|
On September 29 2010 09:15 Aex wrote:
The Ultralisk nerf isn't that big of a deal by itself. It just compounds on top of the many issues we, as Zerg players, feel already exist.
I think this is right on the money. Zerg needs help, but the Ultra thing had to be fixed. Why is Blizz waiting so much to do something to help Zerg in the early/mid game nobody knows.
|
On September 29 2010 09:28 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 09:22 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:06 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:02 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:43 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 08:17 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:04 Winter_mute wrote:On September 29 2010 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 06:53 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 06:26 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Late game mas ultra was impossible to stop by mech. A transition to bio is...well, not possible and the splash was just to big for thors to fight them. Ultras are to break siege tank lines and they do that i think no? If Thors do not beat Ultras then terran has nothing to fight them (mech).
Zerg needs help for sure, but this Ultra splash nerf was a must. Wow, this is just such an absolutely silly thing to say. It really shows the mentality some terran players seem to have. Are you seriously saying that just because you can't produce a counter against ultras from the factory, ultras are overpowered?? That is like a protoss player complaining that the robotics facility doesn't produce a unit that can counter a battlecruiser. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Well, you do not know what you are talking about so i will be nice, i ll ignore the "terran mentality" and "silly" etc insults you are throwing. Terran has 2 distinct ways of playing, bio and mech (there is also bio/mech but *) They both have advantages and disadvantages but both have to be "effective" . Why is this you say? The answer is in the upgrades. Unlike Protoss and Zerg, Terran has 2 completely different ground upgrade paths(bio/mech). You have to choose what path you want to go (bio/mech) so you can keep up with the upgrades in the late game. Sure you can make a few units that are not part of the core army (make a few marines while you are going mech/ a few tanks while you are going bio) but you can not rely on this units to counter a late game army that has upgrades. Be nice! So bio and mech each have to be "effective" against all possible units a zerg or protoss can throw at them. And you should maybe factor in, that zerg have melee, ranged and carapace upgrades while protoss have upgrades for shields, weapons, armor. Terran have 2 upgrades each for mech and bio. Let's reverse your argument: I want zerg ranged units to be able to be "effective" against every terran unit combination, because I want to focus on their ranged upgrades. You are forgeting the completely different buildings that make bio/mech. I want ranged zerg units to be effective vs every terran unit composition to. 2 upgrades and different building structures is a bit more then an extra upgrade (shield, range/melee) don t you think? The idea is to have a counter, a way to stay in the game, and not to build 15 barracks if you see a ultra cavern. Look, clearly put what you are saying is: "I think that with my three factory units, I should be able to counter anything the zerg can throw at me." Do you really think that is reasonable? With 3 or 4 (+Vikings) yes, you should. The same for the other races + the different characteristics that they have. Um, the point of Blizzard forcing you to choose an army composition to begin with is so that army has weaknesses that the enemy can exploit through the appropriate unit counters. It's not supposed to be a purely aesthetic choice. Mech +strong in direct combat -imobile -hard to rebuild once lost Bio +verry mobile +easy to rebuild -verry hard countered by specific units It is more then aesthetics you see. The weaknesses come from the above and from the ratios (marines to marauders/ tanks to thors) Oh, okay. Obviously because mech is 'imobile' on these great big maps we have, Zerg can just run around the mech army and base race to victory.
If only Zerg buildings could burrow XD Then the base race strategy may be more effective lol.
|
On September 29 2010 09:29 Aex wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 09:24 Buhlbaid wrote:
Massing ultras should never be IWIN mode, so the "nerf" is ok. Massing any unit should never be IWIN mode, but Toss has void rays and Terran has Thors. So even if it took ages to tech up to Ultralisks, it felt kind of nice to have something comparable.
plus you forget ultras can't even shoot air... void rays / thors can.. so ultras are not IWIN mode.. they are countered by any air unit.. plus toss also have colossus with it's ridiculous range. Massing colossus is just as effective as ultras against ground..
|
On September 29 2010 09:28 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 09:22 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:06 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:02 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:43 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 08:17 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:04 Winter_mute wrote:On September 29 2010 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 06:53 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 06:26 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Late game mas ultra was impossible to stop by mech. A transition to bio is...well, not possible and the splash was just to big for thors to fight them. Ultras are to break siege tank lines and they do that i think no? If Thors do not beat Ultras then terran has nothing to fight them (mech).
