|
On August 28 2010 23:47 tacrats wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 23:10 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 28 2010 22:56 Noocta wrote:On August 28 2010 21:51 L0thar wrote:
Terrible patch overall, all they had to do was buff zerg early game and nerf ultralisk, but instead we got this. Maybe I'm overreacting, but better be pissed now and pleasantly surprised later than be hopefull at first and than terribly dissapointed. That's pretty much all they do here.. And it's funny to see terran players cry about banelings.. Afraid because u will have to micro your "bioball 1a" a little ? :| its funny how insanely biased guys taunt out of their rage. fact is the only counter to banelings are tanks. not only is micro to be somewhat cost effective vs banelings VERY hard to impossible ( mm vs lurker micro was a breeze compared) but also can all micro be shut down by fungal. think before writing . On August 28 2010 23:08 Perkins1752 wrote:
lol @ people saying hydras will be vailable in ZvT. They kill banshees, after patch mabye BC's but every Terran ground unit is tearing them apart. plain wrong. hydras beat evrything T on ground except for healed mass rines or tanks. tanks deal 30% dmg less which might (we'll see) be enough for hydra/lings to get a huge boost in tvz. LOL how about counter ur banelings with MARAUDERS. use the MARAUDERS TO TANK THEM. ya, more than 1 control group bro, ull be ok. you guys are so bad.
dont write like a 12 year old(caps,flames,"LOL") and learn to not aclick banelings into rauders.
On August 28 2010 23:33 Arakash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 28 2010 23:10 Grummler wrote:On August 28 2010 21:26 Izzachar wrote:
Marauders are cost effective vs hydras and thats even without stim...
With stim marauders pwn hydras hard.
I fear that this matchup will become one sided as terran dominates the early game, while zerg dominates later on. So either the terran wins straight away, or loses on the long run. * Source: unit test map 1.4 exactly my thoughts. mid/lategame zvt is no problem. while T got HUGE nerfs mid/late game. the tank change might destroy the matchup and change gameplay diversity/dynamics in all matchups to the worse. hm those tears taste so good... (just wait till the patch is released, b4 whining :/) BTT: I hope they tweak the roacha little, because now a hydra takes as many Tank shots as a roach, so I think we will see even fewer Roaches. (not that I'm complaining, its cool with me - I'd rather produce hydras than roaches, but just saying ...)
i dont whine. i state my opinion on what might happen. also im random. i have no reason to "cry" about anything. even if they suddenly destroy T by making scvs return only 2 mins per trip ill just play Z/P whatever.
i just think about whats good for the game overall and not for "my race" unlike 90% of the people here. and imho heavily nerfing Ts defining backbone unit with weird reasoning will promote mass bio in all matchups which is boring and bad for the game overall.
|
On August 29 2010 00:14 bobcat wrote:
Coming from a protoss player I would just like to point out something that I find funny.
Every single toss complainer here is talking about how a 5 second build time will kill their zealot play like a swarm of firebats, but then they are turning around and saying that a HUGE siege tank debuff wont really make a difference......
I played toss in the beta, so first of all I should say that this debuff is more than I ever hoped we would get as toss so Hooray for that. Second of all, the PvT game isn't that bad right now and a 5 second addition to zealots isn't going to change it. Build another gatway.
cuz terran have marauders.
