|
On March 01 2011 04:51 Kyadytim wrote:
It's funny to read TimeSpiral complaining that at 40 seconds, it's impossible to get an on-call bunker up on most maps, as Zerg certainly can't put up an on-call spine crawler (50 second build time), and Protoss can't put up an on-call photon cannon (40 second build time, and need to have a forge already). Compared to the Photon Cannon (150 minerals, can't move, can't be salvaged) and the Spine Crawler (100 minerals + drone, can move, can't be salvaged), the Bunker (100 minerals + SCV time, can't move, can be salvaged) punishes the player the least for putting up defensive structures that turn out to not be necessary.
@willoc:
Some change to deal with the Colossus may be necessary, but I think it would be a horrible idea to nerf both Colossi and High Templar in the same patch, because Protoss needs one or the other to be able to fight hydra/roach or MMM effectively, so nerfing both would translate into a serious nerf to the Protoss race as a whole.
You forgot that you need to put marines into the bunker. Bunkers do not give you extra firepower. They just preserve some firepower you have.
True enough on the HT + colossus point.
|
On March 01 2011 04:40 Tezzick wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:08 TimeSpiral wrote:On March 01 2011 03:54 Ballistixz wrote:This is a perfect example of a balance problem. The bunker is a prett essential defensive structure in many scenarios, but it is also used offensively. So, it is really hard to balance it for both functions.
(1) With the 30 second build time you could barely get a bunker up if you scouted a rush, or needed to block an all-in counter attack.
(2) 30 second build time was pretty tough to hold in some bunker rush scenarios.
(3) At 40 seconds an on-call defensive bunker is now impossible on every map. If you don't preemptively build the bunker you don't have one. End of story.
(4) This will make offensive bunkers much less useful in early game.
Bunker mechanics are almost as broken as Force Field - almost. since terrans have the option of building PFs at there most vulnerable expansions they hardly have need for bunkers mid and late game. also terrans have a little ability called "salvage" so its pretty much a no brainer to put bunkers down early at ur expansion even if a rush isnt coming. you get 100% of your money back in a refund.... 40 second build time is good for how powerful a bunker truly is for how low of a cost it is. and on top of that low cost its 100% refundable. ya 40 seconds is nothing. I'm actually concerned about this. It's arguable, but the Infestor is probably the most powerful spellcaster in the game, and Fungal Growth is one of the main reasons for this. The Stun Duration nerf is absolutely needed, but a 30% increase in damage to armored might be a little out of line.
I think this is probably because of one game unit: The Stalker.
QUESTION: That has to mean it deals the damage 100% faster, right? That's a HUUUUUGE buff. no its not such a huge buff as u think.... DO NOT let the 30% increase to armored units fool u. if u used infestors on PTR then u would know that the knew fungal is almost useless. stalkers and blink stalkers can dodge fungal SO EASILY that its almost a joke to use it against them if the toss player is even half decent. a biobal of stimmed marines/marauders can also dodge it if the terran player has good control. u might catch a few marines/units but the terran can still split units to lessen dmg. so to get a successfull fungal off u have to catch the army by surprise. however if u do catch them and u have enough fungals then the dps would be very good. so its not a huuge buff and the 4 second reduction in duration is a obvious nerf since fungal was mainly used to stop units rather then deal damage. imo this change to fungal was to make infestors more of a damage caster for zerg similar to defilier and plauge in BW. if u have enough infestors and can actually catch a army then it can be pretty insane dps for zerg. but again, catching a army with the new fungal is the problem... RE: BunkerI'm only really concerned about early-game and mid-game transition scenarios, really. Nobody is building a PF until base number three. The bunker is "powerful" because it is the only static defensive building in the game that requires active supply to attack ground units. The refund is nice, of course, but you still spend the money and it is gone until you salvage. So in early game bunkers significantly delay your BO. I prefer unit based defense in early game, which means I cannot tech. I just don't trust nor do I like relying on bunkers. Protoss lols at bunkers, but they are good versus Zerg. RE: FungalDo you honestly think Fungal was fine the way it was? Some sort of nerf was absolutely necessary imo. As I said, I'm concerned about this change. I'm not sure if it was the right one. Reducing stun is a step in the right direction. I really dislike the manipulation spells in this game. They just seem really hard to balance for both offensive and defensive purposes. So what changes would you propose instead of these? Make bunker build time 30 seconds? Remove infestors? Play the other two races, and you'll see why the changes are necessary.