Zerg needs help for sure, but this Ultra splash nerf was a must. Wow, this is just such an absolutely silly thing to say. It really shows the mentality some terran players seem to have. Are you seriously saying that just because you can't produce a counter against ultras from the factory, ultras are overpowered?? That is like a protoss player complaining that the robotics facility doesn't produce a unit that can counter a battlecruiser. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Well, you do not know what you are talking about so i will be nice, i ll ignore the "terran mentality" and "silly" etc insults you are throwing. Terran has 2 distinct ways of playing, bio and mech (there is also bio/mech but *) They both have advantages and disadvantages but both have to be "effective" . Why is this you say? The answer is in the upgrades. Unlike Protoss and Zerg, Terran has 2 completely different ground upgrade paths(bio/mech). You have to choose what path you want to go (bio/mech) so you can keep up with the upgrades in the late game. Sure you can make a few units that are not part of the core army (make a few marines while you are going mech/ a few tanks while you are going bio) but you can not rely on this units to counter a late game army that has upgrades. Be nice! So bio and mech each have to be "effective" against all possible units a zerg or protoss can throw at them. And you should maybe factor in, that zerg have melee, ranged and carapace upgrades while protoss have upgrades for shields, weapons, armor. Terran have 2 upgrades each for mech and bio. Let's reverse your argument: I want zerg ranged units to be able to be "effective" against every terran unit combination, because I want to focus on their ranged upgrades. You are forgeting the completely different buildings that make bio/mech. I want ranged zerg units to be effective vs every terran unit composition to. 2 upgrades and different building structures is a bit more then an extra upgrade (shield, range/melee) don t you think? The idea is to have a counter, a way to stay in the game, and not to build 15 barracks if you see a ultra cavern. Look, clearly put what you are saying is: "I think that with my three factory units, I should be able to counter anything the zerg can throw at me." Do you really think that is reasonable? With 3 or 4 (+Vikings) yes, you should. The same for the other races + the different characteristics that they have. Um, the point of Blizzard forcing you to choose an army composition to begin with is so that army has weaknesses that the enemy can exploit through the appropriate unit counters. It's not supposed to be a purely aesthetic choice. Mech +strong in direct combat -imobile -hard to rebuild once lost Bio +verry mobile +easy to rebuild -verry hard countered by specific units It is more then aesthetics you see. The weaknesses come from the above and from the ratios (marines to marauders/ tanks to thors) Oh, okay. Obviously because mech is 'imobile' on these great big maps we have, Zerg can just run around the mech army and base race to victory.
If Zerg can not take advantage from some of the weaknesses out there like (lack of mech mobility) means there is a problem, BUT that is not fixed with a imba T3 unit that you most likely will not get the chance to get anyway.
