|
On June 05 2010 01:21 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2010 21:09 MorroW wrote:
mech wasnt that imba before, i think it was pretty fair but the majority of maps in the mappool will always lean towards terran just like desert oasis like maps will always lean towards the zerg in favor
i think the change was pretty fair but very unlogical
this patch will not make it impossible for terran to win like many ppl have said but it will make it slightly harder
im ok with this patch but i disagree not giving the siege tank 40+20 dmg vs armored instead of now giving it straight up -10 dmg
i still really hold my thumbs for a banshee(nerf) and marauder(nerf) and baneling(stronger but die upon death instead of explode) so bio will be possible again and also so baneling micro would be hard to master. also hoping for a raven remake on the raven missile so it actually is worth upgrading. atm the drone is far better than the missile imo
cheaper carrier tech, bc range buff would also be things id approve of to see alittle more unit variety
i really think blizzard are giving us too many patches atm, they rnt giving us proper time to experiment and figure out whats imba before they make these rational decisions, like the hellion nerf now was completely uncalled for
edit: oh sorry thought this was the patch discussion thread :p i guess some of it is relevant tho ) i think the mech nerf was pretty justified but those would all be good changes, especially the baneling one though if you nerf marauders and banelings the matchup would become really roach centric which tends to be pretty boring and they need to do somethin about frenzy, either make it more mana and aoe or just get rid of it and put the infested back on infestors
so... when are you and Artosis gonna switch back to Terrans?
haven't been able to play the latest patch recently, but still i doubt that nerfing siege mode dmg will fix the mech imba against zerg.
|
On June 05 2010 10:30 Saechiis wrote:I wouldn't describe the current Zerg play as agressive either, FE into mass drone pumping into 3 roaches and 6 speedlings into more expansions till max food. As I said before, when Zerg acts passive Terran will happily do the same since their 200/200 food mech army will have critical damage output and dominate. It seems up to Zerg to do some economic damage before it gets to that point, I still think burrowed Roaches and muta's would be great for these purposes 
what's wrong with you guys.... how is it possible to not understand that burrowed roach and mutas doesnt work ?
and against somebody who plays super defensivly with thor turrets and tanks, the solution should be to completely out macro him and to get 15436 expos, but it just doesnt work
|
Seems like mech vs Zerg still heavily favors Terran np.
|
what's wrong with you guys.... how is it possible to not understand that burrowed roach and mutas doesnt work ?
and against somebody who plays super defensivly with thor turrets and tanks, the solution should be to completely out macro him and to get 15436 expos, but it just doesnt work
Since you're all-knowing I'm going to ask you why it wouldn't work? Burrowed Roaches keep Terrans at bay since they need the Ravens to move out, burrowed units (even lings) can deny expo's forcing scans and thus economic damage. Muta's are pretty damn fast and can harass without getting insta slaughtered. They can also effectively deny the Terrans third expo, forcing them to spread their mech thin, lowering their critical mass.
In the late-game I've seen Corrupter/ Broodlord tear through mech armies. And since Vikings in a straight up battle lose to both Muta and Corrupter it could leave BL's the room to mop up tanks and give hydra/ roach a change at a direct engagement. Even if just the Ravens get taken down by muta/corrupter, the terran will likely retreat.
Stop pretending like macro should be the definite hardcounter and if that doesn't work nothing ever will. It's just so useless to assume A should be the answer never to explore B till Z.
What's wrong with me? I like winning better than whining 
|
Here are some potential changes that I think would make for more interesting gameplay, more so than merely juggling some numbers for damage and the like:
Implement a mechanic on the siege tank turret that adds a rotation speed to its facing, in other words, it takes .xx seconds to turn xx degrees to fire at another target. This would make flanking far more effective in the right situations, and maybe make up for the lack of overkill with the SC2 tank AI.
Also implement something similar for the Thor, as it actually had a turning speed mechanic in an earlier alpha version of the game, which seems like a very logical flaw for an otherwise awesome unit. Thus mutalisk micro can be more effective if you circle around and hit the Thor from behind, but as Thors have range 10 vs air, multiple Thors should still be able to support each other well enough to not make mutas overpowered against them.
