|
United States7166 Posts
Source
Previously hellbats received +1 to non light/+2 to light with every attack upgrade but now the scaling has been changed to +2 to non light/+3 to light. Max attack hellbats should now 1 shot max armored zerglings and 3 shot max armored emped zealots instead of 4.
Now, Hellbat damage are the following, with the upgrades of :
+0: 18 to non-Light, 30 to Light
+1: 20 to non-Light, 33 to Light
+2: 22 to non-Light, 36 to Light
+3: 24 to non-Light, 39 to Light
This seems more of a 'fix' rather than a 'buff' since all damage upgrades in the game scale by ~10% of the base damage rounded. That would also explain why it was forgotten in the patch notes.
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades, the upgrades just follow naturally for the most part (sadly, units in certain dmg ranges like the hydralisk get the short end of the stick when it comes to upgrades, since technically they should get 1.5 per upgrade to scale like other units do, but instead get 1, same as the marine which has half the base damage)
|
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell.
|
wow 1 shotting +3 armor zerglings o.O
|
If that's indeed the bugfix then they need to lower base damage of hellbat because otherwise it's quite ridiculous, they are like mini-ultras now lol.
|
On February 24 2013 05:45 TomatoShark wrote:
wow 1 shotting +3 armor zerglings o.O
You will not be making Zerglings vs 3/3 blue-flame Hellions late-game, will you?
|
On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell.
Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races.
|
On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races.
Please elaborate on this.
|
On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races.
somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D
|
This really shouldn't be that big of a deal considering the major effects of it don't kick in til +3 when zerg is already at a tier 3 army. Initial hellbat attacks are going to be the same.
|
Meh not really that important I think, it was too strong for 100 mins before and is now just a bit more OP. Good catch though!
|
China6328 Posts
On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D
And probably isn't very good at controlling ghosts.
|
On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D
Medivacs are actually a gas sink as well for the Terran. So yeah craaaaaap. Thanks for the notice, wouldn't have seen this myself probably, but I think I can adjust upgrades a bit now.
But talking about Mineral dumps. Queens and Spines and Spores, I would give the award to Zerg, though they can't trade them offensively like Terran (excluding the Starter Triad of Lings,Marines,Zealots).
Terran is a Mineral depended race though, so it would be horrible if their Mineral dumps would be weak.
|
On February 24 2013 06:27 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D Medivacs are actually a gas sink as well for the Terran. So yeah craaaaaap. Thanks for the notice, wouldn't have seen this myself probably, but I think I can adjust upgrades a bit now. But talking about Mineral dumps. Queens and Spines and Spores, I would give the award to Zerg, though they can't trade them offensively like Terran (excluding the Starter Triad of Lings,Marines,Zealots). Terran is a Mineral depended race though, so it would be horrible if their Mineral dumps would be weak.
WHAT?
Did I just read this? I am not sure how serious this is but... Medivacs are amazing. Most of mech is gas heavy except Hellion/hellbat. You can go mass orbital, hellbat/hellion/marine for mineral dumps, and mass turret. Spines aren't that great against terran, just against protoss.
|
if you're using lings against a mech army in the first place at that stage of the game.......
|
On February 24 2013 06:32 Vlare wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:27 FeyFey wrote:On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D Medivacs are actually a gas sink as well for the Terran. So yeah craaaaaap. Thanks for the notice, wouldn't have seen this myself probably, but I think I can adjust upgrades a bit now. But talking about Mineral dumps. Queens and Spines and Spores, I would give the award to Zerg, though they can't trade them offensively like Terran (excluding the Starter Triad of Lings,Marines,Zealots). Terran is a Mineral depended race though, so it would be horrible if their Mineral dumps would be weak. WHAT? Did I just read this? I am not sure how serious this is but... Medivacs are amazing. Most of mech is gas heavy except Hellion/hellbat. You can go mass orbital, hellbat/hellion/marine for mineral dumps, and mass turret. Spines aren't that great against terran, just against protoss.
Are you from Romania, cuz Im pretty sure that was sarcasm. FWIW, even with the super-charge healing ability, they're still really awesome. Last night, MMA did some really sick stuff with the speed-boost dropping to harass in very specific ways.
|
Would it not be beneficial for the design of hellbats to have their upgrades not matter as much? You only get them very late into the game anyway, they are the same tech as thors, yet they are supposed to be somewhat of a staple unit that works with bio and mech. That's possible if they aren't completely dependent on mech upgrades.
+ Show Spoiler +Also, for whatever reason I'm plagued by this horrific image of thousands of tiny rat-like hands wiggling and emerging from rotten flesh and patches of fur in concordance with a cacophony of agonizing screams. Please kill me. 
|
On February 24 2013 06:37 tshi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:32 Vlare wrote:On February 24 2013 06:27 FeyFey wrote:On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D Medivacs are actually a gas sink as well for the Terran. So yeah craaaaaap. Thanks for the notice, wouldn't have seen this myself probably, but I think I can adjust upgrades a bit now. But talking about Mineral dumps. Queens and Spines and Spores, I would give the award to Zerg, though they can't trade them offensively like Terran (excluding the Starter Triad of Lings,Marines,Zealots). Terran is a Mineral depended race though, so it would be horrible if their Mineral dumps would be weak. WHAT? Did I just read this? I am not sure how serious this is but... Medivacs are amazing. Most of mech is gas heavy except Hellion/hellbat. You can go mass orbital, hellbat/hellion/marine for mineral dumps, and mass turret. Spines aren't that great against terran, just against protoss. Are you from Romania, cuz Im pretty sure that was sarcasm. FWIW, even with the super-charge healing ability, they're still really awesome. Last night, MMA did some really sick stuff with the speed-boost dropping to harass in very specific ways.