|
On September 29 2010 09:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 09:28 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:22 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:06 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:02 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:43 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 08:17 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:04 Winter_mute wrote:On September 29 2010 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 06:53 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:
[quote]
Wow, this is just such an absolutely silly thing to say. It really shows the mentality some terran players seem to have. Are you seriously saying that just because you can't produce a counter against ultras from the factory, ultras are overpowered?? That is like a protoss player complaining that the robotics facility doesn't produce a unit that can counter a battlecruiser. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Well, you do not know what you are talking about so i will be nice, i ll ignore the "terran mentality" and "silly" etc insults you are throwing. Terran has 2 distinct ways of playing, bio and mech (there is also bio/mech but *) They both have advantages and disadvantages but both have to be "effective" . Why is this you say? The answer is in the upgrades. Unlike Protoss and Zerg, Terran has 2 completely different ground upgrade paths(bio/mech). You have to choose what path you want to go (bio/mech) so you can keep up with the upgrades in the late game. Sure you can make a few units that are not part of the core army (make a few marines while you are going mech/ a few tanks while you are going bio) but you can not rely on this units to counter a late game army that has upgrades. Be nice! So bio and mech each have to be "effective" against all possible units a zerg or protoss can throw at them. And you should maybe factor in, that zerg have melee, ranged and carapace upgrades while protoss have upgrades for shields, weapons, armor. Terran have 2 upgrades each for mech and bio. Let's reverse your argument: I want zerg ranged units to be able to be "effective" against every terran unit combination, because I want to focus on their ranged upgrades. You are forgeting the completely different buildings that make bio/mech. I want ranged zerg units to be effective vs every terran unit composition to. 2 upgrades and different building structures is a bit more then an extra upgrade (shield, range/melee) don t you think? The idea is to have a counter, a way to stay in the game, and not to build 15 barracks if you see a ultra cavern. Look, clearly put what you are saying is: "I think that with my three factory units, I should be able to counter anything the zerg can throw at me." Do you really think that is reasonable? With 3 or 4 (+Vikings) yes, you should. The same for the other races + the different characteristics that they have. Um, the point of Blizzard forcing you to choose an army composition to begin with is so that army has weaknesses that the enemy can exploit through the appropriate unit counters. It's not supposed to be a purely aesthetic choice. Mech +strong in direct combat -imobile -hard to rebuild once lost Bio +verry mobile +easy to rebuild -verry hard countered by specific units It is more then aesthetics you see. The weaknesses come from the above and from the ratios (marines to marauders/ tanks to thors) Oh, okay. Obviously because mech is 'imobile' on these great big maps we have, Zerg can just run around the mech army and base race to victory. If Zerg can not take advantage from some of the weaknesses out there like (lack of mech mobility) means there is a problem, BUT that is not fixed with a imba T3 unit that you most likely will not get the chance to get anyway.
Ok, can we get our fix now ?
|
On September 29 2010 09:38 Fitz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 09:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:28 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:22 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:06 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:02 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:43 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 08:17 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:04 Winter_mute wrote:On September 29 2010 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:
[quote]
Well, you do not know what you are talking about so i will be nice, i ll ignore the "terran mentality" and "silly" etc insults you are throwing.
Terran has 2 distinct ways of playing, bio and mech (there is also bio/mech but *) They both have advantages and disadvantages but both have to be "effective" . Why is this you say? The answer is in the upgrades. Unlike Protoss and Zerg, Terran has 2 completely different ground upgrade paths(bio/mech). You have to choose what path you want to go (bio/mech) so you can keep up with the upgrades in the late game.
Sure you can make a few units that are not part of the core army (make a few marines while you are going mech/ a few tanks while you are going bio) but you can not rely on this units to counter a late game army that has upgrades.
Be nice! So bio and mech each have to be "effective" against all possible units a zerg or protoss can throw at them. And you should maybe factor in, that zerg have melee, ranged and carapace upgrades while protoss have upgrades for shields, weapons, armor. Terran have 2 upgrades each for mech and bio. Let's reverse your argument: I want zerg ranged units to be able to be "effective" against every terran unit combination, because I want to focus on their ranged upgrades. You are forgeting the completely different buildings that make bio/mech. I want ranged zerg units to be effective vs every terran unit composition to. 2 upgrades and different building structures is a bit more then an extra upgrade (shield, range/melee) don t you think? The idea is to have a counter, a way to stay in the game, and not to build 15 barracks if you see a ultra cavern. Look, clearly put what you are saying is: "I think that with my three factory units, I should be able to counter anything the zerg can throw at me." Do you really think that is reasonable? With 3 or 4 (+Vikings) yes, you should. The same for the other races + the different characteristics that they have. Um, the point of Blizzard forcing you to choose an army composition to begin with is so that army has weaknesses that the enemy can exploit through the appropriate unit counters. It's not supposed to be a purely aesthetic choice. Mech +strong in direct combat -imobile -hard to rebuild once lost Bio +verry mobile +easy to rebuild -verry hard countered by specific units It is more then aesthetics you see. The weaknesses come from the above and from the ratios (marines to marauders/ tanks to thors) Oh, okay. Obviously because mech is 'imobile' on these great big maps we have, Zerg can just run around the mech army and base race to victory. If Zerg can not take advantage from some of the weaknesses out there like (lack of mech mobility) means there is a problem, BUT that is not fixed with a imba T3 unit that you most likely will not get the chance to get anyway. Ok, can we get our fix now ?
