|
On July 16 2012 13:13 Cracked wrote:
I do think it's somewhat amusing that a year or two ago, David Kim/Dustin Browder kept insisting that not having rocks at the 3rd would make zerg incredibly overpowered.
Noone believed them then. Now that 3 hatch strategies are far more refined, it's interesting to see the "clueless" blizzard designers being absolutely right.
Now this isn't to say that rocks on the 3rd is the best solution to this issue, but their original intent with the rocks was correct.
Rocks on the 3rd makes zerg incredibly underpowered. If there was some alternative though, like a weaker destructible rocks, that might be plausible. Just something to force more than 4 lings if you want a <5 minute 3rd base. Even just forcing 6 or 8 lings and delaying the 3rd by 30 seconds would probably have a large impact on the matchup.
|
On July 16 2012 13:19 Pato wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 13:07 baba1 wrote:
I remember a time when everyone felt that Zergs were way too strong. That was a looong time ago.
Then 'Slayer_Boxer' arrived.
Just saying ! wake up and see reality lol
Reality is someone figured how to win without help from Blizzard.
Oov once went on a 27-0 tvz win streak at some point in his career.
Did they nerf terran for that ?
|
Issue: Zerg seems to get units too fast once they know a push is coming and aren't really in a position to get punished for greedy play in TvZ.
Solution: Increase Spawn Larva time from 40 seconds to 45 or 50 seconds.
Side Effect: This could be an issue with the current PvZ metagame where two base timings are incredibly potent and the Zerg might not be able to hold. This could also create a slippery slope where if Zerg loses one engagement they be in a very difficult spot to come back.
|
On July 16 2012 13:35 Najda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 13:13 Cracked wrote:
I do think it's somewhat amusing that a year or two ago, David Kim/Dustin Browder kept insisting that not having rocks at the 3rd would make zerg incredibly overpowered.
Noone believed them then. Now that 3 hatch strategies are far more refined, it's interesting to see the "clueless" blizzard designers being absolutely right.
Now this isn't to say that rocks on the 3rd is the best solution to this issue, but their original intent with the rocks was correct. Rocks on the 3rd makes zerg incredibly underpowered. If there was some alternative though, like a weaker destructible rocks, that might be plausible. Just something to force more than 4 lings if you want a <5 minute 3rd base. Even just forcing 6 or 8 lings and delaying the 3rd by 30 seconds would probably have a large impact on the matchup.
zerg doesn't need a 3rd base by 5-6 minute mark to compete against terran or protoss... incredibly underpowered? it is after the queens buff that zerg starts getting 3rd as early as this. Most timing before hand is around 7-8 minute mark
|
While some are legit opinions on balance, others are not.
Whoever dies to old stephano style 12min max roach today doesn't know what he is doing.
On ladder, yes it is still stong, but at top level, I don't think it is nearly as strong as it was 3 months ago.
No balance change is necessary for this matter.
12min max roach is not the core of the PvZ balance issue.
|
On July 16 2012 13:28 SuperYo1000 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 13:13 Cracked wrote:
I do think it's somewhat amusing that a year or two ago, David Kim/Dustin Browder kept insisting that not having rocks at the 3rd would make zerg incredibly overpowered.
Noone believed them then. Now that 3 hatch strategies are far more refined, it's interesting to see the "clueless" blizzard designers being absolutely right.
Now this isn't to say that rocks on the 3rd is the best solution to this issue, but their original intent with the rocks was correct. I completely forgot about that....hmm....that would be an interesting solution Me and my friend (master Terran) debate on what would actually help the current state of the game. (Im protoss btw) We thought this could be an interesting switch up Put seeker missle on the ghost and Emp on Raven What this does for: TvZ gives some kind of earlier defense verse baneling/whatever unit play. Instead of Terran relying on awesome marine splits and perfectly position tanks. A seeker missle could shift the pressure back to zerg. Obviously there would have to be a bit more stat changes to be usuable and not op at the same time TvP It would be used to take out heavy templar tech. It would encourage less deathball ish play as to avoid being clumped and eating a couple seekermissles. Only problem would be cloaked ghost shooting seeker missles. It could be very very powerful. Emp being on a Raven would give emps a lot easier time to get into position to EMP. and it would help raven to counter templar feedback. Again this is something that is highly debated between me and him and we both see many pro's and cons of this change. Our main interest was to give terran a cheaper aoe to deal with zerg
hmmm, interesting suggestion
|
On July 16 2012 13:38 shockaslim wrote:
Issue: Zerg seems to get units too fast once they know a push is coming and aren't really in a position to get punished for greedy play in TvZ.