|
On August 29 2010 00:22 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 23:47 tacrats wrote:On August 28 2010 23:10 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 28 2010 22:56 Noocta wrote:On August 28 2010 21:51 L0thar wrote:
Terrible patch overall, all they had to do was buff zerg early game and nerf ultralisk, but instead we got this. Maybe I'm overreacting, but better be pissed now and pleasantly surprised later than be hopefull at first and than terribly dissapointed. That's pretty much all they do here.. And it's funny to see terran players cry about banelings.. Afraid because u will have to micro your "bioball 1a" a little ? :| its funny how insanely biased guys taunt out of their rage. fact is the only counter to banelings are tanks. not only is micro to be somewhat cost effective vs banelings VERY hard to impossible ( mm vs lurker micro was a breeze compared) but also can all micro be shut down by fungal. think before writing . On August 28 2010 23:08 Perkins1752 wrote:
lol @ people saying hydras will be vailable in ZvT. They kill banshees, after patch mabye BC's but every Terran ground unit is tearing them apart. plain wrong. hydras beat evrything T on ground except for healed mass rines or tanks. tanks deal 30% dmg less which might (we'll see) be enough for hydra/lings to get a huge boost in tvz. LOL how about counter ur banelings with MARAUDERS. use the MARAUDERS TO TANK THEM. ya, more than 1 control group bro, ull be ok. you guys are so bad. dont write like a 12 year old(caps,flames,"LOL") and learn to not aclick banelings into rauders. Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 23:33 Arakash wrote:On August 28 2010 23:16 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 28 2010 23:10 Grummler wrote:On August 28 2010 21:26 Izzachar wrote:
Marauders are cost effective vs hydras and thats even without stim...
With stim marauders pwn hydras hard.
I fear that this matchup will become one sided as terran dominates the early game, while zerg dominates later on. So either the terran wins straight away, or loses on the long run. * Source: unit test map 1.4 exactly my thoughts. mid/lategame zvt is no problem. while T got HUGE nerfs mid/late game. the tank change might destroy the matchup and change gameplay diversity/dynamics in all matchups to the worse. hm those tears taste so good... (just wait till the patch is released, b4 whining :/) BTT: I hope they tweak the roacha little, because now a hydra takes as many Tank shots as a roach, so I think we will see even fewer Roaches. (not that I'm complaining, its cool with me - I'd rather produce hydras than roaches, but just saying ...) i dont whine. i state my opinion on what might happen. also im random. i have no reason to "cry" about anything. even if they suddenly destroy T by making scvs return only 2 mins per trip ill just play Z/P whatever. i just think about whats good for the game overall and not for "my race" unlike 90% of the people here. and imho heavily nerfing Ts defining backbone unit with weird reasoning will promote mass bio in all matchups which is boring and bad for the game overall.
hahah noob
if your complaining about not being able to counter banelings with a 150hp non-light infantry unit then... i dont know what to say.
learn to stim and use 2 control groups.
thx
User was warned for this post
|
On August 29 2010 00:21 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 23:57 sux2bu wrote:
Tank Nerf :
The nerf only effects zealots and hydras . They still one shot lings and banelings. The splash dmg still does 100% dmg to closely packed lings and banelings so no extra banelings or lings survive. The collision size of lings and banelings are in 100% splash range.
You would be absolutly right if there where no areas with less then 100% splash dmg. Sadly i have to tell you, that you are absolutly wrong. Tanks might still one shot lings siting right next to the tanks target, but because the splash dmg scales down with increasing distance, less splash dmg always effects all units (as long as they dont have 1hp). Lings being a little further away will suffer much less pain.
And you would be absolutly right if there were only one tank vs many lings or all your tanks targetted the same ling. If the tanks targets are evenly spread among the attacking lings it would achieve splash to spread evenly aswell and still one shot most lings. And this is exacly what good game design / Good game play is.
|
siege tanks can no longer one shot workers.
scv/marine rushes are back on, then.
|
On August 29 2010 00:28 sux2bu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 00:21 Grummler wrote:On August 28 2010 23:57 sux2bu wrote:
Tank Nerf :
The nerf only effects zealots and hydras . They still one shot lings and banelings. The splash dmg still does 100% dmg to closely packed lings and banelings so no extra banelings or lings survive. The collision size of lings and banelings are in 100% splash range.
