|
Austria24417 Posts
On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:
[quote]
Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:
[quote]
Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun. e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary?
No? Addressing what we see as potential balance issues is healthy and discussion can lead to us figuring out how to deal with them or coming to an eventual conclusion that XY is indeed too strong/weak, etc. Just because I don't want to see the game changed before there's enough evidence to support such action doesn't mean that we can't talk about things we feel need to be addressed based on our experience. It's part of what keeps SC2 revolving and breathing all the time.
|
I would like the old battlecruiser/science vessel dynamic back, with defense matrix, the BC was basically immune to mass marines and resistant to mass hydra. PDD just does not work once there's enough production and critical numbers to gun down mass BCs under two seconds.
Protoss and Zerg as well had abilities to mitigate mass numbers of tier 1 units. Current build of Viper just doesn't cut it.
|
On August 02 2013 19:51 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game.
I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game.
I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary? How could you possibly think that after reading what we have written? Ok, is there something in your mind you'd want to change in SC2?
Yes, I, like Scarlett and Major, think the msc will be next to be nerfed. But I'm not clever enough to think of a good nerf.
There's the safety argument: nexus cannon shuts down all aggression from the moment the msc is out until the 9 minute mark.
Then there's the mobility argument, it allows P to snipe zerg bases for free with recall (actually not that big of a problem).
Third is the soul train argument (time warp), but it's not a common build either.
So I'm guessing that if the Nexus cannon will get nerfed, it will likely be either range (but seige tanks and protecting vital buildings and mineral lines) or duration (60 seconds is forever in SC2 terms). I'd suspect it's more likely going to be duration to allow for more timings, but I don't know the implications because it's beyond me. As for range, from a T perspective it will either allow early tank pushes again or it will allow you to threaten the natural and try to run into the main, forcing an additional sentry from the P.
Would blizz risk another era of 111 (is it even viable without the nexus cannon in the age of viable stargate play with oracles?) I honestly do not know. That's why I'm just waiting for someone smarter to start the discussion, and I'll wait until I know I can contribute something useful to it.
|
On August 02 2013 19:56 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun.
e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 18:50 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 18:30 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Most of online games balance the game by overbuffing something underused (or new), so that people would start using it. Otherwise, they'll never touch 'it'. If it turns out overpowered, they'll balance it. There is nothing wrong with it as long as it is for good intentions, like diversifying the game or adding more fun.
e.g. decreasing cost of burrow. We can't know if its gonna be op or not until people start using it, but we know that people are not willing to use it now, so why not to experiment with it? Why not experiment? Because it might break the game (like the queen buff) and ruin people's livelihoods. You underestimate the number of people who make their money from SC2, and if you ruin the game, your endanger their livelihood. After the end of WoL, viewers have not yet fully returned even with HotS. If we do a random buff again (and especially to Zerg), we risk killing off the entire game. I know this is the place where people come that are unhappy with the current game, but have some perspective for crying out loud, we are currently in a state of relative balance (if only the Korean winrates fluctuate back from Protossville over the next 2 months or so) and we need to keep it like this for a long time for people to regain their confidence that SC2 isn't a broken turd of a game. Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference. After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself. Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary? No? Addressing what we see as potential balance issues is healthy and discussion can lead to us figuring out how to deal with them or coming to an eventual conclusion that XY is indeed too strong/weak, etc. Just because I don't want to see the game changed before there's enough evidence to support such action doesn't mean that we can't talk about things we feel need to be addressed based on our experience. It's part of what keeps SC2 revolving and breathing all the time.
Does 50m/50g burrow upgrade look like game-breaking? It won't affect any of zerg strategies, it will give more options, and when there are more options the better player can always show his skill. I think its worth the risk. But Ghanburighan went on rambling about how it will break the game and it will affect progamer's life.
Look, I'm not telling to change the whole game, but small and neat enchancements might be of a good use.
|
On August 02 2013 19:55 LSN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:39 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 19:01 LSN wrote:On August 02 2013 18:20 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 18:18 saddaromma wrote:
What annoys me the most is how people react when you suggest something in this thread. Even something minor like making cost 50 gas less. You'll get flamed for saying stupidest thing in the world and how it will break the game.
I agree some suggestions go overboard, and some are bad (like queen buff in WoL).
But, Blizzard made some drastic changes to helbats and banshees, it didn't break the game and didn't affect balance at all. So whats wrong with decreasing cost of burrow? Yeah, it might affect openings slightly. But imagine how much cool things progamers could do. I'm more than sure its worth the risk.