Don't ask a question if you don't actually want a response, unless it's rhetorical. Come on ... Let's be civil.
Why make such wild assumptions like I never play the other races? I do. I like to enjoy all aspects of the game. I ladder with one race, but I love to play them all.
I don't really feel like I have the proper tools to make balance suggestions related to the Bunker or the Infestor. You would need to have a testing environment and the ability to make small tweaks, and then run it through the PTR ...
They are doing it right. Doesn't mean I have to agree with the end result.
|
On March 01 2011 04:48 SharkSpider wrote:
A question:
Does the fungal change mean that it does half damage, or damage twice as fast? This might actually be a buff in some cases, if it lets you do 2.6x the damage/second to armored targets, especially if you have lots of infestors. That being said, dodge Fungals, dodge Psi Storms, ... dodge EMP?
It does the damage twice as fast I think. This might actually fix the PvZ colossus/stalker problem actually. Just get some infestors out and blow up those stalkers with fungal. Maybe something like infestor + roach?
|
On March 01 2011 04:10 Incursus wrote:
Make use of your Ravens and Ghosts, I find it hilarious that people complain about Protoss spellcasters when they are unwilling to invest in their own. Gateway units are weak and thus we need FFs. I love hearing people say they would have won without FFs, if FFs are so powerful to you then employ your spellcaster that can render others useless. It will always be dicey but the idea of balance is that there is no instant win button. The idea of Balance is that if you are better you win and if not you lose. So quit A-Moving Marauders/Marines into Toss forces and complaining about FFs and Storms. I don't complain about being EMPed or dropped on, or Banshee'd. If I am unprepared for a Terran attack that is my fault not his.
I was going to post something, but this is essentially what I wanted to say.
|
On March 01 2011 04:38 willoc wrote:
Agreed. I can't believe how many QQs are going around here. The only thing I thought blizz missed in this patch was something to do with ZvP colossus. Either a corrupter buff or a colossus nerf.
You want them to nerf the HT AND the Collosus? o.O
|
On March 01 2011 04:55 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:48 SharkSpider wrote:
A question:
Does the fungal change mean that it does half damage, or damage twice as fast? This might actually be a buff in some cases, if it lets you do 2.6x the damage/second to armored targets, especially if you have lots of infestors. That being said, dodge Fungals, dodge Psi Storms, ... dodge EMP? It does the damage twice as fast I think. This might actually fix the PvZ colossus/stalker problem actually. Just get some infestors out and blow up those stalkers with fungal. Maybe something like infestor + roach?
Yeah, as a P player, I'm friggin scared of this patch now. Heavy nerf to both of the strats I like in PvZ (Colo + VR or Immortal + Templar), but Phoenixes might be a little harder to wreck with infestors so Phoenix/Colo play could be a better choice.
|
On March 01 2011 04:57 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:38 willoc wrote:
Agreed. I can't believe how many QQs are going around here. The only thing I thought blizz missed in this patch was something to do with ZvP colossus. Either a corrupter buff or a colossus nerf.
You want them to nerf the HT AND the Collosus? o.O
Some selfish people going around here. They want easier wins, not a better more balanced game, otherwise they wouldn't say barbarities like that.
|
On March 01 2011 04:55 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:48 SharkSpider wrote:
A question:
Does the fungal change mean that it does half damage, or damage twice as fast? This might actually be a buff in some cases, if it lets you do 2.6x the damage/second to armored targets, especially if you have lots of infestors. That being said, dodge Fungals, dodge Psi Storms, ... dodge EMP? It does the damage twice as fast I think. This might actually fix the PvZ colossus/stalker problem actually. Just get some infestors out and blow up those stalkers with fungal. Maybe something like infestor + roach?