I hope so. I think Z v P mid game (in favor of P) also has some problems as well as T v P late game (in favor of P). I think Idra just stated this as well that if he were to change race it would be in favor of P.
|
On September 29 2010 09:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 09:28 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:22 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:06 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:02 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:43 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 08:17 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:04 Winter_mute wrote:On September 29 2010 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 06:53 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:
[quote]
Wow, this is just such an absolutely silly thing to say. It really shows the mentality some terran players seem to have. Are you seriously saying that just because you can't produce a counter against ultras from the factory, ultras are overpowered?? That is like a protoss player complaining that the robotics facility doesn't produce a unit that can counter a battlecruiser. It is an absolutely ridiculous argument. Well, you do not know what you are talking about so i will be nice, i ll ignore the "terran mentality" and "silly" etc insults you are throwing. Terran has 2 distinct ways of playing, bio and mech (there is also bio/mech but *) They both have advantages and disadvantages but both have to be "effective" . Why is this you say? The answer is in the upgrades. Unlike Protoss and Zerg, Terran has 2 completely different ground upgrade paths(bio/mech). You have to choose what path you want to go (bio/mech) so you can keep up with the upgrades in the late game. Sure you can make a few units that are not part of the core army (make a few marines while you are going mech/ a few tanks while you are going bio) but you can not rely on this units to counter a late game army that has upgrades. Be nice! So bio and mech each have to be "effective" against all possible units a zerg or protoss can throw at them. And you should maybe factor in, that zerg have melee, ranged and carapace upgrades while protoss have upgrades for shields, weapons, armor. Terran have 2 upgrades each for mech and bio. Let's reverse your argument: I want zerg ranged units to be able to be "effective" against every terran unit combination, because I want to focus on their ranged upgrades. You are forgeting the completely different buildings that make bio/mech. I want ranged zerg units to be effective vs every terran unit composition to. 2 upgrades and different building structures is a bit more then an extra upgrade (shield, range/melee) don t you think? The idea is to have a counter, a way to stay in the game, and not to build 15 barracks if you see a ultra cavern. Look, clearly put what you are saying is: "I think that with my three factory units, I should be able to counter anything the zerg can throw at me." Do you really think that is reasonable? With 3 or 4 (+Vikings) yes, you should. The same for the other races + the different characteristics that they have. Um, the point of Blizzard forcing you to choose an army composition to begin with is so that army has weaknesses that the enemy can exploit through the appropriate unit counters. It's not supposed to be a purely aesthetic choice. Mech +strong in direct combat -imobile -hard to rebuild once lost Bio +verry mobile +easy to rebuild -verry hard countered by specific units It is more then aesthetics you see. The weaknesses come from the above and from the ratios (marines to marauders/ tanks to thors) Oh, okay. Obviously because mech is 'imobile' on these great big maps we have, Zerg can just run around the mech army and base race to victory. If Zerg can not take advantage from some of the weaknesses out there like (lack of mech mobility) means there is a problem, BUT that is not fixed with a imba T3 unit that you most likely will not get the chance to get anyway.
I would be immensely frustrated with you except that I can't take you seriously enough to get worked up over it. You're adorable. Zerg couldn't ask for a more picture perfect example of the stereotypical Terran as an anti-mascot.
What, exactly, do you think ultralisks are supposed to do with an anti-armor damage type, if not counter armored units that are lower in tech and more versatile than them? What would be 'imba' about ultralisks countering thors in equal cost and food ratios? Do you think that ultralisks were overpowered before this patch without the building splash abuse being used?
If you feel that Zerg should have no unit counters to take down mech in a straight up fight, why does it matter if mech is hard to rebuild, taking you at your word?
