wrote: I generally think (outside of reworking the 'economy changes') that the best bet would be to focus on the queen, which is simply THE cornerstone of zerg players getting into the lategame as well as they do. Both due to defensive capabilities of the unit, and the creep spread making it almost impossible to really challenge bases. Ofc this is a balancing act which is very delicate, but imo there needs to be more energy drainage on the unit, i personally think it potentially shouldn't have an autoattack but attack with energy use (like the oracle in principle). If the enemy is active, that would lead to less creep and more importance on micro for the zerg / plus more decision making. I am sure there are potential problems with this (ofc also depending on the actual numbers), but i think broadly speaking it would be good for the game, even if you have to nerf some other things as a result. Much of this could also be challenged with map design, but i probably have even less hope in maps being all the same than in some design / balance changes happening. This goes back to "Queen range +2", which was one of the worst patches ever, and it was never reverted. Energy attacks does not seem fun to play against, as it would have to be borderline OP to be worth it. Being forced to choose between creep, injects and defending does not seem fun either. You already have to move the queens around. The unit did get several nerfs, but is still extremely strong, though. | ||
|
Athenau
571 Posts
But if the balance council were to touch banelings, they should look at reducing the building damage. Sim-city and static-d should be a natural counter to banelings, but instead it ends up being a liability once there are enough banelings on the field. Banelings are already insanely strong on an open field, they shouldn't also be able to crack open entrenched defensive positions. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7134 Posts
For the latter, I do like idea of making a Queen a pure spellcaster. Though it should be more of a ghost snipe spell than oracle, otherwise Zerg air defense lacks and defending vs speedy things like Oracle / Banshee becomes undoable | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 10 2023 04:37 Slydie wrote: This goes back to "Queen range +2", which was one of the worst patches ever, and it was never reverted. Energy attacks does not seem fun to play against, as it would have to be borderline OP to be worth it. Being forced to choose between creep, injects and defending does not seem fun either. You already have to move the queens around. The unit did get several nerfs, but is still extremely strong, though. The whole point of this idea isn't to make the attack op, it's to make queens have less energy than they do now (which leads to less creep if you rely on them a lot to defend) + create more decision making for the zerg / more multitasking requirement when defending. I don't see how the attack would have to be op, this is supposed to be a nerf / design change which targets the current meta of having a ton of queens, always. I mean, it's decision making, i don't see how it's particularly unfun, it's just a change from the status quo where you get the best out of every world by simply massing queens every game. I think that has to change. On August 10 2023 15:59 Harris1st wrote: These are two seperate issues: Late game mass bane and early-midgame Zerg prowess because of Queens/ Creep. For the latter, I do like idea of making a Queen a pure spellcaster. Though it should be more of a ghost snipe spell than oracle, otherwise Zerg air defense lacks and defending vs speedy things like Oracle / Banshee becomes undoable It hopefully would make the former less viable due to (hopefully) making it a little harder for zerg players to get to these extremely high income / bank scenarios, as the defense, both with extreme screepspread AND mass queen would be nerfed. Not fully sure why you think the defense would be undoable tbh, because it's too difficult to pay attention to the defense and press a button to make queens attack? The specific numbers (and if there would be an energy drain fur simply activating) can be figured out to be 'fair' / 'balanced', but the point IS that they would struggle a little more to defend everthing so 'easily' with queens / or if they do, these queens wouldn't outright have enough energy to spread the creep to the enemy's side of the map in 5 minutes. | ||
|
Scarlett`
Canada2393 Posts
On August 10 2023 07:47 Athenau wrote: Nerfing any part of the unholy trinity of queens-banelings-creep would require admitting that there was a problem in the first place, so I'm not hopeful. Queens and Creep have been repeatedly nerfed for the past few years so not sure where this idea is coming from + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/930yuAi.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/JkyFX0W.png) | ||
|
Athenau
571 Posts
On August 10 2023 23:07 Scarlett` wrote: Queens and Creep have been repeatedly nerfed for the past few years so not sure where this idea is coming from + Show Spoiler + I'm not referring to historical nerfs, but to the current state of the game. Queens were untouched and the last round of nerfs had virtually no impact on the oppressiveness of creep, so either this was intended because queens/creep aren't seen as a major issue, or it wasn't, and the change was supposed to have a larger effect. Edit: Also, the queen range decrease doesn't count, because that was reverting a previous buff that should never have stayed in the game as long as it had. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 10 2023 23:07 Scarlett` wrote: Queens and Creep have been repeatedly nerfed for the past few years so not sure where this idea is coming from + Show Spoiler + What does it say about changes which "repeatedly nerf" something for the past few years, and the outcome is still arguably (i guess you might disagree here) not enough? Personally i'd say it appears like lipservice, not actual sincere attempts at changing dynamics. Ofc i understand the idea of being conservative / careful, but still... | ||
|
Athenau
571 Posts
