|
On December 28 2012 23:05 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 18:31 Serenity12 wrote:
Infestor play is simply making games where Zerg are involved less fun to watch. It is a unit for Zerg players that has too much versatility, so no wonder they build mass amounts of them. The best thing would be to nerf Infestors effectiveness while at the same time buffing other zerg units like hydras. Since that kind of "restructuring" would involve some pretty big changes to the stats I would think that adding some "bonus damage" to certain core Zerg units would be a good incentive to push players into building stuff like Hydralisks. In BW Hydralisks had "explosive" damage and were more effective against larger targets, but in SC2 neither the Roach nor the Hydralisk have any unit type they are weak against. Thus adding something like this would give an incentive to build Hydralisks more and thus build a possibly "less optimal" unit. Right now Zerg only build Roaches (unless they already have a crapton of them and can fill the second row with Hydralisks) when they want to build ranged units and that is an advantage over Terrans for example, who will probably have a mix of Marines and Marauders. Obviously such "bonus" damage should not be implemented as it is for the Hellion for example, where the bonus damage is so big that the base damage is insignificant ... which makes the unit pretty much useless against non-bonus-type-units. That is the perfect example of rock-paper-scissors gone wrong. The BW ratios of 100%/75%/50% are much better.
SC2:
Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else
Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else
Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else
BW:
Firebat: 100%/50%/25%
Ghost: 100%/50%/25%
Vulture: 100%/50%/25%
Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture?
|
On December 28 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 23:05 Rabiator wrote:On December 28 2012 18:31 Serenity12 wrote:
Infestor play is simply making games where Zerg are involved less fun to watch. It is a unit for Zerg players that has too much versatility, so no wonder they build mass amounts of them. The best thing would be to nerf Infestors effectiveness while at the same time buffing other zerg units like hydras. Since that kind of "restructuring" would involve some pretty big changes to the stats I would think that adding some "bonus damage" to certain core Zerg units would be a good incentive to push players into building stuff like Hydralisks. In BW Hydralisks had "explosive" damage and were more effective against larger targets, but in SC2 neither the Roach nor the Hydralisk have any unit type they are weak against. Thus adding something like this would give an incentive to build Hydralisks more and thus build a possibly "less optimal" unit. Right now Zerg only build Roaches (unless they already have a crapton of them and can fill the second row with Hydralisks) when they want to build ranged units and that is an advantage over Terrans for example, who will probably have a mix of Marines and Marauders. Obviously such "bonus" damage should not be implemented as it is for the Hellion for example, where the bonus damage is so big that the base damage is insignificant ... which makes the unit pretty much useless against non-bonus-type-units. That is the perfect example of rock-paper-scissors gone wrong. The BW ratios of 100%/75%/50% are much better. SC2: Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else BW: Firebat: 100%/50%/25% Ghost: 100%/50%/25% Vulture: 100%/50%/25% Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture?
Firebat, Ghost, Vulture - Who built that unit for its combat abilities?
Of those three only the Vulture was built as a standard unit, but not primarily for its own combat abilities but rather for the Spider Mines. They are good against SMALL units ... and thus against MOST infantry (all except the Dragoon which is large and the Hydralisk which is medium), which makes up the majority of the units. Their primary role is worker harrass and scouting.
Now look at the SC2 units: Hellions are pretty bad against everything that isnt Zerglings or Workers ... without the Spider Mines; Marauders are bad against light junk and only work due to their armor, Stimpack and being healed through Medivacs, but without the Medivac or Stimpack they dont really work against Zerglings ... just as Stalkers are going to die against them without either Blink or Forcefields.
With the excessive number of units built in SC2 any form of scouting with units is going to be sacrificial and you dont want to use expensive bikes for that, but in BW that worked well enough.
Its not only the percentages but also the meaning of them AND the lack of "bonus damage" on the Zerg side of the fence which makes the game badly balanced atm.
|
After playing for a week of the HOTS beta as a terran, here is my impression of the patch:
-Bio is very strong once your get the the medivac upgrade. They seem to be more durable, but you still have to micro, split against aoe damage.
-Mech is complete garbage now in every matchup. Too many units that counter mech. In TvP you have immortals, tempests, voidrays, etc. It is ridiculous to see a protoss army amoving up a ramp into a sieged up position, The widow mine nerf makes opening mech in TvP very hard (cant even kill a zealot anymore wtf?) In TvZ, ultras with viper support demolishes mech. It doesnt matter how well you split your tanks, 2-3 full energy vipers can always cover over half of your army, rendering siege tanks useless.