Infestors dies so easily they need to be 'ethereal' or have something like the larva armor.
|
*edit: so if 1 fungal will do damage 2x fast, 2 fungals beat 1 storm in dps vs. armored (72 total dmg vs. 80 dmg against light i think) and also keep the targets rooted? maybe the missile travel time will make this not so bad.
|
I would have preferred a mech buff instead of nerfs to Protoss. Ah well...
|
On March 01 2011 05:01 Apolo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:57 LegendaryZ wrote:On March 01 2011 04:38 willoc wrote:
Agreed. I can't believe how many QQs are going around here. The only thing I thought blizz missed in this patch was something to do with ZvP colossus. Either a corrupter buff or a colossus nerf.
You want them to nerf the HT AND the Collosus? o.O Some selfish people going around here. They want easier wins, not a better more balanced game, otherwise they wouldn't say barbarities like that.
How would a corrupter buff help me out when i play T? Sorry, am I still talking in "barbarities"? I'm sure your snide remarks and lack of explanations help your point.
|
On March 01 2011 05:05 taintmachine wrote:
*edit: so if 1 fungal will do damage 2x fast, 2 fungals beat 1 storm in dps vs. armored (72 vs. 80 against light i think) and also keep the targets rooted? maybe the missile travel time will make this not so bad.
Thing is, I don't think you can stack fungals. You'd have to cast the next 1 after the 4 seconds.
|
nm you're right. i'm dumb. not an issue at all really when comparing it to storm, then. much bigger buff to the dps of fungal than i thought it would be
|
On March 01 2011 04:51 Kyadytim wrote:
Compared to the Photon Cannon (150 minerals, can't move, can't be salvaged) and the Spine Crawler (100 minerals + drone, can move, can't be salvaged), the Bunker (100 minerals + SCV time, can't move, can be salvaged) punishes the player the least for putting up defensive structures that turn out to not be necessary.
Bunker (100 minerals + SCV time, can't move, can be salvaged, doesnt shoot)
4 Marines (200 minerals)
|
On March 01 2011 04:08 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 03:54 Ballistixz wrote:This is a perfect example of a balance problem. The bunker is a prett essential defensive structure in many scenarios, but it is also used offensively. So, it is really hard to balance it for both functions.
(1) With the 30 second build time you could barely get a bunker up if you scouted a rush, or needed to block an all-in counter attack.
(2) 30 second build time was pretty tough to hold in some bunker rush scenarios.
(3) At 40 seconds an on-call defensive bunker is now impossible on every map. If you don't preemptively build the bunker you don't have one. End of story.
(4) This will make offensive bunkers much less useful in early game.
Bunker mechanics are almost as broken as Force Field - almost. since terrans have the option of building PFs at there most vulnerable expansions they hardly have need for bunkers mid and late game. also terrans have a little ability called "salvage" so its pretty much a no brainer to put bunkers down early at ur expansion even if a rush isnt coming. you get 100% of your money back in a refund.... 40 second build time is good for how powerful a bunker truly is for how low of a cost it is. and on top of that low cost its 100% refundable. ya 40 seconds is nothing. I'm actually concerned about this. It's arguable, but the Infestor is probably the most powerful spellcaster in the game, and Fungal Growth is one of the main reasons for this. The Stun Duration nerf is absolutely needed, but a 30% increase in damage to armored might be a little out of line.
I think this is probably because of one game unit: The Stalker.