Lastly, make burrowed zerg units take reduced damage from splash, since they have all that cushioning dirt between them to absorb impacts.
|
Yeah. Siegetanks haven't been "Fucked sideways." They're still ubersuperpowerfulstompyouintothegroundroflbbqwtfpwnage. Terran is still majorly imba : P They should have nerfed tanks another 5 points in damage, kinda dissapointed by the nerf to be honest. Thought it would be much more of a nerf.
|
What the hell is wrong with all those people crying for an AI nerf or fire rate nerf or some other weird things. Dumbing down the AI would just make tanks completely worthless as they were before the AoE change, send like 3 zerglings to take all the first shots from the tanks then A-move your way to victory onto tanks.
Blizzard nerfed it already, leave it there, it's already noticeable and way enough.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2010 11:02 cArn- wrote:
What the hell is wrong with all those people crying for an AI nerf or fire rate nerf or some other weird things. Dumbing down the AI would just make tanks completely worthless as they were before the AoE change, send like 3 zerglings to take all the first shots from the tanks then A-move your way to victory onto tanks.
Blizzard nerfed it already, leave it there, it's already noticeable and way enough.
Because clearly tanks sucked in SC1.
The other thing about an AI nerf (or equivalent nerf such as making the siege mode shot non-instant like it was in SC1) is that it encourages more clever positioning. You can circumvent the "send one unit to soak 10 shots" simply by staggering your tanks a bit, so that the unit is dead before the tanks in back shoot at it. It also means that you get punished more for having your tanks in 1 giant ball (which really should not be a valid way to play with tanks to begin with, anyway).
|
Tanks will be tanks, they're slow and apparantly need 4 seconds to morph into a stationary cannon. If they didn't do splash or some kind of critical damage, what use would they be?
Funny thing is that 60 to 50 damage nerf primarily affects TvP and TvT, in ZvT critical splash will still do the melting trick. Only frenzied Ultra's become more viable, try and use those to make them unsiege ... then attack move
|
On June 05 2010 10:08 koppik wrote:
I don't know how "dynamic and aggressive" Sheth was. He didn't really attack until about twenty minutes into the game, well after he had maxed out. For the most part, qxc had about 150 apm to Sheth's 100ish.
But, yeah, that style of qxc is viable, but really boring to watch, to play, and to play against. There were definitely opportunities where Sheth could have won all of the games he lost that series--or at least made them less one-sided--but still. If games like that become the norm, Starcraft II is not going to do well as an e-sport.
After his cookie-cutter opening, qxc just turtled up in his base the whole game and didn't even make an effort to control the game. Sheth was doing drops, roach burrows, and nydases left and right. Almost every fight in that game was on his terms, but the terran turtle was too strong. I didn't look at the actual APM, but as far as making tactical maneuvers, Sheth was much more active and qxc was on his heels reacting. If conceding the initiative and playing passively in your base until 200/200 is allowed to be an effective strategy, then I agree, things will get pretty boring.
|
On June 05 2010 10:53 GreatestThreat wrote:
Here are some potential changes that I think would make for more interesting gameplay, more so than merely juggling some numbers for damage and the like:
Implement a mechanic on the siege tank turret that adds a rotation speed to its facing, in other words, it takes .xx seconds to turn xx degrees to fire at another target. This would make flanking far more effective in the right situations, and maybe make up for the lack of overkill with the SC2 tank AI.
Also implement something similar for the Thor, as it actually had a turning speed mechanic in an earlier alpha version of the game, which seems like a very logical flaw for an otherwise awesome unit. Thus mutalisk micro can be more effective if you circle around and hit the Thor from behind, but as Thors have range 10 vs air, multiple Thors should still be able to support each other well enough to not make mutas overpowered against them.
Lastly, make burrowed zerg units take reduced damage from splash, since they have all that cushioning dirt between them to absorb impacts.