Overall I am have very disappointed with the direction blizzard is taking. We get more bioball play at the expense of mech, which is to me is completely retarded. I now regret preordering of HOTS because I got a feeling when this game comes out, it is going to be complete mess, even worse than WOL.
|
So I think I have found a way to mech TvP and it seems pretty good. I was mid-hi masters Terran in WoL. If anyone would like to make a thread or discuss it please let me know. I am not sure how to attach my replay, but i can send the replay to someone via skype or email if they like. There are also several variations of the build, such as a gasless fe, reactored fact fe, and the follow up air units depending on what the toss builds, ie colusus go viking, if immortal go banshee etc. Let me know if anyone is interested or wants to make a thread about it. Also I was not playing at my best by far since it was at 4am that i played.
|
Blink nerf is for PvP, everyone was playing 1 base Blink Stalkers with Mothership Core, it was the ultimate "coin flip."
|
On December 30 2012 21:52 dirtydurb82 wrote:
Blink nerf is for PvP, everyone was playing 1 base Blink Stalkers with Mothership Core, it was the ultimate "coin flip."
Thats actually not a "nerf" but only a delay of the research, so the skill remains the same and the build was nerfed. Terrible way to "balance" the game ... based on specific timings which will change with each map.
|
On December 22 2012 08:45 winsonsonho wrote:
What gets me is that Blizzard know how infuriated people are with fungal, yet they still went and made it more powerful than it ever used to be. If they wanted to test 10 range 15 speed they should have kept it internal for a lot longer. They should have known many of us would go mad. Many had renewed faith in Blizzard, but now they just lost a lot of those they'd won over. Really silly if you ask me.
They could always have tested making it a slow or some other change and reverted it if it didn't work.However they are too stubborn and egotistical to try out ideas that a large part of their community really believe are better designed. Blizzard are shooting themselves in the foot, and people are rightly going crazy because some of their changes have been so counterproductive and infuriating to witness.
If Blizzard were more open with us and explained their plans it would be easier to sympathise with them. For instance: "Because ITs are weaker and short range projectile fungal is bad we're going to try this new buff to fungal. If it proves too strong we will redesign how fungal works.." They need to be more transparent with their community, because at the moment it seems like they enjoy their position if power and their ability to anger so many people..
If I'm truely honest I just think they just wanted to release a patch just before the holiday and rushed it without too much thought. I think they'll revert/change some of the things they actually changed. I'm actually not all that concerned.
|
On December 29 2012 00:31 Loccstana wrote:
Overall I am have very disappointed with the direction blizzard is taking. We get more bioball play at the expense of mech, which is to me is completely retarded. I now regret preordering of HOTS because I got a feeling when this game comes out, it is going to be complete mess, even worse than WOL.
It was the second time I've pre-ordered anything (WOL was the first thing I've ever pre-ordered). And the last.
|
When is update 11# coming out.
|
On December 31 2012 01:23 LOLItsRyann wrote:
When is update 11# coming out.
There is no regular schedule for balance updates. They release something when they have some new ideas for changes. But the process is likely slowed down right now due to holidays.
|
On December 31 2012 02:01 Rannasha wrote:There is no regular schedule for balance updates. They release something when they have some new ideas for changes. But the process is likely slowed down right now due to holidays.
Thought something along those lines, confirmation is cool though
|
On December 28 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
SC2:
Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else
Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else
Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else
BW:
Firebat: 100%/50%/25%
Ghost: 100%/50%/25%
Vulture: 100%/50%/25%
Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture?
In BW everything did full damage to shields. This is why mech was effective against P in BW but isn't in SC2. In BW, Archons were completely useless against Terran mech. In SC2, they annihilate Terran mech. Also because of the shield mechanics, in BW Dragoons were a very soft counter to Vultures, as opposed to Stalkers being a hilarious hard counter to Hellions in SC2. In fact I suspect that if it wasn't for the 12-unit selection limit, Vultures would have beaten Dragoons cost-for-cost in BW as you would have been able to surround with like 40 of them and drop 40 spidermines at once.
|
On December 31 2012 08:53 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
SC2:
Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else
Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else
Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else
BW:
Firebat: 100%/50%/25%
Ghost: 100%/50%/25%
Vulture: 100%/50%/25%
Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture? In BW everything did full damage to shields. This is why mech was effective against P in BW but isn't in SC2. In BW, Archons were completely useless against Terran mech. In SC2, they annihilate Terran mech. Also because of the shield mechanics, in BW Dragoons were a very soft counter to Vultures, as opposed to Stalkers being a hilarious hard counter to Hellions in SC2. In fact I suspect that if it wasn't for the 12-unit selection limit, Vultures would have beaten Dragoons cost-for-cost in BW as you would have been able to surround with like 40 of them and drop 40 spidermines at once.
