EPTI personally think a Fungal range nerf to like 7-8 is also in order, but that's just me.
Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 258
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
I personally think a Fungal range nerf to like 7-8 is also in order, but that's just me. | ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
Osteriet
Denmark149 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On July 11 2012 04:32 dabom88 wrote: Ultimately, PDDs working on Brood Lords again would probably be the most minimal and simple thing they could do to help fix late game TvZ. Siege Tanks can then hold positions better, making is so that Infestors will have to step into Siege Tank range in order to help fight Vikings. I personally think a Fungal range nerf to like 7-8 is also in order, but that's just me. I just hope Terran doesn't start complaining after this PDD re-fix that PDD cannot work well vs corruptors because BLs drained all energy. The irony is that Zerg might want PDD to work vs broodlings so that corruptors can fight better. All you need is 20 broodling shots to drain all energy. Step.1 BLs are good Step.2 Make PDD work vs broodlings Step.3 PDD energy drains rather quickly Step.4 Corruptors fight better Step.5 Harder to kill BLs Step.6 Dont't complain now because you wanted it!! I personally think this is how it would go. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On July 11 2012 04:53 Orek wrote: I just hope Terran doesn't start complaining after this PDD re-fix that PDD cannot work well vs corruptors because BLs drained all energy. The irony is that Zerg might want PDD to work vs broodlings so that corruptors can fight better. All you need is 20 broodling shots to drain all energy. Step.1 BLs are good Step.2 Make PDD work vs broodlings Step.3 PDD energy drains rather quickly Step.4 Corruptors fight better Step.5 Harder to kill BLs Step.6 Dont't complain now because you wanted it!! I personally think this is how it would go. Though that would be ignoring the fact that Infestors would have a more difficult time helping out the Corruptors due to the fact that Terrans can then keep their Siege Tanks sieged if they have enough PDDs, and Siege Tanks outrange Fungal Growth. Plus, Terrans also have Thors. | ||
|
Toastie.NL
Netherlands232 Posts
I mean, 5 ravens should give you enough PDD energy!? | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On July 11 2012 02:37 Toastie.NL wrote: Autocast removal might as well be removal of the spell. You can't target 40 zealots every 15 seconds. I would be in favor of losing 10 shields/hp per charge, so turning charge on becomes a decision instead of a given. It's not harder to target 40 zealot than 2 zealots, it requires the same amount of clicks. I'd be in favor of removing the autocast if the permanent speed increase granted by charge upgrade is increased. Instead of 2.25 > 2.75 it could be up to 3.0 or 3.25. As of now, it's no secret that protoss armies require less micro so I don't think it's such a bad thing. It differentiates between good and bad players, and make you feel like a boss when you win by superior zealot control. | ||
|
Toastie.NL
Netherlands232 Posts
On July 11 2012 06:35 RavenLoud wrote: It's not harder to target 40 zealot than 2 zealots, it requires the same amount of clicks. I'd be in favor of removing the autocast if the permanent speed increase granted by charge upgrade is increased. Instead of 2.25 > 2.75 it could be up to 3.0 or 3.25. As of now, it's no secret that protoss armies require less micro so I don't think it's such a bad thing. It differentiates between good and bad players, and make you feel like a boss when you win by superior zealot control. I am pretty sure not using charge is more beneficial than charging 1 unit with 40 zealots which will all freak out in an attempt to reach said unit. Speed increase no, because they would always beat marines with no micro if you'd do that, forcing Terran to have at least enough marauders to concussive all zealots. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On July 11 2012 06:39 Toastie.NL wrote: I am pretty sure not using charge is more beneficial than charging 1 unit with 40 zealots which will all freak out in an attempt to reach said unit. Speed increase no, because they would always beat marines with no micro if you'd do that, forcing Terran to have at least enough marauders to concussive all zealots. Well charge AI doesn't behave that differently, player can send 1 unit out front to draw the autocharging zealots now too. I like the idea of manual charge, less skilled players will click 1 unit with 40 zealots while good players can split them up efficiently. At least this gives you some choice with regards to how you zealot charge instead of prepositioning. More involvement of the player is good. As for the marine argument, zealot still start with 2.25, I'm taking about after the charge upgrade that already provide a speed increase from 2.25 to 2.75. It doesn't change anything, the dps and the heath of the marine/zealot remain the same and the charge speed remain the same. 3.0 is still slower than stimmed marines (3.33) IMO they should have made it non autocast since the beginning. Now its a bit awkward to impose, and Blizzard doesn't have the balls to do something like this. | ||
