EPTDo the blizzard people nerf ultralisk on purpose? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
| ||
|
NarutO
Germany18839 Posts
On May 23 2010 13:24 travis wrote: what makes u think many of us couldn't? we could certainly beat them at their games so... Its especially the community that gives Blizzard input on how to balance the game. People should always keep in mind that a company like Blizzard, as awesome as they are - would be nothing without the community. | ||
|
slowmanrunning
Canada285 Posts
then it might actually see some use. | ||
|
MaYuu
Sweden516 Posts
On May 24 2010 02:30 Roggay wrote: It is a beta! How many years has it taken to get to the point where SC1 was that perfectly balanced game? Many years. SC2 isnt even launched! It is NOT a reason to not try to balance it, but have a little bit more patience before puking on blizzard. Except for the team of blizzard that made SC:BW is gone and so are all the magic. | ||
|
DemiSe
883 Posts
On May 23 2010 13:23 Backpack wrote: They are just changing things around to see how they work. They don't know if it will be a nerf or a buff until we, the beta testers, test it. Blizzard know's what they are doing. The fact that people seem to think they can balance the game better than a company who has made Starcraft, WC3, and WoW, baffles me. I agree that they made a great job with SC and WC3, but why wouldn't they? They've had 10 years balancing those games. However they totally failed with WoW when they added the first expansion, TBC. Balance is something that comes with time, and the question is how much time are we suppose to give them? | ||
|
Dataleif
Sweden252 Posts
| ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On May 24 2010 02:44 Saggi wrote: I agree that they made a great job with SC and WC3, but why wouldn't they? They've had 10 years balancing those games. However they totally failed with WoW when they added the first expansion, TBC. Balance is something that comes with time, and the question is how much time are we suppose to give them? If things still suck after a few months after beta, then people have the right to be upset. Now it's the time to give constructive feedback instead of all the childish rants that are going on right now. (Not specifically this thread). They have still time to turn things around in the right direction. | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
That video to me is like putting up a 3 zealot to a siege tank. When the zealots kills the tank its like bull shit imbaimbaimba. When really, if you get say 5 tanks vs like 10 zealots, its kind of hard for the zealots to win. | ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On May 24 2010 02:49 nihlon wrote: If things still suck after a few months after beta, then people have the right to be upset. Now it's the time to give constructive feedback instead of all the childish rants that are going on right now. (Not specifically this thread). They have still time to turn things around in the right direction. Things still suck? Did you play two months ago? It was just roach wars. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On May 23 2010 13:31 IdrA wrote: well they make a lot of mistakes and dont fully understand what theyre doing but thats kind of ridiculous. making collosus, thors, capital ships take an extra 20% damage is well worth clicking on them and theres nothing inherently un-sc about it. there were single target spells aimed at knocking out powerful units in sc1, but you cant have something like lockdown in sc2 because smartcast would make it overpowered. so things like corruption are the middle ground. that being said frenzy is retarded and will never be used over fungal. Something like lockdown could be nerfed in many ways. To me it seems like between mana, duration, and projectile speed changes, plus possible upgrade/tech changes it could be balanced. Heck, the ghost costs more than twice as much as it used to, so right there you got far less potential for lockdown already without even changing the ability at all. Heck, if it really poses problems make it not effect massive units. Not that I'm advocating for adding lockdown or arguing that 20% more damage can't be useful. It's just that all the single target abilities in SC1, if mostly useless, were at least interesting. 20 or 25% more damage dealt is simply the most boring ability that you can possibly add to any unit. It's kind of spell designers add when they don't have any good ideas. It's just so abstract. Thor Strike Cannons: VERY YES Frenzy/Corruption: No. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:10 kajeus wrote: Things still suck? Did you play two months ago? It was just roach wars. So? There were problems 2 months ago and there are problems now. And I didn't mean everything suck, but would you be happy if the game stayed in the current shape? If yes, then I don't know what to say... | ||