No, I'm not from Romania. I don't really understand the reference either, racist?
On February 24 2013 06:39 Grumbels wrote:Would it not be beneficial for the design of hellbats to have their upgrades not matter as much? You only get them very late into the game anyway, they are the same tech as thors, yet they are supposed to be somewhat of a staple unit that works with bio and mech. That's possible if they aren't completely dependent on mech upgrades. + Show Spoiler +Also, for whatever reason I'm plagued by this horrific image of thousands of tiny rat-like hands wiggling and emerging from rotten flesh and patches of fur in concordance with a cacophony of agonizing screams. Please kill me.
They don't come that late into the game to be honest. Mech styles get them relatively early, and prior to the patch they were very common 1base openers.
|
United States7166 Posts
On February 24 2013 06:40 Vlare wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:37 tshi wrote:On February 24 2013 06:32 Vlare wrote:On February 24 2013 06:27 FeyFey wrote:On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D Medivacs are actually a gas sink as well for the Terran. So yeah craaaaaap. Thanks for the notice, wouldn't have seen this myself probably, but I think I can adjust upgrades a bit now. But talking about Mineral dumps. Queens and Spines and Spores, I would give the award to Zerg, though they can't trade them offensively like Terran (excluding the Starter Triad of Lings,Marines,Zealots). Terran is a Mineral depended race though, so it would be horrible if their Mineral dumps would be weak. WHAT? Did I just read this? I am not sure how serious this is but... Medivacs are amazing. Most of mech is gas heavy except Hellion/hellbat. You can go mass orbital, hellbat/hellion/marine for mineral dumps, and mass turret. Spines aren't that great against terran, just against protoss. Are you from Romania, cuz Im pretty sure that was sarcasm. FWIW, even with the super-charge healing ability, they're still really awesome. Last night, MMA did some really sick stuff with the speed-boost dropping to harass in very specific ways. No, I'm not from Romania. I don't really understand the reference either, racist? Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:39 Grumbels wrote:Would it not be beneficial for the design of hellbats to have their upgrades not matter as much? You only get them very late into the game anyway, they are the same tech as thors, yet they are supposed to be somewhat of a staple unit that works with bio and mech. That's possible if they aren't completely dependent on mech upgrades. + Show Spoiler +Also, for whatever reason I'm plagued by this horrific image of thousands of tiny rat-like hands wiggling and emerging from rotten flesh and patches of fur in concordance with a cacophony of agonizing screams. Please kill me. They don't come that late into the game to be honest. Mech styles get them relatively early, and prior to the patch they were very common 1base openers.
it's become sort of a running joke/thing for this site, where there are a ton of funny cases where Romanians missed sarcasm in a post and responded so earnestly. it's more 'cute' and funny than racist..
|
On February 24 2013 06:43 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:40 Vlare wrote:On February 24 2013 06:37 tshi wrote:On February 24 2013 06:32 Vlare wrote:On February 24 2013 06:27 FeyFey wrote:On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D Medivacs are actually a gas sink as well for the Terran. So yeah craaaaaap. Thanks for the notice, wouldn't have seen this myself probably, but I think I can adjust upgrades a bit now. But talking about Mineral dumps. Queens and Spines and Spores, I would give the award to Zerg, though they can't trade them offensively like Terran (excluding the Starter Triad of Lings,Marines,Zealots). Terran is a Mineral depended race though, so it would be horrible if their Mineral dumps would be weak. WHAT? Did I just read this? I am not sure how serious this is but... Medivacs are amazing. Most of mech is gas heavy except Hellion/hellbat. You can go mass orbital, hellbat/hellion/marine for mineral dumps, and mass turret. Spines aren't that great against terran, just against protoss. Are you from Romania, cuz Im pretty sure that was sarcasm. FWIW, even with the super-charge healing ability, they're still really awesome. Last night, MMA did some really sick stuff with the speed-boost dropping to harass in very specific ways. No, I'm not from Romania. I don't really understand the reference either, racist? On February 24 2013 06:39 Grumbels wrote:Would it not be beneficial for the design of hellbats to have their upgrades not matter as much? You only get them very late into the game anyway, they are the same tech as thors, yet they are supposed to be somewhat of a staple unit that works with bio and mech. That's possible if they aren't completely dependent on mech upgrades. + Show Spoiler +Also, for whatever reason I'm plagued by this horrific image of thousands of tiny rat-like hands wiggling and emerging from rotten flesh and patches of fur in concordance with a cacophony of agonizing screams. Please kill me. They don't come that late into the game to be honest. Mech styles get them relatively early, and prior to the patch they were very common 1base openers. it's become sort of a running joke/thing for this site, where there are a ton of funny cases where Romanians missed sarcasm in a post and responded so earnestly. it's more 'cute' and funny than racist..
Ah ok I understand. I haven't noticed it I guess, I've only been on the hots forums lately.
|
United States7166 Posts
On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell.
it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone.
IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game.
|
On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game.
This is incorrect. Or at least not a fundamental principle of game design, even if some games do follow this philosophy.
This is a recipe for having the highest tech units dominate the game once they hit the field. Infestor broodlord comes to mind. If high tech units "should be better" then once they are available they obsolete lower tech units, and this is undesirable. As the game goes longer the tech cost is amortized over more units, and becomes a very small cost which enables a player to get a vastly superior higher tech army.
In my opinion all units should be relevant at all stages in the game. Design their interactions within a flat tech system where every single unit is available all the time. Once the unit interactions are where you want them to be, then you can start designing how you want to bury tech. The game begins with limited options, and as the game progresses the players' options expand outwards, but the newer options aren't strictly superior merely because they are unlocked later.