Excellent point. If only blizzard had incorporated this mechanic into Sc2 there would have been no need to dick around with 1a units like warhounds or battle hellions. As things are, there is probably going to end up being some really wonky mechanic to make tank mech viable vs toss, something like buffed massable widow mines. Actually, I'm increasingly convinced that tank heavy play is just never going to be viable in this matchup. Congrats to whatever wiz on the devteam dreamed up immortals.
|
Hydras need a +10 hp buff. Also, i totally agree that mech play is absolutely crap right now.
|
On December 31 2012 09:59 Zahir wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 08:53 Xequecal wrote:On December 28 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
SC2:
Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else
Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else
Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else
BW:
Firebat: 100%/50%/25%
Ghost: 100%/50%/25%
Vulture: 100%/50%/25%
Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture? In BW everything did full damage to shields. This is why mech was effective against P in BW but isn't in SC2. In BW, Archons were completely useless against Terran mech. In SC2, they annihilate Terran mech. Also because of the shield mechanics, in BW Dragoons were a very soft counter to Vultures, as opposed to Stalkers being a hilarious hard counter to Hellions in SC2. In fact I suspect that if it wasn't for the 12-unit selection limit, Vultures would have beaten Dragoons cost-for-cost in BW as you would have been able to surround with like 40 of them and drop 40 spidermines at once. Excellent point. If only blizzard had incorporated this mechanic into Sc2 there would have been no need to dick around with 1a units like warhounds or battle hellions. As things are, there is probably going to end up being some really wonky mechanic to make tank mech viable vs toss, something like buffed massable widow mines. Actually, I'm increasingly convinced that tank heavy play is just never going to be viable in this matchup. Congrats to whatever wiz on the devteam dreamed up immortals.
Probably browder, because almost every unit needs a useless gimmick (well hardened shields are pretty useful at destroying any chance of mech play I guess) in order to make them SUPER COOL WITH TERRIBLE DAMAGE.
|
On December 31 2012 10:16 Serpico wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 09:59 Zahir wrote:On December 31 2012 08:53 Xequecal wrote:On December 28 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
SC2:
Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else
Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else
Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else
BW:
Firebat: 100%/50%/25%
Ghost: 100%/50%/25%
Vulture: 100%/50%/25%
Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture? In BW everything did full damage to shields. This is why mech was effective against P in BW but isn't in SC2. In BW, Archons were completely useless against Terran mech. In SC2, they annihilate Terran mech. Also because of the shield mechanics, in BW Dragoons were a very soft counter to Vultures, as opposed to Stalkers being a hilarious hard counter to Hellions in SC2. In fact I suspect that if it wasn't for the 12-unit selection limit, Vultures would have beaten Dragoons cost-for-cost in BW as you would have been able to surround with like 40 of them and drop 40 spidermines at once. Excellent point. If only blizzard had incorporated this mechanic into Sc2 there would have been no need to dick around with 1a units like warhounds or battle hellions. As things are, there is probably going to end up being some really wonky mechanic to make tank mech viable vs toss, something like buffed massable widow mines. Actually, I'm increasingly convinced that tank heavy play is just never going to be viable in this matchup. Congrats to whatever wiz on the devteam dreamed up immortals. Probably browder, because almost every unit needs a useless gimmick (well hardened shields are pretty useful at destroying any chance of mech play I guess) in order to make them SUPER COOL WITH TERRIBLE DAMAGE.
This is a great point. SCBW units like marine, goliath, dragoon, etc were all fine even though they were all 1A units, they had their own unique pathing, range, attack animation, and micro capabilities they were still interesting to watch and play. Now every unit must have some sort of gimmick to be added into the game.
|
Just noticed that blinding cloud does not work on bunkers.
|
On December 31 2012 10:32 zJayy962 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2012 10:16 Serpico wrote:On December 31 2012 09:59 Zahir wrote:On December 31 2012 08:53 Xequecal wrote:On December 28 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:
SC2:
Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else
Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else
Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else
BW:
Firebat: 100%/50%/25%
Ghost: 100%/50%/25%
Vulture: 100%/50%/25%
Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture? In BW everything did full damage to shields. This is why mech was effective against P in BW but isn't in SC2. In BW, Archons were completely useless against Terran mech. In SC2, they annihilate Terran mech. Also because of the shield mechanics, in BW Dragoons were a very soft counter to Vultures, as opposed to Stalkers being a hilarious hard counter to Hellions in SC2. In fact I suspect that if it wasn't for the 12-unit selection limit, Vultures would have beaten Dragoons cost-for-cost in BW as you would have been able to surround with like 40 of them and drop 40 spidermines at once. Excellent point. If only blizzard had incorporated this mechanic into Sc2 there would have been no need to dick around with 1a units like warhounds or battle hellions. As things are, there is probably going to end up being some really wonky mechanic to make tank mech viable vs toss, something like buffed massable widow mines. Actually, I'm increasingly convinced that tank heavy play is just never going to be viable in this matchup. Congrats to whatever wiz on the devteam dreamed up immortals. Probably browder, because almost every unit needs a useless gimmick (well hardened shields are pretty useful at destroying any chance of mech play I guess) in order to make them SUPER COOL WITH TERRIBLE DAMAGE. This is a great point. SCBW units like marine, goliath, dragoon, etc were all fine even though they were all 1A units, they had their own unique pathing, range, attack animation, and micro capabilities they were still interesting to watch and play. Now every unit must have some sort of gimmick to be added into the game.
