EPTOn August 29 2010 01:04 bobcat wrote:
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.
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.
Show nested quote +
On August 29 2010 00:45 sux2bu wrote:
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.
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.
On August 29 2010 00:28 sux2bu wrote:
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.
On August 29 2010 00:21 Grummler wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Show nested quote +
On August 29 2010 00:50 Fizbin wrote:
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
On August 28 2010 23:45 bobcat wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
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.
+ Show Spoiler +
On August 28 2010 06:33 PKCarwash wrote:
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.
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
Show nested quote +
On August 28 2010 06:20 crazeman wrote:
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.
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)
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.
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.
There's no 75% splash, they deal...
100% damage in a radius of 0.48
50% damage in a radius of 0.78
25% damage in a radius of 1.25
So they will one hit kill the same number of lings, just the ones further away from the center of the splash will take less damage.