You would be absolutly right if there where no areas with less then 100% splash dmg. Sadly i have to tell you, that you are absolutly wrong. Tanks might still one shot lings siting right next to the tanks target, but because the splash dmg scales down with increasing distance, less splash dmg always effects all units (as long as they dont have 1hp). Lings being a little further away will suffer much less pain. And you would be absolutly right if there were only one tank vs many lings or all your tanks targetted the same ling. If the tanks targets are evenly spread among the attacking lings. It would achieve splash to spread evenly aswell and still one shot most lings. And this is exacly what good game desing / Good game play is.
dont think you have a point to argue here.
the direct dmg and splash dmg are affected. which simply means that the surrounding lings/banelings might not die from the splash of 1 hit/will survive with more hp left which leads to a big decrease in dmg output and kill/shot numbers.
there is not more to it. for units with aoe it doesnt only matter in what number of hits they kill 1 unit but the overall dmg they do.
|
On August 29 2010 00:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 00:28 sux2bu wrote:On August 29 2010 00:21 Grummler wrote:On August 28 2010 23:57 sux2bu wrote:
Tank Nerf :
The nerf only effects zealots and hydras . They still one shot lings and banelings. The splash dmg still does 100% dmg to closely packed lings and banelings so no extra banelings or lings survive. The collision size of lings and banelings are in 100% splash range.
You would be absolutly right if there where no areas with less then 100% splash dmg. Sadly i have to tell you, that you are absolutly wrong. Tanks might still one shot lings siting right next to the tanks target, but because the splash dmg scales down with increasing distance, less splash dmg always effects all units (as long as they dont have 1hp). Lings being a little further away will suffer much less pain. And you would be absolutly right if there were only one tank vs many lings or all your tanks targetted the same ling. If the tanks targets are evenly spread among the attacking lings. It would achieve splash to spread evenly aswell and still one shot most lings. And this is exacly what good game desing / Good game play is. dont think you have a point to argue here. the direct dmg and splash dmg are affected. which simply means that the surrounding lings/banelings might not die from the splash of 1 hit/will survive with more hp left which leads to a big decrease in dmg output and kill/shot numbers. there is not more to it. for units with aoe it doesnt only matter in what number of hits they kill 1 unit but the overall dmg they do.
First of all i am arguing tanks still will do as good vs banelings and lings. They will do much worse against zealots of hydras and your points are absolutely right against zealots.
The calculation against lings/banelings :
The initial target and adjacent targets die no matter what. The 50% spash will do 17 vs 25 . 25% splash will now do 8.5 vs 12.5. 50% and %25 splash range survived before 1.1 and they survive now aswell. The dmg output is less you are right but it the difference isnt that huge. And can easly be neglected with a better sieging formation to spread the dmg . And as the number of tanks increase their splash radius start overlapping and killing the %50 splash zone as well.
The calculation against zealots :
The initial target and adjacent gets 35 dmg vs previous 50 and survives.
I hope you see my my point now.
|
Tank nerf won't change TvZ much as long as T upgrades attack in pace with Z's carapace, but should even out TvP a bit.
For ZvP, lots of P are whining about the patch but I think it makes the matchup much more interesting. P were too strong early and Z were too strong in T3, so zlot and ultra nerfs help smooth out the game a bit.
As for bunker build time, i think a more appropriate nerf would be reduce amount of minerals that can be salvaged. It's still essentially a risk-free harass and still very strong. Decrease in missile turret damage makes a lot more sense to me if they aren't going to fix the 100% salvage on bunkers.
BC's... well, doesn't change TvZ at all and may have been needed in TvP, but still seems a bit unnecessary.
all-in-all seems like one of the better blizzard patches as the smoothed out the matchups (instead of one being OP early and another OP late-game) and should make TvT and PvP a bit more exciting.