Solution: Increase Spawn Larva time from 40 seconds to 45 or 50 seconds.
Side Effect: This could be an issue with the current PvZ metagame where two base timings are incredibly potent and the Zerg might not be able to hold. This could also create a slippery slope where if Zerg loses one engagement they be in a very difficult spot to come back.
Diamond Terran here...so take this with a grain of salt.
But wouldn't increasing the spawn larva time make zerg weaker early game. We all know that FFE and 3 OC provide a huge boost to the protoss and terran economies respectively and give them a larger income. Increasing the spawn larva time would delay drones which puts zerg even more behind. 5 seconds for each larva is huge.
|
Northern Ireland27477 Posts
Just a paste here from another thread I posted on, to a guy who stated that Protoss don't try things/need to innovate
Note, I was a bit jaded when posting, it was after many hours of seeing my beloved Protoss getting stomped by Stephano so take it with a pinch of salt if you think I'm being whiny. I also feel that the NASL map pool didn't help, the ease or difficulty that a third can be held off with relatively few units really affects PvZ balance imo.
It's not Toss being one-dimensional that is the problem in this matchup anymore. I agree this used to be the case but the issue I see now is that it is Zerg that is making it one dimensional because they have robust, catch-all openings that give them all the economy they need, with the addition of a lot of offensive capability, and even if taken by surprise by a good timing attack, can be easily modified for the next set.
Watch any long BoX that Protoss play, you see almost a different gameplan every game, Protoss have to mix it up to survive. MC used Stargate openings, warp prism drops, DT openings and 3 base passive robo styles iirc, and that was only a Bo7! Stephano was able to do pretty much the same opening every game, with subtle variations bar the mutalisk game.
Playstyles like Hero/JYPs warp prism centric play, which imo are some of the greatest styles aesthetically to watch just aren't strong enough to make a staple of your play because Zerg can straight up kill you if you're trying to be cute.
Infestors are too good of a catch-all option, strong against all but timing attacks before they pop out. They deal with air, hell can even root pesky DTs in place. Even the Queen buff meant zealot/stalker harassment is a lot less viable, making gateway openers conversely weaker.
I had thought that Protoss were actually doing pretty well figuring out how to split and hit different locations, but Zergs have refined their style more so this makes this even harder to do.
|
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
|
On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
not going to lie....ret played really bad that series. MC just out classed him HARDcore and MC has some of the BEST PvZ atm and even then it was proven not good enough when he played Stephano which showed how easily it was to defeat protoss. Ret play sooooo poorly that series it doesnt even count.
|
Which is why all the macro mechanics should be eliminated. See my post on the previous page (267).
|
On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
Because Ret isn't nearly as good. Even if Zerg is 20% stronger than Protoss(which would be a huge deal), if MC is 100% better than Ret, he's still gonna wipe the floor with him. Stephano is much closer to MC's level, still I don't think Stephano is as good as MC though.
|
On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
Pretty sure you're trolling, as no one who mentioned MC's victory over Ret said anything about Protoss being underpowered in the m/u. People are only saying that Ret tossed a game that everyone knew was in the bag.
It's fine if you disagree, but your 'argument' isn't actually an argument.
|
On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
Multiple time GSL Champion beat a foreigner who is repeatedly quoted as being an under achiever. MUST BE BALANCED.
|
You know a nerf is coming when both Terran and Protoss agree that Zerg is imba atm. I honestly think that PvZ/ZvP is the most boring to watch. Z is too stale, and Protoss seems like it is just battling to have a chance. TvZ has been talked to death. Agree or not, the game looks and feels imbalanced. Units that are too effective against everything make for a really boring game. Infestors are next on the chopping block.
|
On July 16 2012 14:02 xPabt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
Multiple time GSL Champion beat a foreigner who is repeatedly quoted as being an under achiever. MUST BE BALANCED.
How often have you been in the NASL semi finals? I love how you say that Ret is just a foreigner under achiever.
|
On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
hell my 11 year old brother comes up with better arguments....if ur not willing or able to discuss in a prober way, just stay out of it, please.
|
On July 16 2012 13:57 0neder wrote:
Which is why all the macro mechanics should be eliminated. See my post on the previous page (267).