QUESTION: That has to mean it deals the damage 100% faster, right? That's a HUUUUUGE buff. no its not such a huge buff as u think.... DO NOT let the 30% increase to armored units fool u. if u used infestors on PTR then u would know that the knew fungal is almost useless. stalkers and blink stalkers can dodge fungal SO EASILY that its almost a joke to use it against them if the toss player is even half decent. a biobal of stimmed marines/marauders can also dodge it if the terran player has good control. u might catch a few marines/units but the terran can still split units to lessen dmg. so to get a successfull fungal off u have to catch the army by surprise. however if u do catch them and u have enough fungals then the dps would be very good. so its not a huuge buff and the 4 second reduction in duration is a obvious nerf since fungal was mainly used to stop units rather then deal damage. imo this change to fungal was to make infestors more of a damage caster for zerg similar to defilier and plauge in BW. if u have enough infestors and can actually catch a army then it can be pretty insane dps for zerg. but again, catching a army with the new fungal is the problem... RE: BunkerI'm only really concerned about early-game and mid-game transition scenarios, really. Nobody is building a PF until base number three. The bunker is "powerful" because it is the only static defensive building in the game that requires active supply to attack ground units. The refund is nice, of course, but you still spend the money and it is gone until you salvage. So in early game bunkers significantly delay your BO. I prefer unit based defense in early game, which means I cannot tech. I just don't trust nor do I like relying on bunkers. Protoss lols at bunkers, but they are good versus Zerg. RE: FungalDo you honestly think Fungal was fine the way it was? Some sort of nerf was absolutely necessary imo. As I said, I'm concerned about this change. I'm not sure if it was the right one. Reducing stun is a step in the right direction. I really dislike the manipulation spells in this game. They just seem really hard to balance for both offensive and defensive purposes.
fungal honestly didnt need a nerf. if a terran seen highly oriented infestor play, like infestor bling for example, a terran can easily incoprate ghosts into his army mix and negate infestors entirely. its also not all that great against mech. as for toss, well they got range 9 colls to pick off infestors easily.
as for bunkers, if u dont prefer defense then thats ur fault if u get owned by a rush, not balance issue.
On March 01 2011 04:51 Kyadytim wrote:
It's funny to read TimeSpiral complaining that at 40 seconds, it's impossible to get an on-call bunker up on most maps, as Zerg certainly can't put up an on-call spine crawler (50 second build time), and Protoss can't put up an on-call photon cannon (40 second build time, and need to have a forge already). Compared to the Photon Cannon (150 minerals, can't move, can't be salvaged) and the Spine Crawler (100 minerals + drone, can move, can't be salvaged), the Bunker (100 minerals + SCV time, can't move, can be salvaged) punishes the player the least for putting up defensive structures that turn out to not be necessary.
exactly, this guy got it right. a terran can deal wit 40 second build time. i have no idea why a terran would even complain. especially since its CHEAP, STRONG, REPAIRABLE, AND REFUNDABLE.
|
Regarding the bunker: What surprises me when reading comments on the bunker build time change is that it is barely even mentioned that due to the longer build time, repairing the bunker will be 16.7% less effective as it is now, meaning that an SCV will repair 17% slower, as repair time depends on build time in relation to unit maximum HP.
This should be particularly relevant when using the bunker as a defensive measure, since realistically that's when you will have more options to repair it under fire.
|
It might just be me sucking but ghosts never completely negate templars in my games. I think people are very much overly simplifying this dynamic here.
Most always, the Protoss player will get at least 1-2 good storms off. A well placed EMP can remove further storms from those templars but by not EMPing the rest of the army, you haven't really dealt any damage yet while the storms did. And then of course more templars can be warped in close by to storm again while you might already be out of EMPs.
|
On March 01 2011 05:14 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2011 04:51 Kyadytim wrote:
Compared to the Photon Cannon (150 minerals, can't move, can't be salvaged) and the Spine Crawler (100 minerals + drone, can move, can't be salvaged), the Bunker (100 minerals + SCV time, can't move, can be salvaged) punishes the player the least for putting up defensive structures that turn out to not be necessary. Bunker (100 minerals + SCV time, can't move, can be salvaged, doesnt shoot) 4 Marines ( 200 minerals)
Not to mention 4 supply.
|
On March 01 2011 05:16 bobthemage wrote:
Regarding the bunker: What surprises me when reading comments on the bunker build time change is that it is barely even mentioned that due to the longer build time, repairing the bunker will be 16.7% less effective as it is now, meaning that an SCV will repair 17% slower, as repair time depends on build time in relation to unit maximum HP.
This should be particularly relevant when using the bunker as a defensive measure, since realistically that's when you will have more options to repair it under fire.
Oh... I forsee a lot of 4 gates.
|
Oh look. Blizzard is test-nerfing bunkers (a one-base all in). Maybe this will drive Terrans to be more macro oriented on the new maps with wide-open expansions that they can't build supply depots all around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
