On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote: Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect. So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.
25% distance to transverse a storm nerf. 45% area nerf.
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote: Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect. So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.
25% distance to transverse a storm nerf. 45% area nerf.
The true number is somewhere in between.
You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote: A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.
Dude, what ever crack you are on I want some.
To make full use of the aoe of a spell the entire area should cover units with no free space in between. It's much easier to make full use of a smaller area than a larger one. The larger the area of effect gets the more free space you will inevitably hit. How is that hard to understand?
On March 31 2010 20:48 rtano wrote: To many people moves to fast to conclusions....
IF the changes create imbalances, thats totally fine. Cause this is BETA. Blizzard trying out things is good. It would be a lot worse if they didnt, considering the gameplay to be already perfected. Furthermore imbalances force people to try out new strategies, and new patches will definitively change things around again anyway...
And to give people and developers an idea what is wrong they need to know - and that's where the complaining comes in....
loop di doo
And thats why I wrote:
On March 31 2010 20:48 rtano wrote: Its still open to see how this plays out but please do so before screaming...
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote: A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.
No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).
area =/= effectiveness radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.
Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote: Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect. So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.
25% distance to transverse a storm nerf. 45% area nerf.
The true number is somewhere in between.
You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote: A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.
No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).
area =/= effectiveness radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.
Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?
I'm saying that the effectiveness of the spell neither increases linearly with the area of the spell or with the radius of the spell but with some number in between the two.
I am aware of the relation between the area and the radius. My original post however doesn't state anything about them so I was unsure what you meant with your comment.
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote: Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect. So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.
25% distance to transverse a storm nerf. 45% area nerf.
The true number is somewhere in between.
You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!
No, reaction time is a player variable.
Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote: A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.
No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).
area =/= effectiveness radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.
Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?
On March 31 2010 21:00 Yamoth wrote: Come on people, think a little bit before you speak. Having small storm are effect a whole hell lot more than just how much potential damage it can do. Now sit there for a second and think this over again. If the storm is smaller, no only does it cover less area, but it takes unit that much less time spent under the storm when they are trying to move out of it. At the epic center, even if you move out as soon as the storm hit you, the unit still suffer somewhat half of the storm effect. The new storm, the unit move out much easier and now a person with good cc only suffer a 4th of the storm effect. So to simplify it even more, the smaller area of the storm reduces both the amount of unit it can damage but also how much damage unit suffer while being stormed. Hell, I'm sure if someone actually sit down and do the math, they will see that a 45% reduction to the storm coverage will caused more that 45% reduction of the storm effectiveness.
25% distance to transverse a storm nerf. 45% area nerf.
The true number is somewhere in between.
You also get to take into account that players do not react instantly so 25% less radius do not mean that they take 25% less damage due to moving out of the area in 25% less time. I would say that the nerf is very close to 25%, not to say that a 25% nerf isn't huge though!
No, reaction time is a player variable.
Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.
On March 31 2010 19:59 DrainX wrote: A 45% decrease in area of effect of a spell doesn't necessarily mean that the spells effectiveness has been reduced by 45%. It's much easier to hit a high density of units with a smaller circle than with a larger one. The larger the circle is, the more unused area there will be. The spells effectiveness doesn't increase linearly with the area of effect.
No, it increases by a quadratic degree (area = π * radius^2).
area =/= effectiveness radius =/= effectiveness
If you're suggesting that effectiveness is independent of a spell's radius (meaning a spell covering 0 area could still be effective somehow), then you are quite simply wrong.
Also, I didn't state they are "==". I pointed out the relationship. See the difference?
So yamato cannon is worthless?
Those spells are totally different. But if you had a fungal growth or a storm with zero radius, this would be pretty much useless if you as me.
So yamato got radius 1? I never noticed, then it would splash over to marines, no?
But really, any single target spell is effectively radius 0. A unit is hit when its own radius overlaps the spells radius, so if you have 0 radius it just means that you hit the unit if you aim at it.
This do not say that having 0 radius is a good thing, just that it doesn't make a spell useless.
Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.
I know this, but reaction time is determined by the player not the game, we aren't discussing storms used against player X we are just discussing storms by themselves.
Also it would take the same effect pre or post nerf.
Yes, but reaction time is always bigger than zero.
I know this, but reaction time is determined by the player not the game, we aren't discussing storms used by player X we are just discussing storms by themselves.
Yes we are, how perceptive of you!
However discussing storms damage as if people had instant reaction times to move outside the area means that you are then always overestimating the effects on damage the radius have since reaction time is never zero. As such the damage is not linear with radius. For example if Storm had 0 radius you would still deal a bit of damage to the unit you targeted even though he could move outsisde of it in an instant.
Seriously, Blizzard nerfs one of the few elements of Starcraft 2 that make army control a necessary skill.
I don't know if anyone's thought this, but isn't Protoss warp-in such a terrible feature? I mean, look at what the Gateway units have had to go through simply because they can be produced so much faster and at any location with pylon power:
Zealot: 60/100 -> 50/100 Stalker: Still fragile as glass. Dark Templar: Tech is delayed, more expensive. High Templar: Psionic Storm nerfed to 80 dmg in 1.5 radius.
It's been nerf after nerf and all the power is going to the Robotics Facility because Warpgates are so damn good at pumping out units.
One solution would be to increase Warpgate cooldown to 45 seconds. The exchange would be warp-in speed for troop mobility. Maybe Gateway units can stand to be a bit stronger with a longer Warpgate cooldown in place.
There's a lack of balance in design I'm noticing in Starcraft 2. Near unlimited unit selection should be balanced with units and abilities that either require skilled army control or force the opponent to skillfully control his army. Yet, most units move virtually the same, units now have counters rather than general effectiveness, and abilities are either impossible to dodge (EMP) or are made easier to dodge (Psionic Storm). Even these abilities are a shadow of their former selves, reducing the need for army control even further.
I think Blizzard has to allow micro to sometimes determine the balance rather than flat statistics and numbers. The first step is to incorporate elements into the game that either allow for more micro or make micro more necessary.
1. Include a method of control that keeps units in formation (like the magic box: a selection box size threshold) or simply have armies move relatively in formation in all instances. 2. Buff Area-Of-Effect abilities and make them dodge-able. 3. More units that rely on good control to be effective. This can be achieved by nerfing hard counters or making them more conditional.
Example: Immortal 150/100. Shield regeneration at 7 per second after not receiving damage for 8 seconds. Move speed is slightly faster than Marines' and Zerglings' off creep.
pot. Damage by traveling through the storm by 1 unit of size 1 square and speed 1 square/s by max distanz D=R*2 squares. Rnew = 1.5 D = 4 -> 80 dmg Rold = 2 D = 5 -> 80 dmg Pot. new / Pot. max = eff = 1 Pot. old / Pot. max = eff = 1
For any distance shorter as max distance the new storm is losing eff, while the old one would had still eff 1 for any distance >= 3
On March 31 2010 21:47 DM20 wrote: Are really arguing that player actions should be taken into account to determine the percent a mechanic of the game was nerfed?
Of course, otherwise you wouldn't get an accurate figure would you? You use as a standard that both players are very good and then check from that how much effect it have. You can't use that both players are super human 0 reaction time people with perfect micro and macro though, that is just a model which can be very accurate in some cases but is extremely inaccurate in others.
Now since the time it takes to notice the storm, select the effected units and order and them to move to a safe location is hardly negligible compared to how the very short time it takes for units to move outside the storm, even for the best of players. If units auto moved outside of it then it would be useless even in its old version.
EPT
