|
Reaper nerf means that reapers actually getting their dmg or range reduced.
There is no reaper nerf and as many said the problems with reapers is that outrun speedlings and every other zerg unit , o insane dmg both to buildings and light units and after that a transition to marauder to push vs roaches is way too easy.
nothing from the above will change , good terran layers dont rush with 1 reaper anyway they wait a bit and rush with several , now theyll build one more rax and do the same thing nothing changes in the long run.
Tank nerf is meaningless both to unarmored units cause they die to fast regardless due to the ridiculus 13 range and is the same dmg vs armored anyway.
Almost nothing changes for terran , zealot build time nerf wont matter very much apart in small maps , maybe vs 6 pools
Last ultra nerf well consider how easy they tend to die vs immortals , marauders , thors , archons , their inability to hit air and bad pathfinding it was uncalled .
|
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will.
|
On August 30 2010 05:23 Bull-Demon wrote:
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will.
Nothing. Nothing never changes.
|
You cant balance the current situation of the game by changing some timings or numerical values.
2 of the races only deal with 2 resources ( Gas / Mineral ). Zerg deals with another source ( larva Production ) and zerg has to micro its larva production every 40 sec. If zerg misses the right timing it cant make up for it. And Larva production mechanics is still limited by the other 2 resources to actuallt turn them into units.
Terran can outmine other races with use of mule from same number of mineral patches and can make up for a missed timing on mule by summoning several at once and its mechanic isnt limited. Protoss can chrono boost or warp to dumb extra resources at once and to rush a certain unit.
At early game Zerg is outmined by every race until 5-6 min range due to losing its drones for buildings. and cant make up for them if under any pressure. You cant just save larva under pressure. And we all know that zerg needs to overmine the other races to beat them. Very seldom a zerg with equal gathered sources will ever win. In SC1 Zerg early lings/sunkens let zerg to fast expand. Terran lacked harassment tools / mobility to stop zerg from expanding. Now Terran has the best defence and the best harassment tools with great mobility. Zerg lost all his early advantage and is playing a total defensive game. Zerg has no tool to threaten a walling in protoss or Terran.Lings used to be a threat now they get slaughtered. Zerg is denied even the basic scouting until a lair tech up which is insanely late. ( I am not even arguing map inbalances / unstoppable cliff drops etc . It needs its own topic )
This isnt zerg. I am pretty sure sc1 zerg would do much better against sc2 terran or protoss.
Another problem against Terran is even if you can scout you cant tell what terran is really after.It is a terrible game design to have several different units that required different counters to be produced from the same building. You just cant balance this. It is a very poor job by blizzard. İf you see a Hydra Den you know you ll face hydras. If you see spire you know you ll see mutas soon.
If you see 3 barracks you cant tell if it is marauder or reaper or marine. You just make a guess and hope its right.
|
On August 30 2010 05:23 Bull-Demon wrote:
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will.
The people saying nothing will change don't mean literally nothing will change, they just mean that the metagame/dominant strategies/current balance situation won't significantly change...
|
I don't see why they are nerfing ultralisk. Yea probably it deals too much damage to armoured units. But two thirds of yours ultralisk are always trying to find their way around lings or getting stuck on a flat ground during a fight. I think they should correct that pathetic AI pathing before nerfing its damage.
Reaper is another unit that really really needs to be nerf. Increase the mineral cost or the speed upgrade cost or whatever. Marauder needs some sort of tweaking.
Its a good first step but every race was hit by the nerf bat so i guess we will still see terran dominating for quite some time.
|
The problem i see with these nerfs is that essentially every decition they make are based on rush distances from the current map pool and simply its going to be impossible to balance the game off stepps of war or proxy gateway rushdistance because ultimately one change is very map spesific the other can get scouted and held off easily.