Note that there's no reason you can't thematically have more expensive units be unlocked later, and more expensive units naturally need to be stronger to justify their cost. However there's also no reason you couldn't have a cheap unit be high tech.
|
United States7166 Posts
of course i agree strongly that all units should be relevant, and no unit should ever be obsolete.
i was just saying that units unlocked by a high amount of tech have some effect on their power, not that they should always be a superior choice over lower tech units. this is why units should not overlap roles either.
which brings me to units like the roach, which because of their troubled history in sc2's early stages, have become this terribly supply inefficient unit that loses a lot of their power in the lategame. would be nice if this unit and other such units had some upgrade at lategame tech that made them more relevant, preferably in a way that doesn't make them overlap with any other unit roles
|
I understand your position, and a lot of RTS games do adopt it (including SC2, but arguably not BW). However I would go so far as to say that a unit's position in the tech tree should have no impact on its effectiveness per cost, or its relationship with other units.
For purposes of designing unit interactions, there is no reason to ever factor in when those units are available. Indeed, the tech tree should be designed to create an interesting system of availability for units whose interactions are already designed with the assumption that all players can build everything for just its build cost.
The tech tree design needs to take into account unit relations and properties. Timings for unit availability should be adjusted to accommodate problems created by other units' availability or unavailability. But unit properties and interactions should be entirely tech tree agnostic, with zero power or efficiency increase or decrease based on being high tech or not.
|
Iam really sad that I preordered Hots....
I Feel like this: Browder says somethin about corrupter being boring units and needs to be changed....What they change is, of course Terran nerf/buffs. I mean c´mon whats going on in dev team?
|
United States7166 Posts
Yeah it'd be really great if the next time someone interviews Browder or D. Kim, they asked about their old plans to make the corruptor and overseer (and possibly others?) more interesting..kinda sucks that they haven't said or done anything about it until this point afaik.
|
Yes this makes me very sad zergling who doesn´t want to run in circles around xel naga pillar -.-
|
On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game.
It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice.
Warcraft 3 was different. A tier 1 unit never stood a chance against tier 2 which never stood a chance against tier 3. In starcarft zerglings counter thors, marines counter voidrays etc. In sc2, i'd rather say that tech allows your composition to get better, but you're never going to make pure high tech unit ever, except in some retarded situations like skytoss.
As you said later, though, it's preferable for low tech units to remain usefull trough the entire game.
Concerning the role of tech, I think its role in sc2 is to create an effect like "now things play differently because this tech is on the field". Like a toss that doesnt have to worry at all about air in zvp before muta can be out, or a Z that knows he cant engage anymore with his zergling army because a collossus is ready, etc.
The role of tech is also to give strategical choice to the players. One can either go for tech, for eco or for army with his money. If Toss couldnt tech faster than zergs, they would never be able to take a 3rd.
|
On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice.
Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash.
|
so just i understand it
people cry that the hellbat is to strong and they BUFF it but not tell anyone so blizzard not get hatemails ? WTF
|
On February 24 2013 08:15 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice. Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash.
T1 is trash because the power of a unit is dependent on it's cost/supply... and all T1 units have a low cost/supply.
|
On February 24 2013 08:50 CoR wrote:
so just i understand it
people cry that the hellbat is to strong and they BUFF it but not tell anyone so blizzard not get hatemails ? WTF
They didn't BUFF anything. They fixed it's improper scaling. And honestly the hellbat isn't too strong. Zergs are just too used to being pampered and greedy as fuck in the early game. They believe if they have to make units before 50 drones they lose. Even if you get attacked by proxy reapers and such you usually still have a 2nd/3rd much earlier than the terran.
|
On February 24 2013 08:55 rpgalon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:15 Grumbels wrote:On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice. Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash. T1 is trash because the power of a unit is dependent on it's cost/supply... and all T1 units have a low cost/supply.
I'm sorry what? t1 is trash? Terran can fight all three matchups with 80% t1 and a few t3 supports. ZvZ used to be t1.5 dominated roach fights. Protoss has all sorts of things they can do with t1 and t1.5.
|
On February 24 2013 08:55 rpgalon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 08:15 Grumbels wrote:On February 24 2013 08:00 Natalya wrote:On February 24 2013 06:55 Zelniq wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. it's quite a bit higher tech than the zergling or zealot. that's kind of the whole purpose of tech, to unlock more powerful units. if this wasn't the case then you may just unlock all units from the start of the game and just 'balance' them based on their cost alone. IE: If they made zealots require a fleet beacon + templar archives, but still cost 100 minerals, it had better be quite a bit stronger than the zealots that come from just a gateway. that just gave me a funny idea for a variant of sc2..reversed tech, reversed power level of units. Meaning, make ultras come from spawning pool and be cheap but crappy, and make zerglings require Zergling Cavern & hive and make them attack as fast as cracklings in BW, and be able to crawl over units/buildings, and so on with all the other units in the game. It's not as simple as "tech unlock more powerfull units" Most of the time as zerg you still use hatchery or lair units with your hive units. In some situation, tier 1 units remains your best choice. Actually, that's exactly how it works. If it wasn't for late-game upgrades all T1 units would be trash. T1 is trash because the power of a unit is dependent on it's cost/supply... and all T1 units have a low cost/supply.
Yeah, say that to the Marines.
|
On February 24 2013 06:24 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D And probably isn't very good at controlling ghosts.
Ghost aren't gas dumps. They're twice more expensive in mineral than in gas. ( 200/100 )
|
On February 24 2013 08:50 CoR wrote:
so just i understand it
people cry that the hellbat is to strong and they BUFF it but not tell anyone so blizzard not get hatemails ? WTF
Not a buff, a bug fix. Now if it makes the units too strong they'll get adjusted. Before they were in a pretty good place I thought, now they'll be stronger and that may be a problem. If it's a problem they'll get adjusted.
|
On February 24 2013 06:24 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 06:05 Decendos wrote:On February 24 2013 05:50 hiru wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Terran's gas sinks are total crap compared to the other two races. somebody hasnt played with the new ravens :D And probably isn't very good at controlling ghosts.
