EPTThere are several weird changes, but if you read the rationale and have a little background in the way HotS works right now, the majority of it actually makes a lot of sense.
Beta Balance Update #11 (Jan 9, 2013) - Page 42
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
LavaLava
United States235 Posts
There are several weird changes, but if you read the rationale and have a little background in the way HotS works right now, the majority of it actually makes a lot of sense. | ||
|
r1flEx
Belgium256 Posts
| ||
|
Too_MuchZerg
Finland2818 Posts
Now protoss has (have simple way to kill bio when marine/marauder nerfed) way to kill bio units easier and harder time vs mech. | ||
|
KamikazeDurrrp
United States95 Posts
People are making it sound like the early siege tank is going to make mech more viable when it also makes all the other compositions more viable too. Once you're completely safe with your 3 bases from using the early tanks, you're more likely to transition back into bio with vikings or ghosts than using mech because pushing out with mech is STILL weaker then if you just used bio. Meanwhile, in a change that "wasn't supposed to affect the other matchups", early siege is going to be ridiculously abusive versus zerg especially considering the fact that you have stronger hellions and access to a lot of tech faster. Here, let me just give you a build: 1-1-1, build marines, a tank, and a medivac and with the medivac speed immediately rush into the zerg base with 4 marines and a tank, siege up and laugh as zerg tries to figure out how to stop you. Or drop the new battle hellions with widow mines with tank support into the zergs base and the zerg literally can't touch you unless they build mass roach, leaving them even weaker to mass tanks, mass mutas, which die easily to widow mines or just get lucky with zerglings. Meanwhile, the zerg can't rush you like you can rush the zerg due to your early tanks WITH siege WITH mine support. I don't know, am I really the only person who sees this? I could "accept the reality", but I also believe in "learning from your mistakes", and deluding myself that the mistake doesn't exist isn't something that I feel is good for the game. | ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
A - Don't even have access to the beta B - Haven't even tried/tested things out. Theory crafting is great and needed at times, but it doesn't always play out as you think at least give it a few days and let some things flush out. With that said, I'm curious if those that play terran more see the changes with reaper as a new opportunity to control creep which is a big complaint from terran in ZvP especially mid game. I can see going with 1 or 2 rax openings now and getting some reapers to work on creep control now just like helions could, but you don't have the issue of the helion run-by doing so much damage to drone lines and ending games. Plus you get the scouting etc. Thoughts on that? With the speed of reapers just seems like you could get in, snipe an active tumor fast and get out before queens can kill. | ||
|
3xTr4_FragQuenz
36 Posts
I´m still laughing my a** off ;D | ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
Here's the ultimate problem with the change, removing tank siege doesn't make mech stronger, it makes EARLY tanks builds stronger. Siege from the start makes it so that it's infinitely better to rush tanks than it is to rush any else because you have the high tech of tanks already available to you, as opposed to "waiting" for stim, combat shields, medivacs, banshees, etc. This is going to have an effect where it's better to turtle than it is to push out, because there's no need to take the risk to push out where you could lose your whole army, when you are completely safe WITH the early siege from almost every type of early aggressions (if you set up your base properly). Once the other races see that people are choosing to defend instead of engage with the early tanks, what ends up happening is that they'll turtle too until they end up with something that CAN beat your siege tanks. People are making it sound like the early siege tank is going to make mech more viable when it also makes all the other compositions more viable too. Once you're completely safe with your 3 bases from using the early tanks, you're more likely to transition back into bio with vikings or ghosts than using mech because pushing out with mech is STILL weaker then if you just used bio. I think people need to really give this free siege more time and I think it has a great domino affect helping Terran way more than people think. That upgrade cost early in the game being removed means an extra factory for production or a different upgrade added. That trickles into the late game. So if the composition itself isn't stronger that is fine, but the domino affect could be greater than people realize. One complaint I hear about Mech is the ability to reproduce units fast enough. Getting that extra factory early means more units overall means more reproduction. Also it can lead to faster safer expansions, which leads to a better early eco to get more factories to produce more quicker. I haven't tested it enough yet to know for sure, but I see how the smallest change to Queen range changed the entire game, so I always believe that these changes can have a greater positive affect than realized or even intended. | ||