After all, 50 min/50 gas is two more banelings, its not end of the world. Thats exactly why we don't feel there's the need of decreasing costs. Its not a big investment as mentioned. And you just proofed that point again by pointing out its just two more banelings. why do you even think that you can talk for other people? Isn't it rather that you know burrow isn't posing any thread for you terrans and you like to keep it this way? I strongly support to consider this little change and try it out to see what happens in order to make burrow a more viable option in early game what it obviously is not now! Right now it is much more reliable to morph 4 more banelings instead of hoping for burrow luck for the most players. Early burrow could in fact force the terran to move out more carefully and therefore slow down terran basic unit macro attacks that are too hard to defend right now. The idea of changing burrow costs again is not bad. Burrow is completely viable and the reason for it not being used I dare to say is not 'huge investment' but rather players not trying it out. Check out TLO, he does use it and it won him games. Also I don't believe burrow is that important in the earlier stages, but a nice thing to have in midgame. In addition to that, I don't speak for others but simply pointed out that others here do not think that change would be justified. Furthermore, you are the last person to talk speaking of Terran as completely imbalanced and 8 marine drops winning a game. you obviously cannot read, neither what I wrote nor gameplay. The cost of burrow are not only the 100/100 but also the units that you split apart from your forces to sit around burrowed somewhere and hope that someone walks over it. It is not viable! Why? Because zergs cannot afford extra units that are sitting apart anywhere on the map without any certainty that they will get any use. Because if terran forces walk just 2cm aside of them these units wont have any use and will be missing in the main forces for drop/push defense. I guess you didn't know this, but I am glad to explain a GM player the game :-/ Secondly, I said the exactly opposite about terran being op. I said certain mechanics are op, not the whole race and stated this many times. But another time reading seems not to be your strength but anyway please stop semi quoting wrong things about me. Furthermore I strongly claim YOU are one heavily biased terran guy who enjoys easy life in TvZ that is at a similar state right now as in the beginning of WOL. You are one of these who can not even admit that a race/matchup design is broken where one party (terran) has banked 2-5k gas after 20-30 minutes of play. If you don't want to admit it just watch your own replays maybe. Or do you have any secret use for gas that others dont know after being on 3 base having upgrades going and tech being built? I guess not lol. Edit: TLO dreamhack ZvP burrow was a complete all-in. If Protoss did anything else what he did it woul have been a 100% loss for TLO. So you suggest zergs to use more/other all-ins against terran early/midgame op mechanics? oO
You are so ignorant its funny. How about a grudge match I'll call you out with this. Permban from Teamliquid to the loser. I am really sick of the stupidity and ignorance from your posts. Zergs cannot afford to put 2 lings on the map in midgame? Or even 10? Are you kidding me?
What about Terran, I _need_ to put down a bunker with 4 marines in it to defend. Does that make me crumble in mid and lategame? I dare to say putting 10 Zerglings burrowed on the map on crucial pathways (5 supply) will help you position yourself in such a way that the engagement you can take will be a lot better than with the lacking information and the 5 additional supply in your army. Not to mention the potential threat to Terran who _HAS_ to scan if he wants to advance because there COULD BE burrowed banelings. Its not even a matter of having them, but a matter of posing a threat.
Starcraft is not only a game of mechanics but also of mind. Even if I cannot attack in for example TvP or TvT, if I move out and threaten I could, he will be put into a defensive position ESPECIALLY if he lacks information on me (observer, burrowed shit, other ways to scout). The player that has information or can fake certain circumstances will be ahead because he can force something onto the opponent.
Its sad to see you call me out as lack of game understand, when I am clearly superior to you in understanding the game, thus -> I'll call you out right here to a grudgematch. Bo7 / Bo9 as you like to stop the stupidity in your posts once and for all. And TLO's banetrap was not allin by any means. If Protoss doesn't go for an immortal play, the investment was 100/100 and a few banes, I feel that is a pretty fair investment for the chance to straight out kill a very strong timing.
If he would have gone for other shit, that investment is a loss in the situation, but not a loss of the game NOR isn't it benefitial to Zerg in the later stages.