But ghosts aren't a gas dump. 200 mins 100 gas.
Edit: Someone beat me to it
|
The upgrade damage does seem more proper, although it sounds too strong [at first] being able to 1 shot +3 armour lings, but then again, as people have said, you should really be making lings at that point anyway.
|
Really you complain about a buggfix? Why wouldn't the hellbat's upgrades scale like every other unit?
Yes the hellbat might be a little stronger then the zealot. But it's also a unit that has a much higher tech requirement, don't forget that guys.
|
On February 24 2013 10:56 Zorgaz wrote:
Really you complain about a buggfix? Why wouldn't the hellbat's upgrades scale like every other unit?
Yes the hellbat might be a little stronger then the zealot. But it's also a unit that has a much higher tech requirement, don't forget that guys.
It's a fix that makes an already strong unit stronger, and there's no reduction in base damage to compensate for the fixed upgrade damage. Perfectly natural to complain.
|
On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell.
Define "better" please. Just because a Battle Hellion can one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will be able to do so. The Zergling is MUCH faster than the terran unit, so "better" clearly comes from a highly subjective point of view where you conveniently disregard the downsides of a unit. Please dont do that and be objective or refrain from using the word "better".
Another thing is that with such asymmetric units you cant ever give stats to the units to make them all totally balanced, so please refrain from the "boohoo their units are better than mine" whining, because thats not how the game works and you should know better.
"Balanced" is a stupid concept and rather impossible to achieve exactly. Sadly Blizzard tries to do it and really "needs to" because the game relies on too many units being produced. They totally failed to "balance" the unit production boosts of the three races in their initial concept of SC2 and we have to suffer the consequences ever since.
|
If lings become completely useless in a matchup Zerg might just start spamming hatches across the map and not using queens for macro, giving them more supply for army (kinda like mules)
|
On February 24 2013 12:33 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Define "better" please. Just because a Battle Hellion can one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will be able to do so. The Zergling is MUCH faster than the terran unit, so "better" clearly comes from a highly subjective point of view where you conveniently disregard the downsides of a unit. Please dont do that and be objective or refrain from using the word "better". Another thing is that with such asymmetric units you cant ever give stats to the units to make them all totally balanced, so please refrain from the "boohoo their units are better than mine" whining, because thats not how the game works and you should know better. "Balanced" is a stupid concept and rather impossible to achieve exactly. Sadly Blizzard tries to do it and really "needs to" because the game relies on too many units being produced. They totally failed to "balance" the unit production boosts of the three races in their initial concept of SC2 and we have to suffer the consequences ever since.
Sorry what? Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. "Just because it can one shot doesn't mean it will." Unless i'm a dumbass, if it has the stats to do something then that something is going to happen. You can't talk about how lings will just run past them, or avoid them. Because eventually y ou're going to be forced to fight. You're ignoring that entire situation and going on a rant about how blizzard shouldn't actively be trying to balance the game. The situation is lings vs. Battlehellions at +3. It doesn't matter if the ling is faster. You can't physically run it in, get an attack off, then run it out before the hellion destroys it.
|
Why do you think its "bug fix"? They are tweaking numbers, and its certainly a balance chance. Its not like they somehow accidentally gave hellbats some other upgrade value that also ended up in tooltips. If it wasnt in tooltips, it would have been a bug.
|
On February 24 2013 12:49 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 12:33 Rabiator wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Define "better" please. Just because a Battle Hellion can one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will be able to do so. The Zergling is MUCH faster than the terran unit, so "better" clearly comes from a highly subjective point of view where you conveniently disregard the downsides of a unit. Please dont do that and be objective or refrain from using the word "better". Another thing is that with such asymmetric units you cant ever give stats to the units to make them all totally balanced, so please refrain from the "boohoo their units are better than mine" whining, because thats not how the game works and you should know better. "Balanced" is a stupid concept and rather impossible to achieve exactly. Sadly Blizzard tries to do it and really "needs to" because the game relies on too many units being produced. They totally failed to "balance" the unit production boosts of the three races in their initial concept of SC2 and we have to suffer the consequences ever since. Sorry what? Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. "Just because it can one shot doesn't mean it will." Unless i'm a dumbass, if it has the stats to do something then that something is going to happen. You can't talk about how lings will just run past them, or avoid them. Because eventually y ou're going to be forced to fight. You're ignoring that entire situation and going on a rant about how blizzard shouldn't actively be trying to balance the game. The situation is lings vs. Battlehellions at +3. It doesn't matter if the ling is faster. You can't physically run it in, get an attack off, then run it out before the hellion destroys it.
Thanks for unintentianally adding another argument to my point ... one-shotting "in theory" doesnt mean it will happen for splash attacks. Even if a Battle Hellion has the MAX DAMAGE to one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will, because not all the area of the attack is "covered in max damage". The attack is a cone attack and thus probably has a reduced effect further away from the unit (unlike the usual "line attacks" which have full damage everywhere). I am guessing it has a reduced damage at range though, since the description of the unit in the Liquipedia doesnt specify this but the splash damage page only has the Baneling at max damage fully throughout the area (all other area attacks have three zones), but that effect is more like a spell and not an attack.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Splash_damage
"Being forced to fight" is rather subjective as well, since the Zergling has the greater mobility it will be the one which chooses to attack (or not) most of the time and attacking something other than the Battle Hellions (unless they are attacking crucial bases directly). You dont win the game by killing the enemy army; you win it by killing the buildings. Except for the really early game rushes I would suggest building something else to defend your bases against Battle Hellions ... Spine Crawlers.