If you feel that mech versus Zerg should always come down to the Zerg cautiously avoiding mech and base racing, why does Terran have better static defenses, lift off capability, repair, and better units for taking down buildings quickly? Why do you think this makes for a more interesting game and e-sport that Blizzard designed for it deliberately, instead of encouraging army versus army conflict to take place?
|
ultras tier3.5 - pool->lair->infest pit->Hive->ultra den
thor tier2.5 - rax->factory+techlab->armory
seeing now ultras no longer cost efficient against thors, can anyone justify the tech tree i stated above?
dont tell me to use broodlord - you need tier4 unit to deal with them is a nonsense and thor has crazy AA dps. plus not to mention that when the time he gets 7 thors you will probably just started making your 1st broodlord.
so lets say i dont like to gamble my game by using NP, my only viable option is mass blings+lings and some mutas? and that will only work if the terran didnt get any tank/marauder/+marine? seriously, blizzard? why dont you just get rid of this race lol
|
Nethaera (a Blue) has responded to this on the forums:
Here's some information for you on this change:
In patch 1.1.0 we decreased the damage Ultralisks did from 15 (+25 armored) to 15 (+20 armored) and removed the Ram ability they could use against buildings, which meant they would use their normal attacks instead. When this change was implemented however, a bug was introduced that caused the splash damage of the Ultralisk being unintentionally extended by larger targets. This was corrected today in patch 1.1.1. Because of this bug, however, players did not get to experience the change that was implemented in patch 1.1.0 as it was intended, a slight reduction of damage against armored units. The current damage output for Ultralisks is what was intended in 1.1.0. As always, we will be monitoring the effect of this change and constructive feedback on it.
As always constructive feedback on your gameplay experiences are always welcome.
So, basically, Blizzard honestly believes that they didn't change anything in this patch, and that Ultra splash worked like this pre-patch 1.1.0. As far as I can tell, they're wrong about that. So if we present them with convincing evidence that they ARE wrong, they'd probably be amenable to changing it.
We need convincing evidence, and we need it now. TO THE FORUMS!
|
There's no possible way to justify this change in a balance context. It might have proved to be needed eventually, but they literally just nerfed Ultras 5 damage per hit the other day. There's no way Blizzard would make that damage nerf and then intentionally dramatically nerf splash against units.
Slow and steady is supposed to be their patching philosophy. That doesn't line up with nerfing ultras twice in a week. I think they're just terrible at testing their own changes and didn't notice that the behavior was different from pre-patch
And now, with the post above, we can clearly see that they don't even understand the issue at hand.
|
On September 29 2010 10:15 Captain Peabody wrote:Nethaera (a Blue) has responded to this on the forums: Show nested quote +Here's some information for you on this change:
In patch 1.1.0 we decreased the damage Ultralisks did from 15 (+25 armored) to 15 (+20 armored) and removed the Ram ability they could use against buildings, which meant they would use their normal attacks instead. When this change was implemented however, a bug was introduced that caused the splash damage of the Ultralisk being unintentionally extended by larger targets. This was corrected today in patch 1.1.1. Because of this bug, however, players did not get to experience the change that was implemented in patch 1.1.0 as it was intended, a slight reduction of damage against armored units. The current damage output for Ultralisks is what was intended in 1.1.0. As always, we will be monitoring the effect of this change and constructive feedback on it.
As always constructive feedback on your gameplay experiences are always welcome. So, basically, Blizzard honestly believes that they didn't change anything in this patch, and that Ultra splash worked like this pre-patch 1.1.0. As far as I can tell, they're wrong about that. So if we present them with convincing evidence that they ARE wrong, they'd probably be amenable to changing it. We need convincing evidence, and we need it now. TO THE FORUMS!
where is that picture of ultra doing less splash to the mainres scvs tanks and thors. post that there and just post
please explain.
|
I just don't get it.
Why is Blizzard nerfing the already-inferior race?
Moreso, (and more infuriating) why do they refuse to confront the public about it? How much has blizzard really talked about Zerg being inferior and Terran being superior? Have they said anything about it at all?
I almost feel like Blizzard knows something that we don't about the races- maybe everyone is playing Zerg wrong, or... something.
Almost.
|
Again, based on the above blue post, Blizzard is apparently under the impression that they haven't changed anything, that Ultras were like this in patch 1.0. If we prove to them that this was not the case, then they'd probably change it. We need convincing proof to this effect.