|
|
|
Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 23:45 bobcat wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On August 28 2010 06:33 PKCarwash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 06:20 crazeman wrote:On August 28 2010 06:11 PKCarwash wrote:
I wish they had gone a different route when balancing the races...they seem to have the "nerf each race until they are all balanced" mindset
If they think tanks BC's and reapers are too powerful, then they should have buffed P and Z up to T's standards, not nerf everything IMO
anyways now my wallin in PvZ is going to take 10 more seconds to be zergling tight... =\... yay
but at least those OP OP ultras got a nerf (/sarcasm) That's just stupid, if one unit is too powerful, you'll rather buff 15 other units rather than nerfing the one unit? The balance of the game is so delicate, that buffing every other unit will definitely cause more unforeseen balance problems than nerfing one unit. come on now, listen to yourself, you arent that stupid I didnt say "reapers are OP so buff every other unit in the game" that would be ridiculous I'm saying there are other ways other than nerfing the reapers to fix the problems they cause in the early game. Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 06:24 bobcat wrote:
By that logic the game would become heavily imbalance very quickly. If you lower the spawn time of stalkers to make them counter reapers more easily, then you make stalkers too powerful against all other forms of warfare.
The only way to make zealots stronger against tanks would be to give them at least 20 more shield, which would make zealots too powerful.
Then you have to buff lings roaches and hydras to counter protosses heavily improved tier 1.5 game and it spirals out of control from there.
The only time blizz will buff a unit, is when the unit being too weak is the problem. If another unit is too strong it makes far more sense to augment that ONE unit than it does to change the entire game to fit that one units imbalance.
did I say decrease stalker spawn? did I SAY give zeals more shields? no. you are making things up there are more attributes units have than just spawn time and damage. speed, range, upgrades, hp, damage, shields, cost, spawn time, and the list goes on. SOMETHING can be changed to solve the problems in place, without always nerfing when people QQ about something Nerfing also leads to that slippery slope of balance changed. oops we nerfed T, now P its too good, so they nerf P, but then Z is too good, so nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf, its the same thing as you are saying. and I'm not saying nerfs are NEVER the answer, because quite frankly sometimes something is just too good, and the best way to change it is to nerf the HELL out of it, but I see zero, ZERO buffs in this patch, so it looks to me like they are jsut going to fall into this "spiral" as you put it, if they continue along this road It's called an example homeslice. Like when someone (you) says "If they think tanks BC's and reapers are too powerful, then they should have buffed P and Z up to T's standards, not nerf everything IMO" Since you fail to present a logical arguement or give any examples yourself of how something like your suggestiong would work, it is up to me to create a scenario for you. Did you say make stalkers faster or give zeals more health? No. You went with everyone's favorite nebulous word "buff". Furthermore you said "buff up to T's standards". Now a logic man would think that by combatting a unit whose main issue is the speed with which it is produced, that the counter-buff for zerg and toss would be for either of them to build their counter unit(stalker) more quickly. But it doesn't matter what kind of "buff" they use to make the P and Z up to standard "spawn time and damage. speed, range, upgrades, hp, damage(again), shields(kinda falls under hp), cost, spawn time( i think you already covered this one too)", because increasing ANY stat of a unit increases that units power against ALL units. As a result, ALL other units T, P and Z must be looked at again to see if how the buff to one unit makes their usefulness change. Is this unit as good against that unit? Ok how about this one? So on and so forth. My point (and you would have gotten this if you actually bothered to read my entire post) was that choosing to not nerf a unit that needs a nerf and instead opting to increase the power of many other units to counter that one unit's imbalance will cause a tectonic shift in the games balance as a result of blizzard trying to change that many units. Vice versa, when a unit needs to be buffed, like ultralisks did, it is much easier to buff the ultralisk then it is to nerf all of the other units that it comes into contact with. That is the point of the word balance. It is about making each unit have a specific value and trying to keep them in balance with eachother. "Nerfing also leads to that slippery slope of balance changed. oops we nerfed T, now P its too good, so they nerf P, but then Z is too good, so nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf, its the same thing as you are saying." Once again, I have to disagree with you. Point #1: I have never seen Blizzard ever say "Ok guys we're going to nerf Protoss because we think that, as a designer, we completely failed to make even a single Protoss unit that was on the same level of the other races." Usually its more along the lines of oh I don't know..... "1Siege tanks in large numbers are performing too well in all matchups. In the mid- to late-game, siege tanks are 2too dominant against all ground units. 