It just blows my mind how they do not see that imbalances are highlighted within the map pool simply because the maps are so poorly designed.
the marauder, marine reaper push against protoss is pretty retarded already, im glad im zerg atm. xD
i mean comon, if you cant hold off a 2 gate on cross position metalolplis as zerg you are either doing something wrong like opting to not go for a roach warren on 18. Or you drone whored too much.
|
On August 30 2010 05:28 DTown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:23 Bull-Demon wrote:
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will. The people saying nothing will change don't mean literally nothing will change, they just mean that the metagame/dominant strategies/current balance situation won't significantly change...
I disagree. I think the tank change will alter ZvT significantly. Specifically late game mech and mmm with tank support.
|
On August 30 2010 05:45 Bull-Demon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:28 DTown wrote:On August 30 2010 05:23 Bull-Demon wrote:
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will. The people saying nothing will change don't mean literally nothing will change, they just mean that the metagame/dominant strategies/current balance situation won't significantly change... I disagree. I think the tank change will alter ZvT significantly. Specifically late game mech and mmm with tank support.
Pre patch 1.1 Numbers.
Zero Upgrades, on creep, Attack move zero micro
50 Lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 14 Lings survive, all tanks dead.
18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 12 surviving hydras, all tanks dead.
Post 1.1 Numbers.
50 lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 20 lings survive, all tanks dead.
18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 13 surviving hydras, all tanks dead.
I consider Lings to be significantly more effective against tanks after 1.1
|
On August 29 2010 17:57 terranghost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 14:42 MythicalMage wrote:On August 29 2010 14:25 DTown wrote:On August 29 2010 14:08 MythicalMage wrote:
I HATE the tank change. I literally can't think of a scenario when I want tanks over marauders or higher tech (banshees, ravens, etc.)
EDIT: This isn't a balance complaint. This is a stylistic complaint, since they're taking out the core of the Terran army, currently. No, pretty sure your comment is still a balance complaint. Proven by you insisting that Blizzard is "taking out the core of the Terran army" when they are just modifying the role of an over-powered unit that was causing a lot of problems to make the game more strategically interesting. No, that's a style complaint. The game will be even more balanced, and I don't argue that. It just feels like this core unit is now useless. You can divide the playstyles of Terran into two categories: With tanks and without tanks. If you thought you saw a lot of reaper play in tournaments before, now it's pretty much the only option, as transitioning to tanks isn't really worth it anymore. So my point is this. They aren't "modifying a role." They're making a strong unit close to useless. It'll be like back when beta started and no one used tanks. They might as well bring back the super roach. Regardless, it doesn't effect balance negatively, just several entire playstyles. Core unit useless...... Lets go over the units this will affect. All armored units will take the same damage. This includes: roach, stalker, immortal, ultra, infestor, marauder, tanks, thors, vikings, and collosus. Therefore the units this " nerf" will affect are the following: sentry (which will still die in 2 hits [splash]), templar (same as sentry), Dt (usually die really fast if you can see them), zergling (will still die in 1 hit), baneling (see zergling), marine (see zergling), and reaper (see zergling). Other units affected (quite possibly the only ones the change will affect) Hydra, ghost, zealot. These are the only units that will need to take a noticeably larger amount of hits to kill than previously was needed. How is this making the tank useless before tanks reached critical mass you wanted hellions for the zealots. Ghosts won't work to well unless you are trying pdds or trying to nuke advance but if your ghost can be attacked well you already did something wrong (and news flash how can a mirror match be imba in the first place not that anyone has said this yet). Hydra this will probably be the only unit significantly affected by said change. Edit: Im sorry I forgot to add the hellion but like that will make a difference I mean hellions still wont be able to kill tanks.
Yea I definitely like the nerf but I think well have to see if Terran is still too strong or if they are finally balanced now. One thing to point out is that with 1 armor upgrade, lings wont die in 1 hit anymore from siege tanks.
Also marines without combat shields will die in 2 hits instead of 1 from siege tanks. Same with reapers, not sure why you said marines and reapers wouldnt be affected...
|
On August 30 2010 05:54 Disastorm wrote:
One thing to point out is that with 1 armor upgrade, lings wont die in 1 hit anymore from siege tanks.