Edit:
where is that picture of ultra doing less splash to the mainres scvs tanks and thors. post that there and just post
please explain.
Well, if I'm thinking of the right picture, that just shows that it changed from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1. We need pictures/vids of 1.0 and Beta to prove this.
|
On September 29 2010 10:20 Thoro wrote:
I just don't get it.
Why is Blizzard nerfing the already-inferior race?
Moreso, (and more infuriating) why do they refuse to confront the public about it? How much has blizzard really talked about Zerg being inferior and Terran being superior? Have they said anything about it at all?
I almost feel like Blizzard knows something that we don't about the races- maybe everyone is playing Zerg wrong, or... something.
Almost.
i dont mind they fix the ultra splash range. hitting a CC and cleave damage all nearby SCV's mining is just plain silly.
although as many top tier Z players pointed out. the TvZ balance isnt a unit vs unit issue. but rather the matchup as a whole make it difficult for Z to respond properly.
|
Well, if I'm thinking of the right picture, that just shows that it changed from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1. We need pictures/vids of 1.0 and Beta to prove this.
and i thought that is supposed to be their job??? why is that as customers ourselves need to do such thing to please blizzard??
(do we all have too much love to blizzard? *facepalm*)
|
On September 29 2010 10:23 Captain Peabody wrote:Again, based on the above blue post, Blizzard is apparently under the impression that they haven't changed anything, that Ultras were like this in patch 1.0. If we prove to them that this was not the case, then they'd probably change it. We need convincing proof to this effect. Edit: Show nested quote +where is that picture of ultra doing less splash to the mainres scvs tanks and thors. post that there and just post
please explain. Well, if I'm thinking of the right picture, that just shows that it changed from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1. We need pictures/vids of 1.0 and Beta to prove this.
Not really. Nethaera's post says the bug was only related to large targets but the pic clearly shows that even Marines emanate less splash, so Blizzard is missing something even between 1.1.1 and 1.1.0
|
On September 29 2010 10:23 Captain Peabody wrote:Again, based on the above blue post, Blizzard is apparently under the impression that they haven't changed anything, that Ultras were like this in patch 1.0. If we prove to them that this was not the case, then they'd probably change it. We need convincing proof to this effect. Edit: Show nested quote +where is that picture of ultra doing less splash to the mainres scvs tanks and thors. post that there and just post
please explain. Well, if I'm thinking of the right picture, that just shows that it changed from 1.1.0 to 1.1.1. We need pictures/vids of 1.0 and Beta to prove this.
i still have beta installed on my comp. could run a program to get it running and get some ultra splash demonstrations. though im pretty sure ultra splash was the same during the last patch of beta and release 1.0
|
On September 29 2010 09:58 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2010 09:36 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:28 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:22 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 09:06 Karkadinn wrote:On September 29 2010 09:02 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:43 Mr Tambourine Man wrote:On September 29 2010 08:17 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 29 2010 08:04 Winter_mute wrote:On September 29 2010 07:40 Sapphire.lux wrote:
[quote]
Well, you do not know what you are talking about so i will be nice, i ll ignore the "terran mentality" and "silly" etc insults you are throwing.
Terran has 2 distinct ways of playing, bio and mech (there is also bio/mech but *) They both have advantages and disadvantages but both have to be "effective" . Why is this you say? The answer is in the upgrades. Unlike Protoss and Zerg, Terran has 2 completely different ground upgrade paths(bio/mech). You have to choose what path you want to go (bio/mech) so you can keep up with the upgrades in the late game.
Sure you can make a few units that are not part of the core army (make a few marines while you are going mech/ a few tanks while you are going bio) but you can not rely on this units to counter a late game army that has upgrades.