Partially agree. Only differ in that I don't see much reason to completely remove something if it's possible to, say, reduce larva spawn to 3 or 2 each time or, as someone suggested earlier, increase time. Possibly also mess with mule and chrono boost and make those weaker somehow (about a year ago, I would have said something more specific about mule and something vague about larva and chrono, but times change). Apparently Blizzard likes taking big jumps in changes though, such as removal of KA instead of nerf, snipe, queen from 3 to 5, complete removal of carrier, not that I disagree with all of them (though most of them for this reason).
Basically, instead of eliminating macro mechanics, at least try to keep them alive, albeit nerfed. On the zerg side, it would be a nice way to increase the skill ceiling by forcing you to hit injects, except apparently it lets you bludgeon your opponent to death without much effort aside from that.
Either way, that would probably be a sufficiently big change that's more suited towards hots or lotv beta rather than a patch, though that'll probably be a ways off :/
It's also possible that I've watched too much starcraft recently and just don't want to see infestor/broodlord balls every few minutes.
EDIT: Looking at Patch 1.4.0, did Blizzard actually have infestor/broodlord in mind with some of these changes?
+ Show Spoiler +
- Immortal range increase: affected every matchup, but is relevant PvZ with the immortal sentry all-in and holding off the roach ling
- Mothership acceleration increase: it was noted that this makes it easier to cast vortex since the mothership has to completely decelerate to cast
- Warp prism health increase: the other common suggested way of dealing with infestor/broodlord (prisms everywhere) got a buff here
- Seeker missile speed increase: byun says battlecruiser raven works, though we have yet to see it from him (personally I've only seen it live in mvp vs golden, and golden clumped all his air as the hsm flew in, away from infestors)
- Infestor: damage reduction on fungal and neural parasite range decrease, fungal should be obvious and neural parasite seems to deal with the vortex solution
Obviously as this discussion pertains to the current balance patch, this doesn't actually say anything about possible solutions if the game is actually imbalanced in zerg's favor, and I personally doubt they actually were thinking infestor/broodlord deathball given their subsequent changes, but I found this interesting
|
On July 16 2012 13:38 shockaslim wrote:
Issue: Zerg seems to get units too fast once they know a push is coming and aren't really in a position to get punished for greedy play in TvZ.
Solution: Increase Spawn Larva time from 40 seconds to 45 or 50 seconds.
Side Effect: This could be an issue with the current PvZ metagame where two base timings are incredibly potent and the Zerg might not be able to hold. This could also create a slippery slope where if Zerg loses one engagement they be in a very difficult spot to come back.
Increased larva spawn time doesnt fix anything in the late game. Just get 1-2 additional hatcheries with a Queen and you have the same production capability as ever. The only effect this has is to screw up the early game for Zerg and you can have that again in a known quantity by reverting the Queen change.
Before the range increase the Zerg were having trouble early on by suffering from Hellion harrassment. That may be all good and well, but none of them really built enough Spine Crawlers to defend themselves. I am not talking about one Spine Crawler but rather 4+ ... as many as required for a defense of the natural to prevent entry. Thus I believe they were not defending themselves properly. Its about the same as Terrans not walling off against Zerg and then starting to complain about the matchup being sooo hard when they lose a lot to Zergling attacks. A very wise saying from Babylon 5: "If you try to prove a point, why dont you prove it so no one misses it?" and in this case it means building enough Spine Crawlers that any attack from Hellions will be cost inefficient. Sadly the Zerg have no regard for self preservation and thus build zero Spine Crawlers ... which have been made redundant by the range increase.
|
On July 16 2012 14:21 uzushould wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 13:52 baba1 wrote:
If zerg is that much stronger than protoss then why did MC demolished Ret 4-0 in the semis?
Come on, stop with the balance whining now.
hell my 11 year old brother comes up with better arguments....if ur not willing or able to discuss in a prober way, just stay out of it, please.
Because the only thing you guys are talking about is how zerg should get nerfed? And nothing about how protoss and terran could evolve/step it up?
Like all protoss and terrans are at 100% of their potential and everything about the pvz and tvz metagame has been discovered in 2 years... Lot of things can change and it doesn't have to be Blizzard changing them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