3We want a small set of light and unarmored ground units to perform better against siege tanks. 4With this in mind, we're changing the Siege Mode damage of the siege tank from 50 to 35, +15 vs. armored; to correspond with this, damage upgrades will be changed from +5 to +3, +2 vs. armored. This change reduces the base damage of the siege tank against light and unarmored units, as well as the splash damage." Right there! 1. They selected a specific unit. 2. They explained why they felt that it was creating an imbalance. 3. They explained how they think think should work ideally. 4. They used the justification in 3 to introduce the nerf. Point #2 Nerfing a siege tank does not make P or Z more powerful. It makes a specific terran unit weaker and thus most strategies attached to that unit become weaker as a result. However, MMM is no weaker from these nerfs, neither is Bio Ball, Proxy marauders. The point of nerfing tanks is (now this one is a hard pill to swallow at first but it is ultimately true) to make the game fun for all of the races. Without tanks being such a severe counter to any large group of early tier units it forces the terran player to do a bit more scouting and be a bit more creative/varied in their ground defense. It also makes builds like 1-1-1 where a T player can instantly access tier 3 a bit more of a risk as it can more easily be punished by a large group of zealots or hydras. It in turn allows proto/zerg players to have more options for how to attack their opponent which is more fun for them. Another example would be early game PvP, while I can win 95% of my PvP games by going 10 gate zealot boost, I find that the tactic bores me to tears. Since I play SC for fun and thought provoking competiton I dont persue this strategy every game. By nerfing the zealot spawn time, it allows room for other options to evolve from the mix thus making the game more interesting and *gasp* STRATEGIC! In closing, there is a time to nerf, and a time to buff, and to think that they should buff more or less or nerf less or more is to say only that you misunderstand the buffing and nerfing process. If you want to disagree with me thats fine, but please disagree with the arguement and not a small fragment of what I said or how I said it.
wow bobcat... its nice to see some ppl spamming this thread have a clue what they are talking about.... its funny seeing all the terran players QQ'n for a change. anyhow im diamond random all divisions and i think they are doing on awesome job with this patch
BUMP
|
|
|
Oh man, that's hilarious.
|
On August 29 2010 00:22 Chaotic_flare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 00:14 bobcat wrote:
Coming from a protoss player I would just like to point out something that I find funny.
Every single toss complainer here is talking about how a 5 second build time will kill their zealot play like a swarm of firebats, but then they are turning around and saying that a HUGE siege tank debuff wont really make a difference......
I played toss in the beta, so first of all I should say that this debuff is more than I ever hoped we would get as toss so Hooray for that. Second of all, the PvT game isn't that bad right now and a 5 second addition to zealots isn't going to change it. Build another gatway. cuz terran have marauders.
Of course how could I forget such a compelling and well worded counter arguement. Cuz terrans have marauders. Hmmm....... must create an appropriate counter.
toss has be do da viod rayz and or immourtalzzz.
Seriously though, last time I checked zealots either destroyed marauders without conc shell or they got kited by oneswith it. Either way, having one or two less zealots against an inferior number of marauders shouldn't change the matchup that much.
|
Aw man,my love for IdrA went from near 0 to a lot from his expression when she told him reapers and tanks are getting nerfed.
I haven't read all 70+ pages of this thread by a long shot, but if 6 pool proves to be such a massive problem for Protoss due to the 5 second zealot build time increase couldn't they just lower gateway build time by 5 seconds? Sure it does nothing to change the time when the first zealot comes out, but all subsequent zealots with or without warp gate researched take longer to come out. I'm aware what I have just said sounds possibly(probably) retarded but still.
Also, I doubt these changes are set in stone or the only changes being made so sit tight and give blizzard feedback with facts so they might reconsider if it proves to be a much more negative change than expected.
|
This starts to feel like public b-net forums i sure hope there will be something done about this.
I mean i saw 20+ people posting like "omg protoss nerfed again like every patch!" and all that QQ stuff.
This patch is almost exactly what most top players wanted and i sure think its a step in the wright direction.