Be nice! So bio and mech each have to be "effective" against all possible units a zerg or protoss can throw at them. And you should maybe factor in, that zerg have melee, ranged and carapace upgrades while protoss have upgrades for shields, weapons, armor. Terran have 2 upgrades each for mech and bio. Let's reverse your argument: I want zerg ranged units to be able to be "effective" against every terran unit combination, because I want to focus on their ranged upgrades. You are forgeting the completely different buildings that make bio/mech. I want ranged zerg units to be effective vs every terran unit composition to. 2 upgrades and different building structures is a bit more then an extra upgrade (shield, range/melee) don t you think? The idea is to have a counter, a way to stay in the game, and not to build 15 barracks if you see a ultra cavern. Look, clearly put what you are saying is: "I think that with my three factory units, I should be able to counter anything the zerg can throw at me." Do you really think that is reasonable? With 3 or 4 (+Vikings) yes, you should. The same for the other races + the different characteristics that they have. Um, the point of Blizzard forcing you to choose an army composition to begin with is so that army has weaknesses that the enemy can exploit through the appropriate unit counters. It's not supposed to be a purely aesthetic choice. Mech +strong in direct combat -imobile -hard to rebuild once lost Bio +verry mobile +easy to rebuild -verry hard countered by specific units It is more then aesthetics you see. The weaknesses come from the above and from the ratios (marines to marauders/ tanks to thors) Oh, okay. Obviously because mech is 'imobile' on these great big maps we have, Zerg can just run around the mech army and base race to victory. If Zerg can not take advantage from some of the weaknesses out there like (lack of mech mobility) means there is a problem, BUT that is not fixed with a imba T3 unit that you most likely will not get the chance to get anyway. I would be immensely frustrated with you except that I can't take you seriously enough to get worked up over it. You're adorable. Zerg couldn't ask for a more picture perfect example of the stereotypical Terran as an anti-mascot.
I am forever in your debt kind sir! Your wrath and frustration would have been unbearable.
What, exactly, do you think ultralisks are supposed to do with an anti-armor damage type, if not counter armored units that are lower in tech and more versatile than them? What would be 'imba' about ultralisks countering thors in equal cost and food ratios? Do you think that ultralisks were overpowered before this patch without the building splash abuse being used?
Ultras beat tanks silly. He has a million thors and only a few tanks? Go roach mate, they beat thors cost for cost. Or are you just building a type of unit and just 1a rebuild 1a and then cry imba? There are problems with Zerg for sure, but in this case, you are just bad at analyzing the opponents army composition, or you have a verry hard time writing down your thoughts.
If you feel that Zerg should have no unit counters to take down mech in a straight up fight, why does it matter if mech is hard to rebuild, taking you at your word?
No dude, no unit should "take down" mech, thus the Ultra nerf. A combination of units on the other hand should be able to fight with mech. Things have to be changed but, ONE unit should not take down a style of play. Am i getting through?
If you feel that mech versus Zerg should always come down to the Zerg cautiously avoiding mech and base racing, why does Terran have better static defenses, lift off capability, repair, and better units for taking down buildings quickly? Why do you think this makes for a more interesting game and e-sport that Blizzard designed for it deliberately, instead of encouraging army versus army conflict to take place?
I would go through things like: Zerg does need some help, choosing the place for battle, surround etc but you'd only get frustrated 
This might have seemed off topic but, a change to a unit that countered a stile is a good change, and those are the reasons that i think that.
PS: stereotypical Terran hahaha
|
I don't think Blizzard ever said that they WANTED Ultra AOE damage to be absolutely huge like it was in 1.1.0. Clearly, this was an unintended consequence of the patch, and they needed to drop the damage back down to a non-ridiculous level.
What's clearly happened here is that everyone has become accustomed to the 1.1.0 Ultra AOE, and thus is up in arms because 1.1.1 Ultras don't have AOE like they did in 1.1.1. Think about the 1.1.0 Ultralisk as a bug, not a standard.
And one more thing, they did not "nerf" Ultras twice in a week, they nerfed them once. They dropped the damage vs. Armored units by 5, and in that same patch, accidentally created a bug. 1.1.1 is not a nerf, its a bugfix.
|
I understand why Blizzard would patch this, even 'nerf' it. Even if the splash from Ultras was the only way we Zergs could win games, it's not an intended mechanic. Leaving it in would mask imbalance from other intended mechanics. So, taking it out will hopefully make it easier to balance the elements of the game that are actually supposed to be there.
I for one will miss it, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