I am not saying that Blizzard shouldnt balance the game (how you came to that conclusion is beyond me). I am rather saying that they should stop ignoring the fact that their game is terribly hard to balance because of certain basic design decisions and that they should fiddle more with these things to make balancing easier. To be able to have creative maps which are viable the game MUST HAVE a tough balance which doesnt rely upon timings. Sadly the current state of the game requires a crapton of "timing adjustments" and a very very precise balancing and thus we have to live with rather limited choice of maps.
"Balance" is a concept which has gone rampant through the gaming world, but which doesnt bother us anywhere else. Do you cry foul when the top team of your sports league plays the bottom one and wins simply because their players are better? Probably not. But if one unit in Starcraft can easily beat ONE other unit people are whining as if the four year old next to them in the sandbox took their shovel. Its the same for most "competitive games" and was really really terrible for the class development of WoW already. "Balance" ruined Dungeons & Dragons by taking out flavour and uniqueness of classes with the terrible 4th edition even though the concept is completely irrelevant for an "us against them" type of game. Balance for a computer game must be wide, strong and simple instead of razor thin and complicated.
|
speed Zealots have always been, and are still, quite goddamn strong. Hellbats being strong are a must for mech to stand a chance TvP.
Also the fact that a protoss ground army is super-mobile compared to the immobile mech army with its positional play.. and hellbats can be kited as they are quiiiite slowww
|
On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades
If you want to whine, whine about Blizzard design not that lings get one shot in the late, late game by the designated (hard)counter unit.
Hellbats are as overpowered as Tanks are underpowered. Why the Hell are they making everything as strong as possible just to avoid a tank buff is beyond me. I mean, it simplifies the play having an all round 1a unit instead of having to rely only on good positioned tanks/ mines, but it's so ugly...
|
On February 24 2013 16:10 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 12:49 Infernal_dream wrote:On February 24 2013 12:33 Rabiator wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Define "better" please. Just because a Battle Hellion can one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will be able to do so. The Zergling is MUCH faster than the terran unit, so "better" clearly comes from a highly subjective point of view where you conveniently disregard the downsides of a unit. Please dont do that and be objective or refrain from using the word "better". Another thing is that with such asymmetric units you cant ever give stats to the units to make them all totally balanced, so please refrain from the "boohoo their units are better than mine" whining, because thats not how the game works and you should know better. "Balanced" is a stupid concept and rather impossible to achieve exactly. Sadly Blizzard tries to do it and really "needs to" because the game relies on too many units being produced. They totally failed to "balance" the unit production boosts of the three races in their initial concept of SC2 and we have to suffer the consequences ever since. Sorry what? Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. "Just because it can one shot doesn't mean it will." Unless i'm a dumbass, if it has the stats to do something then that something is going to happen. You can't talk about how lings will just run past them, or avoid them. Because eventually y ou're going to be forced to fight. You're ignoring that entire situation and going on a rant about how blizzard shouldn't actively be trying to balance the game. The situation is lings vs. Battlehellions at +3. It doesn't matter if the ling is faster. You can't physically run it in, get an attack off, then run it out before the hellion destroys it. Thanks for unintentianally adding another argument to my point ... one-shotting "in theory" doesnt mean it will happen for splash attacks. Even if a Battle Hellion has the MAX DAMAGE to one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will, because not all the area of the attack is "covered in max damage". The attack is a cone attack and thus probably has a reduced effect further away from the unit (unlike the usual "line attacks" which have full damage everywhere). I am guessing it has a reduced damage at range though, since the description of the unit in the Liquipedia doesnt specify this but the splash damage page only has the Baneling at max damage fully throughout the area (all other area attacks have three zones), but that effect is more like a spell and not an attack. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Splash_damage"Being forced to fight" is rather subjective as well, since the Zergling has the greater mobility it will be the one which chooses to attack (or not) most of the time and attacking something other than the Battle Hellions (unless they are attacking crucial bases directly). You dont win the game by killing the enemy army; you win it by killing the buildings. Except for the really early game rushes I would suggest building something else to defend your bases against Battle Hellions ... Spine Crawlers. I am not saying that Blizzard shouldnt balance the game (how you came to that conclusion is beyond me). I am rather saying that they should stop ignoring the fact that their game is terribly hard to balance because of certain basic design decisions and that they should fiddle more with these things to make balancing easier. To be able to have creative maps which are viable the game MUST HAVE a tough balance which doesnt rely upon timings. Sadly the current state of the game requires a crapton of "timing adjustments" and a very very precise balancing and thus we have to live with rather limited choice of maps. "Balance" is a concept which has gone rampant through the gaming world, but which doesnt bother us anywhere else. Do you cry foul when the top team of your sports league plays the bottom one and wins simply because their players are better? Probably not. But if one unit in Starcraft can easily beat ONE other unit people are whining as if the four year old next to them in the sandbox took their shovel. Its the same for most "competitive games" and was really really terrible for the class development of WoW already. "Balance" ruined Dungeons & Dragons by taking out flavour and uniqueness of classes with the terrible 4th edition even though the concept is completely irrelevant for an "us against them" type of game. Balance for a computer game must be wide, strong and simple instead of razor thin and complicated.