Does it balance the game to 100%? Nobody knows and prolly not but eventually we will get there so just be patience and test the new patch before QQing like the world ends with the next patch..
|
We're going to be adding destructible rocks to the Desert Oasis map to make natural expansions easier to protect. In addition, the center map watchtower area is being narrowed.
any informations where they will be putting the rocks ?
|
On August 29 2010 00:45 sux2bu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 00:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On August 29 2010 00:28 sux2bu wrote:On August 29 2010 00:21 Grummler wrote:On August 28 2010 23:57 sux2bu wrote:
Tank Nerf :
The nerf only effects zealots and hydras . They still one shot lings and banelings. The splash dmg still does 100% dmg to closely packed lings and banelings so no extra banelings or lings survive. The collision size of lings and banelings are in 100% splash range.
You would be absolutly right if there where no areas with less then 100% splash dmg. Sadly i have to tell you, that you are absolutly wrong. Tanks might still one shot lings siting right next to the tanks target, but because the splash dmg scales down with increasing distance, less splash dmg always effects all units (as long as they dont have 1hp). Lings being a little further away will suffer much less pain. And you would be absolutly right if there were only one tank vs many lings or all your tanks targetted the same ling. If the tanks targets are evenly spread among the attacking lings. It would achieve splash to spread evenly aswell and still one shot most lings. And this is exacly what good game desing / Good game play is. dont think you have a point to argue here. the direct dmg and splash dmg are affected. which simply means that the surrounding lings/banelings might not die from the splash of 1 hit/will survive with more hp left which leads to a big decrease in dmg output and kill/shot numbers. there is not more to it. for units with aoe it doesnt only matter in what number of hits they kill 1 unit but the overall dmg they do. First of all i am arguing tanks still will do as good vs banelings and lings. They will do much worse against zealots of hydras and your points are absolutely right against zealots. The calculation against lings/banelings : The initial target and adjacent targets die no matter what. The 50% spash will do 17 vs 25 . 25% splash will now do 8.5 vs 12.5. 50% and %25 splash range survived before 1.1 and they survive now aswell. The dmg output is less you are right but it the difference isnt that huge. And can easly be neglected with a better sieging formation to spread the dmg . And as the number of tanks increase their splash radius start overlapping and killing the %50 splash zone as well. The calculation against zealots : The initial target and adjacent gets 35 dmg vs previous 50 and survives. I hope you see my my point now.
And his point was that a single tank no longer 1 shots a sinlge ling, so while yes, a single direct shot + splash will still kill a ling one 75% will no longer kill a ling as it once did (big difference) and two 50% will not kill a ling (relatively big difference).
However, in the long term, you are absolutely right. Lings are a terrible idea against tanks, but I think his arguement was that they were affected which is true. They are not as bad.
On August 29 2010 00:50 Fizbin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 23:45 bobcat wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On August 28 2010 06:33 PKCarwash wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 06:20 crazeman wrote:On August 28 2010 06:11 PKCarwash wrote:
I wish they had gone a different route when balancing the races...they seem to have the "nerf each race until they are all balanced" mindset
If they think tanks BC's and reapers are too powerful, then they should have buffed P and Z up to T's standards, not nerf everything IMO
anyways now my wallin in PvZ is going to take 10 more seconds to be zergling tight... =\... yay
but at least those OP OP ultras got a nerf (/sarcasm) That's just stupid, if one unit is too powerful, you'll rather buff 15 other units rather than nerfing the one unit? The balance of the game is so delicate, that buffing every other unit will definitely cause more unforeseen balance problems than nerfing one unit. come on now, listen to yourself, you arent that stupid I didnt say "reapers are OP so buff every other unit in the game" that would be ridiculous I'm saying there are other ways other than nerfing the reapers to fix the problems they cause in the early game. Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 06:24 bobcat wrote:
By that logic the game would become heavily imbalance very quickly. If you lower the spawn time of stalkers to make them counter reapers more easily, then you make stalkers too powerful against all other forms of warfare.