|
zeratul_jf
United States808 Posts
On January 11 2013 01:15 FLuE wrote: I wonder how many people in this thread A - Don't even have access to the beta B - Haven't even tried/tested things out. Theory crafting is great and needed at times, but it doesn't always play out as you think at least give it a few days and let some things flush out. With that said, I'm curious if those that play terran more see the changes with reaper as a new opportunity to control creep which is a big complaint from terran in ZvP especially mid game. I can see going with 1 or 2 rax openings now and getting some reapers to work on creep control now just like helions could, but you don't have the issue of the helion run-by doing so much damage to drone lines and ending games. Plus you get the scouting etc. Thoughts on that? With the speed of reapers just seems like you could get in, snipe an active tumor fast and get out before queens can kill. nope i have tried reaper openings and they cant control creep, they deal only 4 damage and queens shut them down pretty hard. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On January 10 2013 22:03 Unshapely wrote: I do think that the Raven changes are good, though I suspect a five second delay may prove to be too long. We'll see. The siege mode upgrade removal was unwarranted and completely thoughtless. Essentially this. I was watching demonstration videos, and even Carriers can move out of Seeker Missle range now. I applaud them for making it a non-yamato clone, however this will likely be adjusted before release. The siege mode upgrade removal was unwarranted and completely thoughtless. Very well said. Fundamental things shouldn't be altered, as it's inconsistent and weird, but aside from Blizzard changing this classic gameplay interaction the tank will still remain a sub-par unit vs anything that is not Terran until it receives a real adjustment in either damage, or supply. For a unit that costs 3 supply and cannot move and while in firing mode not being able to kill Zerglings in one shot is laughable at best. The quality of the matchups in this game will drastically improve when the tank becomes an actual threat. On January 11 2013 01:15 KamikazeDurrrp wrote: Here's the ultimate problem with the change, removing tank siege doesn't make mech stronger, it makes EARLY tanks builds slightly better. | ||
|
The_Darkness
United States910 Posts
On January 11 2013 01:15 KamikazeDurrrp wrote: Here's the ultimate problem with the change, removing tank siege doesn't make mech stronger, it makes EARLY tanks builds stronger. Siege from the start makes it so that it's infinitely better to rush tanks than it is to rush any else because you have the high tech of tanks already available to you, as opposed to "waiting" for stim, combat shields, medivacs, banshees, etc. This is going to have an effect where it's better to turtle than it is to push out, because there's no need to take the risk to push out where you could lose your whole army, when you are completely safe WITH the early siege from almost every type of early aggressions (if you set up your base properly). Once the other races see that people are choosing to defend instead of engage with the early tanks, what ends up happening is that they'll turtle too until they end up with something that CAN beat your siege tanks. People are making it sound like the early siege tank is going to make mech more viable when it also makes all the other compositions more viable too. Once you're completely safe with your 3 bases from using the early tanks, you're more likely to transition back into bio with vikings or ghosts than using mech because pushing out with mech is STILL weaker then if you just used bio. Meanwhile, in a change that "wasn't supposed to affect the other matchups", early siege is going to be ridiculously abusive versus zerg especially considering the fact that you have stronger hellions and access to a lot of tech faster. Here, let me just give you a build: 1-1-1, build marines, a tank, and a medivac and with the medivac speed immediately rush into the zerg base with 4 marines and a tank, siege up and laugh as zerg tries to figure out how to stop you. Or drop the new battle hellions with widow mines with tank support into the zergs base and the zerg literally can't touch you unless they build mass roach, leaving them even weaker to mass tanks, mass mutas, which die easily to widow mines or just get lucky with zerglings. Meanwhile, the zerg can't rush you like you can rush the zerg due to your early tanks WITH siege WITH mine support. I don't know, am I really the only person who sees this? I could "accept the reality", but I also believe in "learning from your mistakes", and deluding myself that the mistake doesn't exist isn't something that I feel is good for the game. Instead of incessantly whining and speculating about what impact the change might have, why don't you play (or watch) several hundred tvp games and see whether it does in fact have that impact? Isn't playing or watching better than gazing into your crystal ball and attempting to predict the meta-game when everyone knows it is not possible to predict what impact even small balance changes will have, let alone changes as impactful and numerous as those in this patch? | ||