You last analogy doesn't make sense. No one complains when Startale bests NSHS because they have better players. Balance is like if one team's goal is smaller. I am sure people would complain.
|
On February 24 2013 16:10 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 12:49 Infernal_dream wrote:On February 24 2013 12:33 Rabiator wrote:On February 24 2013 05:35 Vlare wrote:
Not sure how I feel about this to be honest. It doesn't make much sense to me that 1races mineral dump should be better than that of the other two races. I haven't hit too many Terran who go hellbat heavy though so time will tell. Define "better" please. Just because a Battle Hellion can one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will be able to do so. The Zergling is MUCH faster than the terran unit, so "better" clearly comes from a highly subjective point of view where you conveniently disregard the downsides of a unit. Please dont do that and be objective or refrain from using the word "better". Another thing is that with such asymmetric units you cant ever give stats to the units to make them all totally balanced, so please refrain from the "boohoo their units are better than mine" whining, because thats not how the game works and you should know better. "Balanced" is a stupid concept and rather impossible to achieve exactly. Sadly Blizzard tries to do it and really "needs to" because the game relies on too many units being produced. They totally failed to "balance" the unit production boosts of the three races in their initial concept of SC2 and we have to suffer the consequences ever since. Sorry what? Your first paragraph doesn't make any sense. "Just because it can one shot doesn't mean it will." Unless i'm a dumbass, if it has the stats to do something then that something is going to happen. You can't talk about how lings will just run past them, or avoid them. Because eventually y ou're going to be forced to fight. You're ignoring that entire situation and going on a rant about how blizzard shouldn't actively be trying to balance the game. The situation is lings vs. Battlehellions at +3. It doesn't matter if the ling is faster. You can't physically run it in, get an attack off, then run it out before the hellion destroys it. Thanks for unintentianally adding another argument to my point ... one-shotting "in theory" doesnt mean it will happen for splash attacks. Even if a Battle Hellion has the MAX DAMAGE to one-shot a Zergling doesnt mean it will, because not all the area of the attack is "covered in max damage". The attack is a cone attack and thus probably has a reduced effect further away from the unit (unlike the usual "line attacks" which have full damage everywhere). I am guessing it has a reduced damage at range though, since the description of the unit in the Liquipedia doesnt specify this but the splash damage page only has the Baneling at max damage fully throughout the area (all other area attacks have three zones), but that effect is more like a spell and not an attack. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Splash_damage
Hellbat splash deals full damage, much like Hellion or Baneling splash and very much unlike Siege Tank splash.
Be careful about your assumptions about the units.
|
On February 24 2013 14:23 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
Why do you think its "bug fix"? They are tweaking numbers, and its certainly a balance chance. Its not like they somehow accidentally gave hellbats some other upgrade value that also ended up in tooltips. If it wasnt in tooltips, it would have been a bug.
Because apparently every other unit follows the upgrade rule:
base damage --> upgrade
1-14 --> +1
15-24 --> +2
25-34 --> +3
35-44 --> +4
etc.
The Hellbat does 18damage and 30 vs light. So it's upgrades should be +2(+1vs light).
There are not expection to this rule as far as I know. The +1(+1 vs light) was from the time when hellbats did 10(+9 vs light) damage and apparently blizzard forgot to adjust the upgrades when they changed the damage.
|
On February 24 2013 16:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades If you want to whine, whine about Blizzard design not that lings get one shot in the late, late game by the designated (hard)counter unit. Hellbats are as overpowered as Tanks are underpowered. Why the Hell are they making everything as strong as possible just to avoid a tank buff is beyond me. I mean, it simplifies the play having an all round 1a unit instead of having to rely only on good positioned tanks/ mines, but it's so ugly...
Maybe because people already use as many tanks as they can get away with in TvT and TvZ?
Yeah, I'm also for some tank buff to make them a stable unit in TvP, and make them better vs Ultras. But I can totally understand that blizzard does not want to create a mess by making one of the best Terran units for two matchups even more powerful.
|
On February 24 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 16:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades If you want to whine, whine about Blizzard design not that lings get one shot in the late, late game by the designated (hard)counter unit. Hellbats are as overpowered as Tanks are underpowered. Why the Hell are they making everything as strong as possible just to avoid a tank buff is beyond me. I mean, it simplifies the play having an all round 1a unit instead of having to rely only on good positioned tanks/ mines, but it's so ugly... Maybe because people already use as many tanks as they can get away with in TvT and TvZ? Yeah, I'm also for some tank buff to make them a stable unit in TvP, and make them better vs Ultras. But I can totally understand that blizzard does not want to create a mess by making one of the best Terran units for two matchups even more powerful.
Blizzard has very well paid game designers that are supposed to think of ways to make the game good without fucking up anything. There is no excuse. Especially when community made mods show more understanding and problem solving abilities then the official devs.
If they can't do it, then they can join the project Jay Wilson is working on now.
|
On February 24 2013 19:15 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:On February 24 2013 16:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades If you want to whine, whine about Blizzard design not that lings get one shot in the late, late game by the designated (hard)counter unit. Hellbats are as overpowered as Tanks are underpowered. Why the Hell are they making everything as strong as possible just to avoid a tank buff is beyond me. I mean, it simplifies the play having an all round 1a unit instead of having to rely only on good positioned tanks/ mines, but it's so ugly... Maybe because people already use as many tanks as they can get away with in TvT and TvZ? Yeah, I'm also for some tank buff to make them a stable unit in TvP, and make them better vs Ultras. But I can totally understand that blizzard does not want to create a mess by making one of the best Terran units for two matchups even more powerful. Blizzard has very well paid game designers that are supposed to think of ways to make the game good without fucking up anything. There is no excuse. Especially when community made mods show more understanding and problem solving abilities then the official devs. If they can't do it, then they can join the project Jay Wilson is working on now.
And the game is good. It might not be the best it could be but nothing ever is.
Go ask progamers what they think of having monthly design/balance changes whenever someone on some forum makes a point that could be true or could as well be bullshit because it is untested. Yet gets a lot of followers.