The only way to make zealots stronger against tanks would be to give them at least 20 more shield, which would make zealots too powerful.
Then you have to buff lings roaches and hydras to counter protosses heavily improved tier 1.5 game and it spirals out of control from there.
The only time blizz will buff a unit, is when the unit being too weak is the problem. If another unit is too strong it makes far more sense to augment that ONE unit than it does to change the entire game to fit that one units imbalance.
did I say decrease stalker spawn? did I SAY give zeals more shields? no. you are making things up there are more attributes units have than just spawn time and damage. speed, range, upgrades, hp, damage, shields, cost, spawn time, and the list goes on. SOMETHING can be changed to solve the problems in place, without always nerfing when people QQ about something Nerfing also leads to that slippery slope of balance changed. oops we nerfed T, now P its too good, so they nerf P, but then Z is too good, so nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf, its the same thing as you are saying. and I'm not saying nerfs are NEVER the answer, because quite frankly sometimes something is just too good, and the best way to change it is to nerf the HELL out of it, but I see zero, ZERO buffs in this patch, so it looks to me like they are jsut going to fall into this "spiral" as you put it, if they continue along this road It's called an example homeslice. Like when someone (you) says "If they think tanks BC's and reapers are too powerful, then they should have buffed P and Z up to T's standards, not nerf everything IMO" Since you fail to present a logical arguement or give any examples yourself of how something like your suggestiong would work, it is up to me to create a scenario for you. Did you say make stalkers faster or give zeals more health? No. You went with everyone's favorite nebulous word "buff". Furthermore you said "buff up to T's standards". Now a logic man would think that by combatting a unit whose main issue is the speed with which it is produced, that the counter-buff for zerg and toss would be for either of them to build their counter unit(stalker) more quickly. But it doesn't matter what kind of "buff" they use to make the P and Z up to standard "spawn time and damage. speed, range, upgrades, hp, damage(again), shields(kinda falls under hp), cost, spawn time( i think you already covered this one too)", because increasing ANY stat of a unit increases that units power against ALL units. As a result, ALL other units T, P and Z must be looked at again to see if how the buff to one unit makes their usefulness change. Is this unit as good against that unit? Ok how about this one? So on and so forth. My point (and you would have gotten this if you actually bothered to read my entire post) was that choosing to not nerf a unit that needs a nerf and instead opting to increase the power of many other units to counter that one unit's imbalance will cause a tectonic shift in the games balance as a result of blizzard trying to change that many units. Vice versa, when a unit needs to be buffed, like ultralisks did, it is much easier to buff the ultralisk then it is to nerf all of the other units that it comes into contact with. That is the point of the word balance. It is about making each unit have a specific value and trying to keep them in balance with eachother. "Nerfing also leads to that slippery slope of balance changed. oops we nerfed T, now P its too good, so they nerf P, but then Z is too good, so nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf, its the same thing as you are saying." Once again, I have to disagree with you. Point #1: I have never seen Blizzard ever say "Ok guys we're going to nerf Protoss because we think that, as a designer, we completely failed to make even a single Protoss unit that was on the same level of the other races." Usually its more along the lines of oh I don't know..... "1Siege tanks in large numbers are performing too well in all matchups. In the mid- to late-game, siege tanks are 2too dominant against all ground units. 3We want a small set of light and unarmored ground units to perform better against siege tanks. 4With this in mind, we're changing the Siege Mode damage of the siege tank from 50 to 35, +15 vs. armored; to correspond with this, damage upgrades will be changed from +5 to +3, +2 vs. armored. This change reduces the base damage of the siege tank against light and unarmored units, as well as the splash damage." Right there! 1. They selected a specific unit. 2. They explained why they felt that it was creating an imbalance. 3. They explained how they think think should work ideally. 