One hit from a single Siege Tank will reduce them to 1 HP, and if they have two all of them die from the splash.
Aside from helping slightly against a fast Tank push, I don't see how this makes much of a change.
|
On August 30 2010 06:03 archon256 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:54 Disastorm wrote:
One thing to point out is that with 1 armor upgrade, lings wont die in 1 hit anymore from siege tanks.
One hit from a single Siege Tank will reduce them to 1 HP, and if they have two all of them die from the splash. Aside from helping slightly against a fast Tank push, I don't see how this makes much of a change.
Taking 2 hits instead of 1 will make a big impact, regardless of how much health is left after the hit. The lings will be able to at least get closer to the the conflict, allowing the rest of the zerg force to move closer quicker and more easily. The Lings may not do much damage still, but they allow the rest of the army to get position.
|
On August 30 2010 05:50 Opinion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:45 Bull-Demon wrote:On August 30 2010 05:28 DTown wrote:On August 30 2010 05:23 Bull-Demon wrote:
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will. The people saying nothing will change don't mean literally nothing will change, they just mean that the metagame/dominant strategies/current balance situation won't significantly change... I disagree. I think the tank change will alter ZvT significantly. Specifically late game mech and mmm with tank support. Pre patch 1.1 Numbers.Zero Upgrades, on creep, Attack move zero micro 50 Lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 14 Lings survive, all tanks dead. 18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 12 surviving hydras, all tanks dead. Post 1.1 Numbers.50 lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 20 lings survive, all tanks dead. 18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 13 surviving hydras, all tanks dead. I consider Lings to be significantly more effective against tanks after 1.1
That's better.
I used to test units all the time in BW, but I went way more extensively in AOE3.
Assuming the surviving hydras have about the same amount of life left in both tests, and that the tests are representative of what will happen in real battles, it seems that melee light units get a decent buff against tanks.
|
The more I think about it the more I'm baffled with the Battlecruiser nerf.
The reaper nerf was definitely needed. They were ridiculous vs zerg early game.
The tank nerf could be needed too. They were used pretty often in TvZ.
But Battlecruiser? What the fuck Blizzard? What the fuck??
Is there anybody who was owned by BCs and though it was unfair? Is there anybody who used BC and think "damn, those thing are soo powerful!". Is there even anybody who uses BC at all?
I have no idea what is Blizzard doing here. Were some of their testers owned in FFA or what? What's next, are they going to nerf Scout in BW too?
Seriously could somebody explain this to me? Anybody?
|
On August 30 2010 06:46 L0thar wrote:
The more I think about it the more I'm baffled with the Battlecruiser nerf.
The reaper nerf was definitely needed. They were ridiculous vs zerg early game.
The tank nerf could be needed too. They were used pretty often in TvZ.
But Battlecruiser? What the fuck Blizzard? What the fuck??
Is there anybody who was owned by BCs and though it was unfair? Is there anybody who used BC and think "damn, those thing are soo powerful!". Is there even anybody who uses BC at all?
I have no idea what is Blizzard doing here. Were some of their testers owned in FFA or what? What's next, are they going to nerf Scout in BW too?
Seriously could somebody explain this to me? Anybody?
At least as zerg I have had problems with battlecruisers when having a ground only force. Before the neural parasite nerf you could use infestors to counter them but know hydras are the only option and they are far from a cost effective counter against battlecruisers.