|
RinconH
United States512 Posts
On January 11 2013 01:27 The_Darkness wrote: Instead of incessantly whining and speculating about what impact the change might have, why don't you play (or watch) several hundred tvp games and see whether it does in fact have that impact? Isn't playing or watching better than gazing into your crystal ball and attempting to predict the meta-game when everyone knows it is not possible to predict what impact even small balance changes will have, let alone changes as impactful and numerous as those in this patch? lmao @ "gaze into the metagame". There won't even be enough time before the next patch for a true metagame to develop. Blizzard shouldn't be trying to make "subtle" changes that will come out in the wash of the metagame. They should trying to be fixing the big, obvious problems right in front of them. | ||
|
Psychlone
Canada90 Posts
The creators of BroodWar would never have done such a thing. They introduced new units and updrades for existing units, but they didn't try to retroactively redesign the original game. That's what gives us this icky feeling about all those patches. If they just toyed with the new units, it would be not as bad. They really don't seem to know how to accomplish their objectives and should hire pro players as consultants. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1079 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On January 11 2013 01:34 Psychlone wrote: What I don't get is how they don't care to change the basic stats of existing units so freely. The creators of BroodWar would never have done such a thing. They introduced new units and updrades for existing units, but they didn't try to retroactively redesign the original game. That's what gives us this icky feeling about all those patches. If they just toyed with the new units, it would be not as bad. They really don't seem to know how to accomplish their objectives and should hire pro players as consultants. You are absolutely right in this and a good way to analyze stuff scientifically is by changing only one variable in a test instead of lots. Some idiot will now retort something idiotic like "oh you only want to have one change in a patch then?", but the scientific way is to start by fixing stuff that doesnt work BEFORE adding new variables (=units) to the equasion in the first place and that would have meant finalizing the balance of WoL before even starting the beta for HotS. The problems were clearly visible and known to them, but SC2 has been shifted around in its balance rather wildly during the last few years and that is not a stable environment to add something new to. So the patches give us this feeling that they have no clue what they are doing as several past ones have shown. Maybe it is the skill of the devs, but maybe it is the lack of a stable platform to work on which makes this sort of random. | ||
|
Mech0z
Denmark22 Posts
| ||
|
LuisFrost
Mexico130 Posts
On January 11 2013 01:37 Arghmyliver wrote: You ever get the feeling Blizz is just dicking around and throwing out all the changes they can think of to test them in a real world play environment? It's like this is a fucking beta or something. I know, right? As a college student, gold leaguer and avid watcher of Starcraft videos, I find this approach to game design absolutely unforgivable, if not just stupid. Down with Blizzard! | ||
|
E.L.V.I.S
Belgium458 Posts
| ||
|
costinii
Portugal59 Posts
On January 10 2013 22:37 rpgalon wrote: Time Warp should affect air units too now... each energy point in the MsC is far more precious than the oracle's energy... 75 energy from the MsC is like 200 energy from the oracle. I agree very much with this statement. It is indeed, until now, the only plausible flaw that was mentioned that I have agreed 100% in this post about Patch 11. All the other changes need time to understand if they really are positive or negative, to be reasonable.  | ||
|
Miscellany
Wales125 Posts
The fungal nerf seems logical. I suppose that could help in ZvZ. I suppose it makes quite a difference vs Protoss too, and perhaps vs. Mech. We'll just have to see how it pans out though. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
Protoss change is ok I guess. Fungal still has the ridiculous range, but that might be okay with the damage nerf, let's see how it turns out. | ||
| ||