PS: Yes clearly I'm enjoying TvZ as its piss easy and I simply walk over every Zerg I meet without micro'n parade pushing y way through the map, over creep, without multitasking, drops and bad macro behind, simply relying on the OPness of mules and mines. Why not call it 5M, marine medivac marauder mine mule?
|
your question have been answered already. An unburrowed zergling does the same scouting as a burrow ling. Its about decimating terran bio forces. 10 zerglins wont do this. Its more like 10 banelings that would do this. But as already said zergs can't afford in early game to split that many baneling apart from the army to potentially get some hits on a terran bio push while the terran might es well just drop or take a different route.
If the protoss did attack at a different place instead of this where he did the baneling would have been at the wrong place and TLO would have just died, easy as this.
I am willing to take your challenge anyway I am rather unmotivated to play SC2 right now as playing my race doesnt get me any fun anymore (vs MSC of P or bio+mine of T) so I am afraid we gotta find a date where I am motivated to play this out with you or it wont make any much sense with the current balance of stuff.
Not to make a new post about this ridiculous rage offer of naruto, I edit here:
compare your number of posts to mine. So you guess TL is not half as important for me as it is for you. I had a TL account back then in 2002 or what but I lost email and acces on it. It also didnt have more than 50-100 posts I am sure tho.
So well lets battle it out. Although I am sure I am allowed to talk about balance here even if I lose this match ;-)
|
On August 02 2013 20:12 LSN wrote:
your question have been answered already. An unburrowed zergling does the same scouting as a burrow ling. Its about decimating terran bio forces. 10 zerglins wont do this. Its more like 10 banelings that would do this. But as already said zergs can't afford in early game to split that many baneling apart from the army to potentially get some hits on a terran bio push while the terran might es well just drop or take a different route.
If the protoss did attack at a different place instead of this where he did the baneling would have been at the wrong place and TLO would have just died, easy as this.
Way to dodge the challenge  I quite looked forward to you getting permabanned.
|
Austria24417 Posts
I don't see why the core should be nerfed. I personally find it to be in a close to perfect state right now. It rewards intelligent use, it promotes protoss aggression by helping defense at home and allowing you to recall, depending on how you want to use it, as well as give an extra bit of strength in engagements with timewarp.
Duration of Nexus cannon I could see but what would that change really? First thing that comes to mind is 1gate expands in PvP where you use photon overcharge to stall for time until your production kicks in.
About burrow, why should it be buffed? It's in a good place I'd say. Burrow strategies may be viable, they're just not being used much right now so it's hard to tell. But what if a month from now zergs discover that burrow is a great counter to XY and everybody starts using burrow? Then there would be counters developed against that playstyle, etc. A burrow buff in that scenario might just be gamebreaking. It might, I'm not saying it would be. All I'm saying is that there's no reason to buff something just because it's not being used all the time.
|
On August 02 2013 20:03 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 19:51 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference.
After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself.
Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:04 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Look, its not end of the world if burrow costs 50 gas less. I'm not asking to add +1 range to marines, which is ofc huge and game breaking. Feel the difference.
After the queen buff blizzard left the game as it is for a fucking year, thats the "fucking mistake", not the buff itself.
Whats happening now is that blizzard *again* leaving the game as it is, which is becoming staler with which day. And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there. Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary? How could you possibly think that after reading what we have written? Ok, is there something in your mind you'd want to change in SC2? Yes, I, like Scarlett and Major, think the msc will be next to be nerfed. But I'm not clever enough to think of a good nerf. There's the safety argument: nexus cannon shuts down all aggression from the moment the msc is out until the 9 minute mark. Then there's the mobility argument, it allows P to snipe zerg bases for free with recall (actually not that big of a problem). Third is the soul train argument (time warp), but it's not a common build either. So I'm guessing that if the Nexus cannon will get nerfed, it will likely be either range (but seige tanks and protecting vital buildings and mineral lines) or duration (60 seconds is forever in SC2 terms). I'd suspect it's more likely going to be duration to allow for more timings, but I don't know the implications because it's beyond me. As for range, from a T perspective it will either allow early tank pushes again or it will allow you to threaten the natural and try to run into the main, forcing an additional sentry from the P. Would blizz risk another era of 111 (is it even viable without the nexus cannon in the age of viable stargate play with oracles?) I honestly do not know. That's why I'm just waiting for someone smarter to start the discussion, and I'll wait until I know I can contribute something useful to it.
Ok, now I see, we're talking about apples and oranges.
You care about balance and you want it to be perfect.