|
slowmanrunning
Canada285 Posts
| ||
|
tarsier
United Kingdom223 Posts
On May 24 2010 01:01 iounas wrote: cough cough http://imgur.com/eqvqS.jpg http://imgur.com/jxOKd.jpg something in my throat.. sorry pal, noone is interested.... they want ultra to steamroll stimmed marauders. luckily blizzard are balancing the game based on in game data and not silly theorycraft whining on a forum. | ||
|
Kupo
Sweden151 Posts
On May 24 2010 03:31 tarsier wrote: sorry pal, noone is interested.... they want ultra to steamroll stimmed marauders. luckily blizzard are balancing the game based on in game data and not silly theorycraft whining on a forum. What's so interesting about ultras being able to kill unmicroed stalkers and colossi? Stalkers are low dps unit that excel in kiting situations, colossi are long range AoE units that can abuse cliffs to avoid melee units. None of which are used in that scenario. I agree that they are more effective against this unit composition now because of the force field crush though, but throw in some zealots and you'll soak up a ton of potential damage. Ultras vs immortals in a scenario that is made for the ultra to shine, yet the immortals only need to focus down one ultra at a time to win. Even though both units are of the resilient anti-armor role, where immortals are early t2 without needing any upgrades, while ultras are hive tech (comparable to t3.5 I believe) and require two upgrades to start to become powerful. | ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
CrunkOwns
United States138 Posts
Seriously though, I am a pre-patch 2000 zerg player as well and this is such an obvious ultralisk nerf. I think they only really effective way to use them is to either use them w/ infestors so the enemy cant move, or to burrow them and unborrow as they are in the middle of the opponents army. The HP nerf was really unnecessary imo. The biggest problem I have is terran mech. There is really no option other than brood lords vs a tank/thor/upgraded helion mix. And once you start to get brood lords.. You can't make any little mistake as vikings will rape you in a second if you slip up. I have no problem w/ MMM or vs. toss, its just terran mech that seems a bit too much. If you are on a map like incineration zone with small chokes, you better win w/ a baneling bust because once terran starts to pump tanks / thors your chances just get worse and worse as the game gos on | ||
|
MasterAsia
United States170 Posts
On May 24 2010 04:58 CrunkOwns wrote: Ah yes those zerg forcefields are tough! Seriously though, I am a pre-patch 2000 zerg player as well and this is such an obvious ultralisk nerf. I think they only really effective way to use them is to either use them w/ infestors so the enemy cant move, or to burrow them and unborrow as they are in the middle of the opponents army. The HP nerf was really unnecessary imo. The biggest problem I have is terran mech. There is really no option other than brood lords vs a tank/thor/upgraded helion mix. And once you start to get brood lords.. You can't make any little mistake as vikings will rape you in a second if you slip up. I have no problem w/ MMM or vs. toss, its just terran mech that seems a bit too much. If you are on a map like incineration zone with small chokes, you better win w/ a baneling bust because once terran starts to pump tanks / thors your chances just get worse and worse as the game gos on totally agreed. | ||
|
ChocolateZerg
United States47 Posts
-As many have stated, the more ultras you have, the more useful and viable they are. -In order to fix Ultras, I suggest 1 of 2 things: 1) Fix the damage "ratio" and make it consistent. Bring their health back up to 600. If you're going to make their normal attack weaker (15 against non-armored), then atleast give them health so that they can do the same amount of damage pre-patch 13. What I mean by that is: Pre-Patch 13: Ultra Attack = 25 25*Time = X Damage Post-Patch 13: Ultra Attack = 15 (40 vs. armored) 15*Time = Y Damage Try and make X and Y be as close as possible. In order to do so, you can increase the Ultra's health and/or make it's attacking speed faster. 2) Bring old Ultra damage back and keep the new Ultra damage. Make the Ultra a viable unit. For the amount of resources it costs, it should be worth it. Therefore, I suggest making it do 25 (40 vs armored). This way, Ultras aren't only used against Armored composition Units. I think the Ultra will soon become a unit that is feared and utilized but we'll have to wait for Blizzard to get them to that point. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
The Carrier sucks since the start and it hasnt been touched yet i think. | ||
| ||