Go ask them about implementing FRB tomorrow. I can very much agree with many of those ideas and do very well have very different ideas from blizzards ones. I cannot agree however with destroying the high quality, exciting esports competition we have right now to test some ideas, well-thought out as they may be.
|
On February 24 2013 19:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 19:15 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 24 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:On February 24 2013 16:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades If you want to whine, whine about Blizzard design not that lings get one shot in the late, late game by the designated (hard)counter unit. Hellbats are as overpowered as Tanks are underpowered. Why the Hell are they making everything as strong as possible just to avoid a tank buff is beyond me. I mean, it simplifies the play having an all round 1a unit instead of having to rely only on good positioned tanks/ mines, but it's so ugly... Maybe because people already use as many tanks as they can get away with in TvT and TvZ? Yeah, I'm also for some tank buff to make them a stable unit in TvP, and make them better vs Ultras. But I can totally understand that blizzard does not want to create a mess by making one of the best Terran units for two matchups even more powerful. Blizzard has very well paid game designers that are supposed to think of ways to make the game good without fucking up anything. There is no excuse. Especially when community made mods show more understanding and problem solving abilities then the official devs. If they can't do it, then they can join the project Jay Wilson is working on now. And the game is good. It might not be the best it could be but nothing ever is. Go ask progamers what they think of having monthly design/balance changes whenever someone on some forum makes a point that could be true or could as well be bullshit because it is untested. Yet gets a lot of followers. Go ask them about implementing FRB tomorrow. I can very much agree with many of those ideas and do very well have very different ideas from blizzards ones. I cannot agree however with destroying the high quality, exciting esports competition we have right now to test some ideas, well-thought out as they may be.
I think what we have is but a shadow of the excitement and quality BW offered through the pro scene. You can say that SC2 is global now and BW really was not, but i argue that is due to the way games are seen in the west now compared to early 2000s.
Especially in the last year, SC2 games turned kind of bad, IMO due to bad design and bad balance (not imbalance, but achieving balance in a bad way, if that makes sense) .
I think SC2 is a good game don't get me wrong, but like D3, i think it has the same problem: a game designer that is not as good as his predecessor yet very arrogant in imposing his own ideas, even when it's clear for THE HOLE WORLD that he is wrong. Nothing short of a general outcry ever makes him (DB) do any significant change. THIS is pathetic in every single way imaginable except in that man's head. So after 3 years and an expansion that does only cosmetic changes i think it's ok to start throwing some shit at Blizzards direction.
|
On February 24 2013 19:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 16:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades If you want to whine, whine about Blizzard design not that lings get one shot in the late, late game by the designated (hard)counter unit. Hellbats are as overpowered as Tanks are underpowered. Why the Hell are they making everything as strong as possible just to avoid a tank buff is beyond me. I mean, it simplifies the play having an all round 1a unit instead of having to rely only on good positioned tanks/ mines, but it's so ugly... Maybe because people already use as many tanks as they can get away with in TvT and TvZ? Yeah, I'm also for some tank buff to make them a stable unit in TvP, and make them better vs Ultras. But I can totally understand that blizzard does not want to create a mess by making one of the best Terran units for two matchups even more powerful.
Give the tanks + damage to shields? I mean the Widow mine already got that so it seems reasonable.
|
Would have been better if this wasn't posted because all this is going to do is give people more reasons to complain about the hellbat.
|
On February 24 2013 16:50 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 05:33 Zelniq wrote:
I'd say if you really had a concern, it should be with the base damage rather than the upgrades If you want to whine, whine about Blizzard design not that lings get one shot in the late, late game by the designated (hard)counter unit. Hellbats are as overpowered as Tanks are underpowered. Why the Hell are they making everything as strong as possible just to avoid a tank buff is beyond me. I mean, it simplifies the play having an all round 1a unit instead of having to rely only on good positioned tanks/ mines, but it's so ugly...
Blizzard doesn't want to buff all these boring brood war units. They want people to be using the new SC2 units man. Why live in the past when you can use the new stuff?
|
On February 24 2013 18:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 14:23 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
Why do you think its "bug fix"? They are tweaking numbers, and its certainly a balance chance. Its not like they somehow accidentally gave hellbats some other upgrade value that also ended up in tooltips. If it wasnt in tooltips, it would have been a bug. Because apparently every other unit follows the upgrade rule: base damage --> upgrade 1-14 --> +1 15-24 --> +2 25-34 --> +3 35-44 --> +4 etc. The Hellbat does 18damage and 30 vs light. So it's upgrades should be +2(+1vs light). There are not expection to this rule as far as I know. The +1(+1 vs light) was from the time when hellbats did 10(+9 vs light) damage and apparently blizzard forgot to adjust the upgrades when they changed the damage.
It can be entirely balance reason. And as I said, its highly unlikely that they would have accidentally created those stats that also ended up in tooltips.
|
This seems entirely uncalled for. Hellbats are given extremely high unupgraded DPS because they need to be able to counter zealots (for the purposes of TvP). However, there is no need for them to scale so well.
