EPTSituation report 1 posted! - Page 66
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
DreXxiN
United States494 Posts
| ||
|
Crisium
United States1618 Posts
Why should Tier 3.5 units not be more cost effective than 1.5-2? It is only logical, lest there be no incentive to tech. I would love for someone to calculate the changes in the amount of Stalkers / Hydras to take down a BC from before to after, and calculate the cost. If the BC cost is equal or god-forbid more expensive, then Blizzard truly is lost. | ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
On August 28 2010 14:46 Crisium wrote: Battlecruiser nerf blows my mind. 20% DPS decrease in unbelievably huge. A unit that takes so long to tech too should be slightly more cost effective than Tier 1.5 (Stalker) or Tier 2 (Hydra) units. How often do you see BC's in professional play (tournaments) so far? TLO and maybe a couple others against Protoss very rarely. This change must have been based on low level play. This is one of the worst things Blizzard has done. Already marginal units should not be nerfed into oblivion. This nerf is just so wrong on so many levels. agreed. they are creating patches to cater for low level players who most likely haven't even the knowledge of all their units and what beats what let alone any understanding of when to expand upgrade and tech switch. when hundreds of these low level players fill their forums with their jargen its often flooding over the imput of higher level players who actually have valid points about matchups. battle cruisers have never been a problem. they are the T3 "uber ima take 5 minutes of building just for one unit but it will rape lots of stuff" unit. yet now they are managable for a low level players small army to beat. battle cruisers only happen in tvt games, and well that matchup is dominated by tank viking so whats the harm of BCS joining in. and they happen in low level games where the T players turtle up and mass like 5 BC'S. and the other low level players who have yet to understand when their opponent is turtling they expand, and they sit on their 1 base expecting to win. those low level players then whine and get their way. blizz cannot CANNOT start patching this game from the advice of lower level players. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44312 Posts
On August 28 2010 14:55 TyrantPotato wrote: agreed. they are creating patches to cater for low level players who most likely haven't even the knowledge of all their units and what beats what let alone any understanding of when to expand upgrade and tech switch. when hundreds of these low level players fill their forums with their jargen its often flooding over the imput of higher level players who actually have valid points about matchups. battle cruisers have never been a problem. they are the T3 "uber ima take 5 minutes of building just for one unit but it will rape lots of stuff" unit. yet now they are managable for a low level players small army to beat. battle cruisers only happen in tvt games, and well that matchup is dominated by tank viking so whats the harm of BCS joining in. and they happen in low level games where the T players turtle up and mass like 5 BC'S. and the other low level players who have yet to understand when their opponent is turtling they expand, and they sit on their 1 base expecting to win. those low level players then whine and get their way. blizz cannot CANNOT start patching this game from the advice of lower level players. I agree, Tyrant, that we should definitely be listening to the top tier players but... I haven't really heard many people (let alone only lower level players) complaining about BCs. Blizzard gave reasons why BCs were nerfed. We may not agreed with them, but I doubt they nerfed them because noobs whined about them. | ||
|
Qzy
Denmark1121 Posts
| ||
|
b_unnies
3579 Posts
| ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
Proxy zealots, nerfed! It took awhile, but when they leaked zealot build time nerf at the end of beta I knew they were thinking about it at least. But such a shame that the ram attack has to go. Would've been nice to just adjust it to match the Kaiser Blades DPS so we can keep the animation. Crota totally called that one on one his videos.  Definitely ultralisks started looking real mean after the players Idra abusing the crap out of them. It's still not much of a nerf though.Don't really see much point in the BC nerf though. Kited to death by vikings, out ranged by carriers, and get owned by stalkers fairly well. I guess Blizzard's concern is, IF you get a critical mass of BCs its hard to start with ground forces? | ||
|
junkacc
99 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Kishkumen
United States650 Posts
I just love how everyone clamors for a balance patch, and when they get one they all start complaining about it. Welcome, Blizzard, to your unpleasable fanbase. | ||
|
ElTigre
12 Posts
On August 28 2010 13:04 therealmeal wrote: Wouldn't that make them pretty useless? You shoot one and a whole pack of units dies immediately because of the chain reaction? They'd have to do a lot more damage so they could be used in fewer numbers, or have more armor, or something to balance that. Well in the name of fairness and equality, lets then give banelings some way to have 9+ range. /joking, | ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
| ||
|
Grond
599 Posts
On August 28 2010 13:11 VanGarde wrote: I just don't get why the tank is nerfed against everything except armored units, when people are only using the tank to deal with NON armored units. If I want to deal with armored units I get marauders. Maybe this is in preparation for removing the armored damage bonus from marauders, Tanks will not have a bonus vs armor in regular mode and siege mode. Many people feel the Marauder bonus vs armor is the most broken aspect of the game. | ||
|
dolpiff
France300 Posts
On August 28 2010 07:44 Gecko wrote: I think the tank nerf was intended to throw roach/hydra a bone doesnt change anything against roaches, they're armored, and still take full 50 dmg | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On August 28 2010 14:41 rexyrex wrote: Are zealots considered light armored units? If so, what about stalkers, sentries, HT... ? If these units arn't affected, would the seige tank nerf play any role in PvT? Its exactly how it is in BW now. siege tanks do half damage to zealots in sc1 70 -> 35dmg, and now they do 50 -> 35 damage in sc2. oh dear blizzard, how to scorn scbw, yet continue to so desperately rely on it. | ||
|
Ownos
United States2147 Posts
On August 28 2010 13:05 farseerdk wrote: I agree with the tank change in principle but I think it was overkill. Maybe it should be 35 +20 instead of 35+15. If they're going to be bad vs. zealots (like in BW) they need to be as good against stalkers as they were against goons. As soon as stalkers start having as much health and damage output as goons then maybe. | ||
|
Railxp
Hong Kong1313 Posts
I haven't played enough protoss to comment on the zeal/mineral dump, but the other changes are awesome. They are light enough nerfs that dont outright kill the existing strategies, but round off the edges a bit by giving people a few more seconds of breathing room. The tank/ultra/battlecruiser nefs are all appealing, and i hope it makes late game casters shine more | ||
|
universalwill
United States654 Posts
i also thought that, what with the tank nerf, the ultra nerf was necessary. but the battlecruiser nerf was ridiculous. they aren't good units at all as they are. we all saw how madfrog held off tlo's battlecruiser rush with a relatively small amount of hydralisks. if anything, bcs need a small buff (but not a huge one because does terran really need another air unit that is tempting to rush?) | ||
|
escobari
Finland192 Posts
| ||
|
st3roids
Greece538 Posts
what changes vs toss where all key units are armored ? Blizzard simply changes the formula , the end result will be the same | ||
|
Antimage
Canada1293 Posts
| ||
| ||
