|
On April 05 2011 20:14 nkr wrote:
Also I find it hilarious with comments like "oh huk attacked and he only had a hellion". If a protoss goes for a DT rush vs T and gets attacked before the DT are out, is he then a terrible player because he only had a sentry and a few stalker/zealots?
So what awesome strategy was he going for against what he presumably scouted, a 3 gate robo? Triple Thor rush maybe? Lol.
|
I really feel like Blizzard's approach of 'lets nerf everything' will eventually run the potential of the game into the ground.
|
On April 05 2011 22:07 NoXious90 wrote:
I really feel like Blizzard's approach of 'lets nerf everything' will eventually run the potential of the game into the ground.
They buff stuff all the time....They just buffed the battle cruiser. Protoss just got a batch of Buffs a while ago, Zerg infestors just got a buff...
So yeah..wut?
|
On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
Terran
Battlecruiser movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Although we don’t want to see battlecruisers used in every terran late game, we noticed they’re hardly ever used at all. To encourage their use in more games, we decided to buff their biggest weakness, movement speed.
curiously they didnt have the same feelings for carriers...
|
1.3 killed the game...
Enough said really. It was fast and fun, gg Blizz!
|
On April 05 2011 22:30 beute wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
Terran
Battlecruiser movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Although we don’t want to see battlecruisers used in every terran late game, we noticed they’re hardly ever used at all. To encourage their use in more games, we decided to buff their biggest weakness, movement speed.
curiously they didnt have the same feelings for carriers...
I find it important, or at least relevant, to note that the BC movement speed buff just put it on par with the Carrier's current movement speed.
Do you know why it's a joke that no one builds Carriers? It's because carriers are actually good, but right now Protoss does not need them so they don't build them (with the exception of a tank farm). Right now it seems that the GW Colossus ball wins the majority of games that warpgate rushes/pressures fail to win.
The BC buff was basically for TvT in my opinion. You still need air superiority, and four bases, before you can even think about BCs, but at least they are similar in speed to Vikings now.
|
On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 22:30 beute wrote:On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
Terran
Battlecruiser movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Although we don’t want to see battlecruisers used in every terran late game, we noticed they’re hardly ever used at all. To encourage their use in more games, we decided to buff their biggest weakness, movement speed.
curiously they didnt have the same feelings for carriers... I find it important, or at least relevant, to note that the BC movement speed buff just put it on par with the Carrier's current movement speed. Do you know why it's a joke that no one builds Carriers? It's because carriers are actually good, but right now Protoss does not need them so they don't build them (with the exception of a tank farm). Right now it seems that the GW Colossus ball wins the majority of games that warpgate rushes/pressures fail to win.
Correction: GW only can win, look at MC he doesn't even need colossus and he can roflstomp literally anyone on any given day!
|
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged.
|
On April 05 2011 20:54 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 20:14 nkr wrote:
Also I find it hilarious with comments like "oh huk attacked and he only had a hellion". If a protoss goes for a DT rush vs T and gets attacked before the DT are out, is he then a terrible player because he only had a sentry and a few stalker/zealots? So what awesome strategy was he going for against what he presumably scouted, a 3 gate robo? Triple Thor rush maybe? Lol.
I don't know, and neither do you.
|
On April 05 2011 23:03 Brandus wrote:
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged.
This, while i think they are doing a decent job at balancing, they just don`t think about entertainment value of stuff such as the reaper and HT, both of which are a joke ATM
|
On April 05 2011 20:06 Seam wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 17:51 theBOOCH wrote:* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins.
I thought this was funny. Watching dayvies games always makes me question what Blizzard is thinking. At MLG Dallas I watched Huk (from over his shoulder) play a warm up game against dayvie (just a random ladder match on bnet). Dayvie went some three factory rush something or other against Huks 3gate robo. Huk attacked and dayvie had 1 hellion... I'm sure he doesn't play like that all the time, but how can he be a balance designer if he doesn't know (or doesnt care that) a strat like that is going to fail 99.9% of the time X( Dayvie is actually super good. He's on the same MMR as HuK, for example. And is one of(If not the) highest ranked Random player in the world.
Dayvie does absolutely nothing but cheese/weird strats every time I meet him on ladder. He might be testing things, or he might just be a little cheeser >:O
|
I feel that the stim nerf was too much, lategame Protoss is more a forcefield than colossus problem, but protoss needs forcefield as it is to defend early game.