IMO they should get +2 upgrades vs all (both light and nonlight)
|
Yeah, this is technically a fix to make the Hellbat match the math of unit upgrades in general. If the Hellbat is overpowered, the base damage is the concern. To me the next change should be to make blue flame relevant again, by reducing Hellbat light bonus damage to +7 and allowing the Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade to apply its standard +5 to light, or perhaps more if Blizzard is willing to muddy up the upgrade description to apply two different effects. This both makes super-Hellbats slower to tech and makes the upgrade relevant for both transformations again. You should be afraid of the blue flame, in either form.
|
Most likely the reason why this was not listed in balance changes was just an error in patch note process. Its not like david kim personally makes those notes I think. Or they just did not make any notes in that production cycle for whatever reason. It could be that they will announce those changes officially in the future.
|
I don't think we should worry too much until we see how games play out pro vs pro with the new hellbat upgrade
|
yea hopefully we will see what happens in gstl tonight cause i dont think they knew the new patch was in affect on the gom server
|
gstl has wings of liberty
|
On February 25 2013 04:34 Mongolbonjwa wrote:
gstl has wings of liberty
The GSTL is HotS right now, GSL is Wings of Liberty.
|
They should make the Hellbat upgrade cost 50/50. Then make hellbats cost 100/25. Then hellions will have to pay 25 gas to make their first transformation to Hellbathood, after that they can transform freely. Also, might make sense for the first transformation to last a bit longer so players have time to cancel it if hit it by accident and so don't waste a ton of gas.
|
Theres just too much balance whining about the hellbat, yes its cost effective against light melee units. I would advise against sending your zerglings in to deal with them, just as you probably shouldnt get your marines nice and close to deal with all those banelings on the field. Scout & counter people, come on!
|
On February 25 2013 14:22 TheSwagger wrote:
Theres just too much balance whining about the hellbat, yes its cost effective against light melee units. I would advise against sending your zerglings in to deal with them, just as you probably shouldnt get your marines nice and close to deal with all those banelings on the field. Scout & counter people, come on!
I guess the difference is marines can still kill banelings and be cost effective with micro. Zerglings on the other hand are never going to be cost effective against Hellbats because to attack them they have to enter the Hellbat's attack range, unlike marines and banelings.
|
On February 25 2013 15:00 coasts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 14:22 TheSwagger wrote:
Theres just too much balance whining about the hellbat, yes its cost effective against light melee units. I would advise against sending your zerglings in to deal with them, just as you probably shouldnt get your marines nice and close to deal with all those banelings on the field. Scout & counter people, come on! I guess the difference is marines can still kill banelings and be cost effective with micro. Zerglings on the other hand are never going to be cost effective against Hellbats because to attack them they have to enter the Hellbat's attack range, unlike marines and banelings.
Zealots aren't going to beat banelings. Hellions aren't going to kill ultras. Broodlords aren't going to kill vikings. Believe it or not, there are simply units that happen to be near useless or unable to attack other units. I would even say zerglings against hellbats aren't as bad as these if engaged in the open. That is how the game works.
|
On February 25 2013 15:00 coasts wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 14:22 TheSwagger wrote:
Theres just too much balance whining about the hellbat, yes its cost effective against light melee units. I would advise against sending your zerglings in to deal with them, just as you probably shouldnt get your marines nice and close to deal with all those banelings on the field. Scout & counter people, come on! I guess the difference is marines can still kill banelings and be cost effective with micro. Zerglings on the other hand are never going to be cost effective against Hellbats because to attack them they have to enter the Hellbat's attack range, unlike marines and banelings.
What about roaches vs hellions? How many pro terrans have lost to 7-10 roach pushes after going hellions? They could have bunkers up and behind depots and they still lose. Some units just get hard countered. Towards the end of WoL, you could see that well micro lings (with some banes to force bio splits) could trade efficiently vs ALL ground terran units. Tanks, which were suppose to be their counters, got 1 shot off before they were surrounded.
|
well we just have terran version of roach
|
On February 25 2013 16:15 SolidMoose wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 15:00 coasts wrote:On February 25 2013 14:22 TheSwagger wrote:
Theres just too much balance whining about the hellbat, yes its cost effective against light melee units. I would advise against sending your zerglings in to deal with them, just as you probably shouldnt get your marines nice and close to deal with all those banelings on the field. Scout & counter people, come on! I guess the difference is marines can still kill banelings and be cost effective with micro. Zerglings on the other hand are never going to be cost effective against Hellbats because to attack them they have to enter the Hellbat's attack range, unlike marines and banelings. Zealots aren't going to beat banelings. Hellions aren't going to kill ultras. Broodlords aren't going to kill vikings. Believe it or not, there are simply units that happen to be near useless or unable to attack other units. I would even say zerglings against hellbats aren't as bad as these if engaged in the open. That is how the game works.
It takes 4 banelings to kill a zealot, costing 4x25/50 or 100/200, so if you micro enough to let less than 3 zealots get hit by each baneling, it's cost effective.
|
On February 25 2013 17:26 winthrop wrote:
well we just have terran version of roach
Which can transform in a mobile unit, is more supply efficient(hardcounters something), doesn't cost gas and can be healed and speed boosted by a medivac. It's much too versatile for being that strong.
|
On February 25 2013 16:24 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 15:00 coasts wrote:On February 25 2013 14:22 TheSwagger wrote:
Theres just too much balance whining about the hellbat, yes its cost effective against light melee units. I would advise against sending your zerglings in to deal with them, just as you probably shouldnt get your marines nice and close to deal with all those banelings on the field. Scout & counter people, come on! I guess the difference is marines can still kill banelings and be cost effective with micro. Zerglings on the other hand are never going to be cost effective against Hellbats because to attack them they have to enter the Hellbat's attack range, unlike marines and banelings. What about roaches vs hellions? How many pro terrans have lost to 7-10 roach pushes after going hellions? They could have bunkers up and behind depots and they still lose. Some units just get hard countered. Towards the end of WoL, you could see that well micro lings (with some banes to force bio splits) could trade efficiently vs ALL ground terran units. Tanks, which were suppose to be their counters, got 1 shot off before they were surrounded.
That's the problem of 3 CC openings, a strategic problem, not of strategic potential/usage. Roaches are more supply ineffiecient(hard counter nothing/not as much hellbats, like hellbats zerglings) and cost gas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