Shameless self bump because I would like to know what people think of these ideas. If you think they're terrible don't be afraid to say so (I wouldn't expect anyone on TL to be anyway), just be prepared to back up your opinion with reasons why.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2010 11:42 GreatestThreat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 10:53 GreatestThreat wrote:
Here are some potential changes that I think would make for more interesting gameplay, more so than merely juggling some numbers for damage and the like:
Implement a mechanic on the siege tank turret that adds a rotation speed to its facing, in other words, it takes .xx seconds to turn xx degrees to fire at another target. This would make flanking far more effective in the right situations, and maybe make up for the lack of overkill with the SC2 tank AI.
Also implement something similar for the Thor, as it actually had a turning speed mechanic in an earlier alpha version of the game, which seems like a very logical flaw for an otherwise awesome unit. Thus mutalisk micro can be more effective if you circle around and hit the Thor from behind, but as Thors have range 10 vs air, multiple Thors should still be able to support each other well enough to not make mutas overpowered against them.
Lastly, make burrowed zerg units take reduced damage from splash, since they have all that cushioning dirt between them to absorb impacts. Shameless self bump because I would like to know what people think of these ideas. If you think they're terrible don't be afraid to say so (I wouldn't expect anyone on TL to be anyway), just be prepared to back up your opinion with reasons why.
The first two seem needlessly complicated for unit-specific mechanics. I would think there are much more elegant ways to deal with the siege tank.
Is the third one not already the case? Burrowed units take NO splash damage in Brood War, and I wasn't aware that they changed this.
|
On June 05 2010 12:15 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 11:42 GreatestThreat wrote:On June 05 2010 10:53 GreatestThreat wrote:
Here are some potential changes that I think would make for more interesting gameplay, more so than merely juggling some numbers for damage and the like:
Implement a mechanic on the siege tank turret that adds a rotation speed to its facing, in other words, it takes .xx seconds to turn xx degrees to fire at another target. This would make flanking far more effective in the right situations, and maybe make up for the lack of overkill with the SC2 tank AI.
Also implement something similar for the Thor, as it actually had a turning speed mechanic in an earlier alpha version of the game, which seems like a very logical flaw for an otherwise awesome unit. Thus mutalisk micro can be more effective if you circle around and hit the Thor from behind, but as Thors have range 10 vs air, multiple Thors should still be able to support each other well enough to not make mutas overpowered against them.
Lastly, make burrowed zerg units take reduced damage from splash, since they have all that cushioning dirt between them to absorb impacts. Shameless self bump because I would like to know what people think of these ideas. If you think they're terrible don't be afraid to say so (I wouldn't expect anyone on TL to be anyway), just be prepared to back up your opinion with reasons why. The first two seem needlessly complicated for unit-specific mechanics. I would think there are much more elegant ways to deal with the siege tank. Is the third one not already the case? Burrowed units take NO splash damage in Brood War, and I wasn't aware that they changed this.
burrowed units definitely took splash in bw. burrowed units in swarm would take ONLY splash damage from tank fire though which somehow made 1 lurker invincible as long as nothing was around to draw tank fire and splash it.
|
On June 05 2010 12:15 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 11:42 GreatestThreat wrote:On June 05 2010 10:53 GreatestThreat wrote:
Here are some potential changes that I think would make for more interesting gameplay, more so than merely juggling some numbers for damage and the like:
Implement a mechanic on the siege tank turret that adds a rotation speed to its facing, in other words, it takes .xx seconds to turn xx degrees to fire at another target. This would make flanking far more effective in the right situations, and maybe make up for the lack of overkill with the SC2 tank AI.
Also implement something similar for the Thor, as it actually had a turning speed mechanic in an earlier alpha version of the game, which seems like a very logical flaw for an otherwise awesome unit. Thus mutalisk micro can be more effective if you circle around and hit the Thor from behind, but as Thors have range 10 vs air, multiple Thors should still be able to support each other well enough to not make mutas overpowered against them.
Lastly, make burrowed zerg units take reduced damage from splash, since they have all that cushioning dirt between them to absorb impacts. Shameless self bump because I would like to know what people think of these ideas. If you think they're terrible don't be afraid to say so (I wouldn't expect anyone on TL to be anyway), just be prepared to back up your opinion with reasons why. The first two seem needlessly complicated for unit-specific mechanics. I would think there are much more elegant ways to deal with the siege tank. Is the third one not already the case? Burrowed units take NO splash damage in Brood War, and I wasn't aware that they changed this.