The loss of the Goliath is what really kills mech in most mu's (Immortal aside). Thors are super expensive, super slow and take forever to build. There's also no real way to have a good mix of them, if Thors were smaller and 2 supply you could easily mix the right number for your opponents comp, with the current Thor you can't do that really. Supply heavy units/Power units really hurt strategic decisions.
|
Not Blink 
|
United States7483 Posts
On December 29 2012 00:11 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 28 2012 23:20 Big J wrote:On December 28 2012 23:05 Rabiator wrote:On December 28 2012 18:31 Serenity12 wrote:
Infestor play is simply making games where Zerg are involved less fun to watch. It is a unit for Zerg players that has too much versatility, so no wonder they build mass amounts of them. The best thing would be to nerf Infestors effectiveness while at the same time buffing other zerg units like hydras. Since that kind of "restructuring" would involve some pretty big changes to the stats I would think that adding some "bonus damage" to certain core Zerg units would be a good incentive to push players into building stuff like Hydralisks. In BW Hydralisks had "explosive" damage and were more effective against larger targets, but in SC2 neither the Roach nor the Hydralisk have any unit type they are weak against. Thus adding something like this would give an incentive to build Hydralisks more and thus build a possibly "less optimal" unit. Right now Zerg only build Roaches (unless they already have a crapton of them and can fill the second row with Hydralisks) when they want to build ranged units and that is an advantage over Terrans for example, who will probably have a mix of Marines and Marauders. Obviously such "bonus" damage should not be implemented as it is for the Hellion for example, where the bonus damage is so big that the base damage is insignificant ... which makes the unit pretty much useless against non-bonus-type-units. That is the perfect example of rock-paper-scissors gone wrong. The BW ratios of 100%/75%/50% are much better. SC2: Hellion: 100% vs light/ 57% else Hellion with BF: 100%vs light/ 42% else Marauder: 100% vs armored/50% else BW: Firebat: 100%/50%/25% Ghost: 100%/50%/25% Vulture: 100%/50%/25% Care to elaborate why the 57% or 42% are so much worse than the BW ratios of Firebat, Ghost or Vulture? Firebat, Ghost, Vulture - Who built that unit for its combat abilities? Of those three only the Vulture was built as a standard unit, but not primarily for its own combat abilities but rather for the Spider Mines. They are good against SMALL units ... and thus against MOST infantry (all except the Dragoon which is large and the Hydralisk which is medium), which makes up the majority of the units. Their primary role is worker harrass and scouting. Now look at the SC2 units: Hellions are pretty bad against everything that isnt Zerglings or Workers ... without the Spider Mines; Marauders are bad against light junk and only work due to their armor, Stimpack and being healed through Medivacs, but without the Medivac or Stimpack they dont really work against Zerglings ... just as Stalkers are going to die against them without either Blink or Forcefields. With the excessive number of units built in SC2 any form of scouting with units is going to be sacrificial and you dont want to use expensive bikes for that, but in BW that worked well enough. Its not only the percentages but also the meaning of them AND the lack of "bonus damage" on the Zerg side of the fence which makes the game badly balanced atm.
Hellions aren't nearly as bad as you seem to think they are, in large numbers they actually trade cost efficiently vs. a lot of their supposed 'counters' since they all deal splash damage. Once you get to the point where a group of hellions can one shot, say, a stalker, you'll actually see them annihilate groups of stalkers that are way more expensive. It's not all that uncommon to see a bunch of hellions roasting roaches alive when the roaches don't heavily outnumber them once you get to your critical mass of hellions.
With regards to your comments on the marauder, I can say only this: Will people PLEASE stop thinking about units in a vacuum? We're not playing under arbitrary mono-battle rules in the game unless we want to, nobody is forcing you to not make medivacs. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to assume medivacs. Marauders with medivacs are awesome. I don't really know what else to say. Maruaders are ridiculously good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