On August 11 2023 00:06 The_Red_Viper wrote: What does it say about changes which "repeatedly nerf" something for the past few years, and the outcome is still arguably (i guess you might disagree here) not enough? Personally i'd say it appears like lipservice, not actual sincere attempts at changing dynamics. Ofc i understand the idea of being conservative / careful, but still... I mean, it could be that the nerfs actually did make a difference, and both were just insanely overtuned to begin with. If we still had HotS queens and creep with current mechanics and game knowledge, would the game still look the same? | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17372 Posts
On August 07 2023 23:12 Poopi wrote: It was around 70-80ms ping, which is the same as from France/Germany to NA east approximately any source fot the claim Cure was at ~75 ping ? i'm NA East and i play at ~20 ping. | ||
|
dysenterymd
1250 Posts
On August 10 2023 07:47 Athenau wrote: Nerfing any part of the unholy trinity of queens-banelings-creep would require admitting that there was a problem in the first place, so I'm not hopeful. But if the balance council were to touch banelings, they should look at reducing the building damage. Sim-city and static-d should be a natural counter to banelings, but instead it ends up being a liability once there are enough banelings on the field. Banelings are already insanely strong on an open field, they shouldn't also be able to crack open entrenched defensive positions. I think a building damage nerf would be a great change, it wouldn't impact Zerg defense of early/mid-game pushes at all, which is the biggest worry about a significant baneling nerf, but it would make banelings a lot less oppressive late game for both Terran and Protoss. Maybe Terran turtle would become too hard to break, but numbers could always be fine tuned (or some other unit could be given a building breaking role?) One of the biggest reasons it's so hard to sit back as Toss is that even if you're playing great, it's very unlikely that you'll stop +2 banes from blowing up your probes forever (especially because enough banes will just roll through any walls you build) - static D being better could make defensive Protoss more viable. | ||
|
Poopi
France12911 Posts
On August 11 2023 00:19 JimmyJRaynor wrote: any source fot the claim Cure was at ~75 ping ? i'm NA East and i play at ~20 ping. Not just Cure, all players. Source is Kashim from ESL / Liquipedia. You play at 20 ping on NA east by being in NA? That seems perfectly normal, ping from France to EU West is around 10-20ms. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17727 Posts
On August 11 2023 00:31 dysenterymd wrote: I think a building damage nerf would be a great change, it wouldn't impact Zerg defense of early/mid-game pushes at all, which is the biggest worry about a significant baneling nerf, but it would make banelings a lot less oppressive late game for both Terran and Protoss. Maybe Terran turtle would become too hard to break, but numbers could always be fine tuned (or some other unit could be given a building breaking role?) One of the biggest reasons it's so hard to sit back as Toss is that even if you're playing great, it's very unlikely that you'll stop +2 banes from blowing up your probes forever (especially because enough banes will just roll through any walls you build) - static D being better could make defensive Protoss more viable. Baneling building damage nerf is such a good idea that I can't believe I haven't seen people requesting it everywhere, it's so frustrating seeing some banelings roll into the 3rd base and kill 20 workers and the town hall there instantly | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On August 11 2023 00:10 Athenau wrote: I mean, it could be that the nerfs actually did make a difference, and both were just insanely overtuned to begin with. If we still had HotS queens and creep with current mechanics and game knowledge, would the game still look the same? I wondered this too, though you certainly wouldn't be able to just get queens as easily as the mineral income wasn't as high from second 1 on. In any case, i don't think it is a particularly convincing argument to showcase 'nerfs' which seemingly weren't enough, some of these seem sensible, others seem more like pretending to change anything significant, and the gameplay we still have arguably confirms this reading. Being careful is one thing, but if you have a conviction regarding something needing a nerf, you have to change it enough for it to really matter. "time in between creep growth increased from 0.3 to 0.45" is just a joke of a change, as one example. A little more cooldown and -1 range on sight range is just as bad a change, lipservice and nothing tangible. These are changes you make to be able to say you did something, but in reality they don't change anything worthwhile. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10366 Posts
On August 11 2023 02:14 Die4Ever wrote: Baneling building damage nerf is such a good idea that I can't believe I haven't seen people requesting it everywhere, it's so frustrating seeing some banelings roll into the 3rd base and kill 20 workers and the town hall there instantly Holy crap, same here, why did i see no one suggest this before? I remember in WoL/HotS, baneling being able to bust down walls earlier in the game was cool and seemed fine. Like the timing was pretty tight to barely get 6-8 banelings in time to break a depot or such, if they nerfed building damage then baneling busts would probably stop working. Now with the econ changes, idk if banelings need to do that much damage vs walls anymore?? You could probably still do early baneling busts if you wanted, even if the building damage was nerfed a bit. This would be a great way to help Protoss cus they seem to really lack a decent way to defend vs baneling runbys into their 3rd. Also this would really help mech (and terran in general) to help hold that 4th or 5th base against zerg easier and mitigate the ability of zerg to keep throwing tons of damage once they get a slight lead. Banelings should be weaker vs SOMETHING in the game, they're even decent vs non-light units a lot of the time cus of the burst AOE. Balance council please consider this!!! | ||
| ||