Honestly I think the balance changes could use a little more complexity. Something that plays to the flavor of the race is more desirable in my opinion than simple number swapping. The turning speed mechanic for sieged tank turrets and thors would reward zerg players more for flanking and microing, while allowing terran players to mitigate the effects by backing their tanks against a wall or spreading their thors out to cover each other.
And if the third one is indeed already the case, that's news to me... I assumed it wasn't so, seeing as burrow-move roaches seem to melt just as fast against mass tanks as above ground roaches once they're detected.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2010 12:19 mahnini wrote:
burrowed units definitely took splash in bw. burrowed units in swarm would take ONLY splash damage from tank fire though which somehow made 1 lurker invincible as long as nothing was around to draw tank fire and splash it.
Oh right, I'm dumb. It was because of Dark Swarm.
On June 05 2010 12:21 GreatestThreat wrote:
Honestly I think the balance changes could use a little more complexity. Something that plays to the flavor of the race is more desirable in my opinion than simple number swapping. The turning speed mechanic for sieged tank turrets and thors would reward zerg players more for flanking and microing, while allowing terran players to mitigate the effects by backing their tanks against a wall or spreading their thors out to cover each other.
It just feels gimmicky. It's a unit that controls differently from other units just for the sake of being different. From a spectator perspective, too many of those kinds of things can get confusing quickly.
Having tanks overkill seems like a perfectly sensible solution that is completely intuitive with regard to the game mechanics (other projectile-firing units do overkill, and tanks did so in SC1--they just need to treat the tank shot as a projectile and not as an instant shot animation), and that similarly plays into the race's flavor, but does so more subtlely (e.g. you need to spread out your tanks so they don't splash each other, and stagger them so they don't all waste their shots on the first target). It encourages you to focus on positioning without having a mechanic that MAKES you focus on positioning.
|
On June 05 2010 12:22 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 12:19 mahnini wrote:
burrowed units definitely took splash in bw. burrowed units in swarm would take ONLY splash damage from tank fire though which somehow made 1 lurker invincible as long as nothing was around to draw tank fire and splash it. Oh right, I'm dumb. It was because of Dark Swarm. Show nested quote +On June 05 2010 12:21 GreatestThreat wrote:
Honestly I think the balance changes could use a little more complexity. Something that plays to the flavor of the race is more desirable in my opinion than simple number swapping. The turning speed mechanic for sieged tank turrets and thors would reward zerg players more for flanking and microing, while allowing terran players to mitigate the effects by backing their tanks against a wall or spreading their thors out to cover each other. It just feels gimmicky. It's a unit that controls differently from other units just for the sake of being different. From a spectator perspective, too many of those kinds of things can get confusing quickly. Having tanks overkill seems like a perfectly sensible solution that is completely intuitive with regard to the game mechanics (other projectile-firing units do overkill, and tanks did so in SC1--they just need to treat the tank shot as a projectile and not as an instant shot animation), and that similarly plays into the race's flavor, but does so more subtlely (e.g. you need to spread out your tanks so they don't splash each other, and stagger them so they don't all waste their shots on the first target). It encourages you to focus on positioning without having a mechanic that MAKES you focus on positioning.
Fair enough. Also on a practical note, I think overkill would be easier and more likely for Blizz to implement if they do decide to nerf the tank further. But I stand by my idea for the Thor, because that was a mechanic that was actually originally part of the unit, and later removed for no particular reason I can think of than consistency with other units...
|
sooo uh. Is sen going to be playing a showmatch or did the patch mess everything up?
|
On June 05 2010 12:22 TheYango wrote:
Having tanks overkill seems like a perfectly sensible solution that is completely intuitive with regard to the game mechanics (other projectile-firing units do overkill, and tanks did so in SC1--they just need to treat the tank shot as a projectile and not as an instant shot animation), and that similarly plays into the race's flavor, but does so more subtlely (e.g. you need to spread out your tanks so they don't splash each other, and stagger them so they don't all waste their shots on the first target). It encourages you to focus on positioning without having a mechanic that MAKES you focus on positioning.