4. They used the justification in 3 to introduce the nerf. Point #2 Nerfing a siege tank does not make P or Z more powerful. It makes a specific terran unit weaker and thus most strategies attached to that unit become weaker as a result. However, MMM is no weaker from these nerfs, neither is Bio Ball, Proxy marauders. The point of nerfing tanks is (now this one is a hard pill to swallow at first but it is ultimately true) to make the game fun for all of the races. Without tanks being such a severe counter to any large group of early tier units it forces the terran player to do a bit more scouting and be a bit more creative/varied in their ground defense. It also makes builds like 1-1-1 where a T player can instantly access tier 3 a bit more of a risk as it can more easily be punished by a large group of zealots or hydras. It in turn allows proto/zerg players to have more options for how to attack their opponent which is more fun for them. Another example would be early game PvP, while I can win 95% of my PvP games by going 10 gate zealot boost, I find that the tactic bores me to tears. Since I play SC for fun and thought provoking competiton I dont persue this strategy every game. By nerfing the zealot spawn time, it allows room for other options to evolve from the mix thus making the game more interesting and *gasp* STRATEGIC! In closing, there is a time to nerf, and a time to buff, and to think that they should buff more or less or nerf less or more is to say only that you misunderstand the buffing and nerfing process. If you want to disagree with me thats fine, but please disagree with the arguement and not a small fragment of what I said or how I said it. wow bobcat... its nice to see some ppl spamming this thread have a clue what they are talking about.... its funny seeing all the terran players QQ'n for a change. anyhow im diamond random all divisions and i think they are doing on awesome job with this patch BUMP
Virtual fist bump back at you sir. I am equally glad to know that some people actually read all of my post instead of a small amount.
|
On August 29 2010 00:45 sux2bu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 00:32 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:
dont think you have a point to argue here.
the direct dmg and splash dmg are affected. which simply means that the surrounding lings/banelings might not die from the splash of 1 hit/will survive with more hp left which leads to a big decrease in dmg output and kill/shot numbers.
there is not more to it. for units with aoe it doesnt only matter in what number of hits they kill 1 unit but the overall dmg they do. First of all i am arguing tanks still will do as good vs banelings and lings. They will do much worse against zealots of hydras and your points are absolutely right against zealots. The calculation against lings/banelings : The initial target and adjacent targets die no matter what. The 50% spash will do 17 vs 25 . 25% splash will now do 8.5 vs 12.5. 50% and %25 splash range survived before 1.1 and they survive now aswell. The dmg output is less you are right but it the difference isnt that huge. And can easly be neglected with a better sieging formation to spread the dmg . And as the number of tanks increase their splash radius start overlapping and killing the %50 splash zone as well. I hope you see my my point now.
your calculation is correct, but i dont think your interpretation is.
pre 1.1:
splash shots needed to kill lings
100% 1
50% 2
25% 3
post 1.1:
splash shots needed to kill lings
100% 1
50% 3
25% 5
i used your numbers. Sure, lings are still no hard counter to tanks, but they also wont evaporate anymore. And with tanks friendly fire i will atleast try to use my speedligns more against them.
|
Am I the only one who finds it funny that Immortals will take 40 damage from tanks while zealots will only take 35?
|
On August 29 2010 00:56 Bhaalgorn wrote:
Aw man,my love for IdrA went from near 0 to a lot from his expression when she told him reapers and tanks are getting nerfed.
I haven't read all 70+ pages of this thread by a long shot, but if 6 pool proves to be such a massive problem for Protoss due to the 5 second zealot build time increase couldn't they just lower gateway build time by 5 seconds? Sure it does nothing to change the time when the first zealot comes out, but all subsequent zealots with or without warp gate researched take longer to come out. I'm aware what I have just said sounds possibly(probably) retarded but still.
Also, I doubt these changes are set in stone or the only changes being made so sit tight and give blizzard feedback with facts so they might reconsider if it proves to be a much more negative change than expected.
Yeah, that's definitely idra in the video.
He definitely looks exactly like him, and he speaks a language that idra understands. The subtitles are also obviously a translation of what they are saying. They are definitely not made up at all, despite people posting several versions of the same video with different subtitles.
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