I think the nerf is a good one, balance wise.
|
The battlecruiser nerf really makes no sense. There are so many air only units in this game, and they almost all do really well cost for cost vs BC. It's not like there's no counter. Trying to wrap my head around nerfing BC damage to ground units when things like the marauder exist in the game just makes my brain hurt.
|
On August 30 2010 06:10 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:50 Opinion wrote:On August 30 2010 05:45 Bull-Demon wrote:On August 30 2010 05:28 DTown wrote:On August 30 2010 05:23 Bull-Demon wrote:
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will. The people saying nothing will change don't mean literally nothing will change, they just mean that the metagame/dominant strategies/current balance situation won't significantly change... I disagree. I think the tank change will alter ZvT significantly. Specifically late game mech and mmm with tank support. Pre patch 1.1 Numbers.Zero Upgrades, on creep, Attack move zero micro 50 Lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 14 Lings survive, all tanks dead. 18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 12 surviving hydras, all tanks dead. Post 1.1 Numbers.50 lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 20 lings survive, all tanks dead. 18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 13 surviving hydras, all tanks dead. I consider Lings to be significantly more effective against tanks after 1.1 That's better. I used to test units all the time in BW, but I went way more extensively in AOE3. Assuming the surviving hydras have about the same amount of life left in both tests, and that the tests are representative of what will happen in real battles, it seems that melee light units get a decent buff against tanks.
The health seemed about even each time, but i didn't write down exact numbers, just looked the health colors, greens and reds etc.
Depending on focus fire there may be very little difference between pre-nerf and post nerf tanks vs hydras. But I'm not really too interested in testing all possible variables, i wish someone else would...
Lings on the other hand, that was pretty dramatic. These were not speedlings, just plain old nonupgraded lings and they survived well. Speedlings should do quite well against post nerf tanks.
|
On August 30 2010 01:40 Yaotzin wrote:
They don't win it with T1 and 1.5, they have to support those units*. The marine/marauder remains the core, but medivacs & ghosts are crucial additions if you want to win. Toss aren't that different in that Zealots, and Stalkers to a lesser degree, remain a core component of their army throughout.
*well, you shouldn't be dying to pure mm.
1 Medivac and 1 Marine can kill 1 Stalker. That's fair, equal(ish) costs.
1 Medivac, 3 Marauders and 2 Marines can kill 8 Stalkers under stimpack. This isn't fair at all.
2 Medivacs and 2 Marines can kill 4 Stalkers without Stimpack, but with Combat Shield. This isn't fair.
Terran units are cheaper, and in numbers stronger than the more expensive Protoss units. It's very, very hard to play against Terran when their macro mechanics are so forgiving, with a few OCs can constantly scan the map and with their cheap as chips units.
I played a 30 minute game on Blistering Sands where the entire map was mined out, but at the end the Terran had a 200/200 army (and no more minerals to use on army) and I had a 92/200 army (and had no more minerals to use on army), and every push by the Terran I had defended with 1/2 to 1/4 of my forces left. In the end, I lost though.
|
All changes seem fair except the BC one.... I mean i've hardly come across games where the match is even, one player decides to go BCs and continues to suddenly win? Of course they're powerful, they're freaking expensive and slow as a turtle! I don't see how it causes stalemates, either.
|
On August 30 2010 05:50 Opinion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:45 Bull-Demon wrote:On August 30 2010 05:28 DTown wrote:On August 30 2010 05:23 Bull-Demon wrote:
How do people say nothing will change when its mathematically proven it will. The people saying nothing will change don't mean literally nothing will change, they just mean that the metagame/dominant strategies/current balance situation won't significantly change... I disagree. I think the tank change will alter ZvT significantly. Specifically late game mech and mmm with tank support. Pre patch 1.1 Numbers.Zero Upgrades, on creep, Attack move zero micro 50 Lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 14 Lings survive, all tanks dead. 18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 12 surviving hydras, all tanks dead. Post 1.1 Numbers.50 lings vs 4 siege tanks. = 20 lings survive, all tanks dead. 18 hydras vs 4 siege tanks. = 13 surviving hydras, all tanks dead. I consider Lings to be significantly more effective against tanks after 1.1
How is the difference possible in zerglings numbers when they are getting 1 shooted without upgrades anyway?
Nothing changes for tanks vs lings, so the change in outcome is not possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