This does look like the perfect solution, in fact. Wider spreads would mean that skill would become a large factor in using mech, just like it is in fighting against it; it would probably be fair to revert the damage changes to the tank, under this proposal.
Specifically for the ZvT matchup, this would also mean that mutalisks would recover a little bit of usefulness. They'd still horribly hard-countered by thors, but at least now they could try to snipe off tanks or hellions which got out of position without turrets placed to cover them.
However... how would such a change impact the pro scene? Fixing it for plat-diamond and breaking it for pro would not be good.
|
United States812 Posts
On June 05 2010 10:53 Saechiis wrote:Show nested quote +what's wrong with you guys.... how is it possible to not understand that burrowed roach and mutas doesnt work ?
and against somebody who plays super defensivly with thor turrets and tanks, the solution should be to completely out macro him and to get 15436 expos, but it just doesnt work Since you're all-knowing I'm going to ask you why it wouldn't work? Burrowed Roaches keep Terrans at bay since they need the Ravens to move out, burrowed units (even lings) can deny expo's forcing scans and thus economic damage. Muta's are pretty damn fast and can harass without getting insta slaughtered. They can also effectively deny the Terrans third expo, forcing them to spread their mech thin, lowering their critical mass. In the late-game I've seen Corrupter/ Broodlord tear through mech armies. And since Vikings in a straight up battle lose to both Muta and Corrupter it could leave BL's the room to mop up tanks and give hydra/ roach a change at a direct engagement. Even if just the Ravens get taken down by muta/corrupter, the terran will likely retreat. Stop pretending like macro should be the definite hardcounter and if that doesn't work nothing ever will. It's just so useless to assume A should be the answer never to explore B till Z. What's wrong with me? I like winning better than whining
He doesn't need to expand or move out. He can just sit back and defend against harassment until he mines out his main and natural, hits 200/200, and roflstomps any possible unit composition that Zerg could throw at him. Only a totally perfect, flawless unit mix, perfect burrowed unit positioning, and catching the Tanks off guard can let a Zerg 200/200 army beat a Terran 200/200 army. A good player won't let you do any of those things. It just isn't in the cards.
It is easy to say "harass", but Zerg lacks a way to apply pressure to Terran in the early/mid game, especially on maps where the natural is easy to take. Roaches can be defended against, and set you back so far in tech that you'll then lose, Baneling busts don't really pan out well, Mutas only have a tiny window until a Thor comes out (and that assumes he doesn't scan the spire and prepare, which he will), etc etc etc. If the Terran doesn't make any huge mistakes he'll make it to 200/200 and rickroll the Zerg.
|
A lot a people is whining about blizzard listening to zergs players complains. Look at their post on bnet it is funny 
Actually Zerg are slightly favored in TvZ matchups, in every league. The differential in win/loss ratio is almost always within 5% regardless of league or race. It's pretty even across the board. In Diamond it's almost a straight up 50/50 for all of them. I know that's a very large-scale view, but it's still pretty exciting to see.
Things are looking pretty good for where we are right now in beta. We aren't looking to make make too many changes and upset that before release. Strategies are still evolving, and will continue to evolve for a long time. It's important that we ensure those evolutions can continue and there isn't anything that's just a straight up road block, but unless something like that pops up we're taking a light approach.
We didn't feel like a sitrep was necessary since the changes were so few and so minor.
Generally the tank change was a simple nerf to make them less powerful in all match-ups, but specifically in Terran vs Terran where they're far more dominant.
The suggestion to change the way targeting works across the entire game was a much bigger change than we were willing to make at this time (though we will look into it). We don't want to do it “just for siege tanks”, at least not without further investigation.
They thought that the tank was too strong, but the main issue for them was TvT matchup
I checked all patch reports, and all the changes that i think are good ones were made for a total different reason
Please blizzard change the baneling (to follow Morrow's idea) for the ZvZ !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