|
Jarree
Finland1004 Posts
On July 11 2012 07:24 RavenLoud wrote: IMO they should have made it non autocast since the beginning. Now its a bit awkward to impose, and Blizzard doesn't have the balls to do something like this. This. Imagine the bnet forums if that would happen. No blizz employee wants that kind of shitstorm. | ||
|
[Azn]Nada
United States275 Posts
On July 10 2012 12:57 larse wrote: 1. HSC V is not an accident. http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2509/tgth.jpg http://i.imgur.com/WL1rr.jpg http://bildr.no/view/1224863 http://i.minus.com/ijF6GRNzqbJwh.png http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all 2. Reread David Kim's comment before the queen buff is again interesting: ""We’re currently looking into a couple of potential issues. Zerg has recently shifted from making a very strong showing in tournaments, to having slightly weaker representation only at the highest levels of professional play. We’re also continuing to see a slight advantage for terran in terms of opening flexibility and scouting denial. In response, we’re considering offering zerg better scouting options in the early game."" It seems like even David Kim didn't notice that there are hidden problems in TvZ mid-to-lategame that the queen buff exposes. The reason that Terran has do early economic damage to Zerg is that there are fundamental design flaws and basic imbalances in the mid-to-late game compositions that disfavor Terran. Even in equal economy + equal supply, Terran usually has a difficult time to win, because of the mid-to-late game army strength is imbalanced. No to mention that Zerg is easy to be ahead economically. 3. Since this season, the Terran play style in early, mid, and late game are drastically different from the pre-queen-buff era. The innovation that these players put out is phenomenal. And all these new strategies that Terran used in GSL are spread out into other tournaments as well. Did they improve Terran's chance against the new Zerg? Yes. But did those innovations achieve good results for Terran? No. 4. This is the difference of Terran micro and Zerg a-move that people are talking about: 5. Some best example of nerfs going too far: Reaper changes: Ghost changes: 6. Solution? The new Terran metagame: http://twitter.com/DeMusliM/status/222300592444411904/photo/1/large My god dude, after those 5 pictures, I think I haven't laughed that hard in ages. Zergs always QQ, and I've been really bugged about how quiet zergs have been about whining these days (terrans tend not to bitch nearly as much). Now I realize why, there's simply nothing left to complain about, every terran unit they wanted nerfed has been nerfed... maybe they'll complain about the scv next... nvm thats been nerfed too | ||
|
themell
43 Posts
The reason is that the range of broodlords will allow them to slowly drain the PDD's energy. Right now, you can throw down a PDD, and run in with your vikings to take out their broodlords. If the zerg has too few corrupters, the PDD will let the Terran kill off the zerg air with minimal casualties. If the zerg has to many corrupters, the PDD will absorb some shots while the vikings can kite back towards missile turrets. | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
On July 11 2012 04:53 Orek wrote: I just hope Terran doesn't start complaining after this PDD re-fix that PDD cannot work well vs corruptors because BLs drained all energy. The irony is that Zerg might want PDD to work vs broodlings so that corruptors can fight better. All you need is 20 broodling shots to drain all energy. Step.1 BLs are good Step.2 Make PDD work vs broodlings Step.3 PDD energy drains rather quickly Step.4 Corruptors fight better Step.5 Harder to kill BLs Step.6 Dont't complain now because you wanted it!! I personally think this is how it would go. unless liquidpedia is wrong, brood lords have a slower cooldown than corruptors i think that given every brood lord shot basically counts as bonus tank damage on your own army, tanking brood lord shots is way more valuable terran could really