And ZvP 4gate is more a scouting problem. A fake expand into 4gate is too powerfull.
|
On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 22:30 beute wrote:On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
Terran
Battlecruiser movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Although we don’t want to see battlecruisers used in every terran late game, we noticed they’re hardly ever used at all. To encourage their use in more games, we decided to buff their biggest weakness, movement speed.
curiously they didnt have the same feelings for carriers... I find it important, or at least relevant, to note that the BC movement speed buff just put it on par with the Carrier's current movement speed. Do you know why it's a joke that no one builds Carriers? It's because carriers are actually good, but right now Protoss does not need them so they don't build them (with the exception of a tank farm). Right now it seems that the GW Colossus ball wins the majority of games that warpgate rushes/pressures fail to win. The BC buff was basically for TvT in my opinion. You still need air superiority, and four bases, before you can even think about BCs, but at least they are similar in speed to Vikings now.
Carriers are kind of like Terran mech vs Protoss. Practically only players who don't play the race think it's actually any good.
In all seriousness though, the problem with Carriers is that you can't get them off less than 3 bases. They're not a unit like the Colossus, where you can expand, and start getting Colossi before you hit 100 supply as support for your gateway army. They just take too long to build and don't do enough for their huge cost. Furthermore, marines and hydras own interceptors really hard.
If the cost of the Fleet Beacon was reduced to like 250/150 (so Stargate + FB has the same cost as Robo + Colossus Den), and if Carrier build time was reduced to around BC build time, we may see Carriers actually used in armies. Until then though, don't think so. Even if you nerf Colossus into the ground, Immortal/Templar will probably be strictly superior to any Carrier shenaningans.
|
I may be wrong, but all actual balance concerns aside, isn't the carrier missing some sort of role in starcraft2, where it is actually worth getting them?
PvP: Never actually goes long enough to get them + colossi rules the later stages
PvT: In sc1 terrans went mech, almost pure tank/vulture wich made them lacking in anti-air, so a protoss could make carriers, and then the terran had to get goliaths.
But in sc2 terran goes bio 98% of the games, and there again the colossi just rules, since you need that splash (well maybe not need, see adellscott), but if you don't get that aoe you have tons of AA (marines) that can focus down carriers.
ZvP: Okay carriers could probably work here, but again, there is nothing a colossus/voidray/(blink) stalker can't take care off.
So I don't really see a use for them where you would get them over the usual choices, and does protoss really need another strong lategame option to go for?
I feel like if you buff the carrier to a point where you prefer it over the colossus/voidray then your just gonna break the game.
It's like the terran raven + HSM that never gets used, because terran has already a very large amount of splash (hellion + tanks), if you would buff HSM to a point where you also want to get that it may just be to much.
So I just feel like it's more a problem with the game in general, and the current techtree of toss (aka voidray/colossus > templar/carrier), and the only way I ever see carriers coming back if is this game actually starts to settle on a standard of macro games, and toss gets a more "linear" techpath, aka , you need colossus/voidray/pheonix to stay alive or to get you trough the midgame.
(and then I mean either of those choices, not necessarily both as a deathball.)
But over time once you get more bases and the army's get stronger you would want to go for the stronger choices of templar/carrier.
But as the game is, it just isn't that way.
|
United States17042 Posts
this sentence:
Early/mid game sentries are almost a requirement vs. terran. However, there were scenarios at different skill levels where one EMP would manage to luck out and hit every single sentry, making it so that protoss had no chance to stop the mass Stimpack terran army.
kills me, becuase obviously if an emp hits every single sentry, it's just luck....
wtf?
|
On April 05 2011 23:06 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 20:54 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 20:14 nkr wrote:
Also I find it hilarious with comments like "oh huk attacked and he only had a hellion". If a protoss goes for a DT rush vs T and gets attacked before the DT are out, is he then a terrible player because he only had a sentry and a few stalker/zealots? So what awesome strategy was he going for against what he presumably scouted, a 3 gate robo? Triple Thor rush maybe? Lol. I don't know, and neither do you.
So stop blindly defending him.
|
Same could be said for your accusations.
|
On April 05 2011 23:03 Brandus wrote:
1.3 basically killed my interest in SC2. HT's were my favorite unit and they nerfed it into the ground. Meanwhile glaring problems like 4gate and collosus go unchanged.
Exactly this. I'm highly disappointed in Blizzard. They don't know how to make a fun game anymore, it seems.
|
On April 05 2011 19:49 nkr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 19:42 zanmat0 wrote:On April 05 2011 19:31 nkr wrote:
And you don't think it's a game balancers job to test out every single strategy there is, instead of doing the same shit game after game? 1 Hellion against 3 gate robo. Maybe he should test out 1 base BCs as well. I mean you never know, right? Doing shit like that and staying on the same mmr as huk should tell you something about how good he is at this game
This. Its not like it is easy to get matched against players like huk in the first place. And please dont come to me with "but he works at blizzard herp derb, they can do whatever they want with their accounts!"
|
On April 06 2011 00:12 nkr wrote:
Same could be said for your accusations.
My accusations are grounded in the fact that he had 1 Hellion against Huk's 3 gate robo push. You're defending him based on speculation that it would have developed into a viable strategy which there is no proof of and seems quite unlikely given the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