use a gas dump once 3/3 is done and ravens are the only unit that costs more gas than minerals, so i definitely think it's the thing to change unless you want to do something like revert the ghost nerf | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 11 2012 06:16 Toastie.NL wrote: I think PDD being able to hit Broodlings again might very well be the thing we seek for a much stronger lategame Terran. Interesting. I mean, 5 ravens should give you enough PDD energy!? Having to rely on an energy ability is not that great IMO. There should be ways to sensibly defend against them with other units and as a lategame unit the BC should be the counter to it, but then that unit is crap atm and countered by so many things in the Zerg arsenal. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
| ||
|
Wildmoon
Thailand4189 Posts
| ||
|
BlindKill
Australia1508 Posts
On July 11 2012 15:04 larse wrote: I don't even know why we are having these complicated conversation. Even though now we are seeing many problems in TvZ throughout early, mid, and late game, but the TvZ balance was completely fine before the queen buff. So the easiest way is still to revert the queen buff. The queen buff is like a magnifier that shows all the problems in TvZ, but as long as we removes the magnifier, then everything will back to normal. That involves Blizzard admitting they are wrong in implementing the queen's buff in the first place (first rule of sc2, blizzard is always right). It is more likely that the lategame of Terran will be buffed and the early game of Zerg nerfed, and the "tug of war" of prepatch TvZ is lost forever. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 11 2012 15:24 BlindKill wrote: That involves Blizzard admitting they are wrong in implementing the queen's buff in the first place (first rule of sc2, blizzard is always right). It is more likely that the lategame of Terran will be buffed and the early game of Zerg nerfed, and the "tug of war" of prepatch TvZ is lost forever. I for one am grateful for the Queen buff simply because it is showing the structural flaw in the race design. A race between a car and a bike is only fair for about 10m ... unless you also add traffic jams to the route. The balance of races should work equally well on maps of all sizes without major adjustments to the units or trickery from the mapmaker. This is something which Blizzard has to come to term with and which is the BIG ONE where they have to admit being wrong ... which will most likely never happen, but which would make them awesome again after all the BNet0.2 debacle. Without the three different macro-mechanics and production boosts the game would be better off since the balance for NOT HAVING THEM has already - kinda - been established in BW and a game at a slower pace can be adjust MUCH easier than a game at high speed. Sadly Blizzard seems to be riding a wild bull and tries to hang on for their life instead of letting go and letting that beast calm down. The inability and unwillingness of Dustin Browder to at least TRY and make the Carrier work (they didnt change it one bit for ages even though it was unused for the same time) makes me doubt their abilities to think clearly about the game balance and what is necessary. They really seem like being in the "we are always right and we have a vision" mode which is ver frustrating when there are soo many good alternatives which arent tried out.  | ||
|
gengka
Malaysia461 Posts
On July 11 2012 15:15 Wildmoon wrote: I think Raven's seeker missile cost too much energy and Raven move a bit too slow too. This and i mean come on, the missile takes 125 energy to cast. Compare to storm and fungal that take only 75 energy (what?) and the casting range is 6 compare to 9 for storm and fungal growth (again what?) and the raven's movement speed is not helping at all. fungal and storm are instant cast while the missile needs time to travel to the target and the targets can get away easily. This is a direct comparison that everyone can make, and i fail to understand why blizzard is ignoring this. | ||
|
dabom88
United States3483 Posts
On July 11 2012 16:44 gengka wrote: This and i mean come on, the missile takes 125 energy to cast. Compare to storm and fungal that take only 75 energy (what?) and the casting range is 6 compare to 9 for storm and fungal growth (again what?) and the raven's movement speed is not helping at all. fungal and storm are instant cast while the missile needs time to travel to the target and the targets can get away easily. This is a direct comparison that everyone can make, and i fail to understand why blizzard is ignoring this. EMP is essentially comparable to Storm TvP. | ||
| ||