I want the game to be more diverse and more options existed (ofc, with balance in mind). But sadly, there is no Designated Design Discussion Thread. Therefore I post my suggestions here, which I think is acceptable, since it also affects balance.
its better if we stop talking to each other.
|
On August 02 2013 20:12 LSN wrote:
your question have been answered already. An unburrowed zergling does the same scouting as a burrow ling. Its about decimating terran bio forces. 10 zerglins wont do this. Its more like 10 banelings that would do this. But as already said zergs can't afford in early game to split that many baneling apart from the army to potentially get some hits on a terran bio push while the terran might es well just drop or take a different route.
If the protoss did attack at a different place instead of this where he did the baneling would have been at the wrong place and TLO would have just died, easy as this.
I already replied and said its about the Terran not knowing. If the Terran is spotted without knowing, he cannot react. If he sees that he is scouted by a Zergling, he'll either choose from the following:
Change route
Back off
Continue
all of those you cannot be sure of. While if he moves out for a purpose and is spotted by you, but he doesn't know he'll most likely be continuing. As I mentioned its not about the early game, because lets be honest, how many situations do you know burrow would be of any use in the early game no matter what costs? It wouldn't be. a 3 Rax followup after expansion might as well be spotted early by an overlord scout, so you don't really need burrow for that, also a non-burrowed ling would be sufficient for that.
As explained, in the midgame drops/marine shift-paths etc can be spotted by Zergligns which you can very well afford and should also use. HyuN vs Polt (iirc) was a very good example. It was common in Broodwar as well so I don't know where that "cannot afford shit" comes from, you can.
Also, answer to the grudgematch? 
|
On August 02 2013 20:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I don't see why it should be nerfed. I personally find it to be in a close to perfect state right now. It rewards intelligent use, it promotes protoss aggression by helping defense at home and allowing you to recall, depending on how you want to use it, as well as give an extra bit of strength in engagements with timewarp.
Duration of Nexus cannon I could see but what would that change really? First thing that comes to mind is 1gate expands in PvP where you use photon overcharge to stall for time until your production kicks in.
It was made to help Protoss in Protoss vs Zerg but as I'm no good on the field of PvZ, I will let others talk about it. In Protoss vs Terran it rewards and promotes insanely greedy play as in high rewards with little risk as it shuts down basically every early agression of paired with detection of any sort (cannons, robo, stargate oracle). This means Terran not only cannot apply pressure early, but the midgame timings Terran has don't work out as well because the greed paid of by then.
In addition to that (and I think thats the bigger threat) it made blink allin insanely more powerful and severe to Terran as well as promotes early gate aggression due to giving vision to the wall making you lose your wall. You can see its power combined with a 10 gate in Bomber vs Rain on Whirlwind for example.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On August 02 2013 20:15 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 20:03 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:51 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there.
Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:09 Ghanburighan wrote:
[quote]
And no-one in the world knows what to do in TvT after the banshee buff, as there are seemingly coin-flips galore there.
Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary? How could you possibly think that after reading what we have written? Ok, is there something in your mind you'd want to change in SC2? Yes, I, like Scarlett and Major, think the msc will be next to be nerfed. But I'm not clever enough to think of a good nerf. There's the safety argument: nexus cannon shuts down all aggression from the moment the msc is out until the 9 minute mark. Then there's the mobility argument, it allows P to snipe zerg bases for free with recall (actually not that big of a problem). Third is the soul train argument (time warp), but it's not a common build either. So I'm guessing that if the Nexus cannon will get nerfed, it will likely be either range (but seige tanks and protecting vital buildings and mineral lines) or duration (60 seconds is forever in SC2 terms). I'd suspect it's more likely going to be duration to allow for more timings, but I don't know the implications because it's beyond me. As for range, from a T perspective it will either allow early tank pushes again or it will allow you to threaten the natural and try to run into the main, forcing an additional sentry from the P. Would blizz risk another era of 111 (is it even viable without the nexus cannon in the age of viable stargate play with oracles?) I honestly do not know. That's why I'm just waiting for someone smarter to start the discussion, and I'll wait until I know I can contribute something useful to it. Ok, now I see, we're talking about apples and oranges. You care about balance and you want it to be perfect. I want the game to be more diverse and more options existed (ofc, with balance in mind). But sadly, there is no Designated Design Discussion Thread. Therefore I post my suggestions here, which I think is acceptable, since it also affects balance. its better if we stop talking to each other.
Please support my campaign for actual balance discussion then!
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=423668
On August 02 2013 20:19 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 20:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I don't see why it should be nerfed. I personally find it to be in a close to perfect state right now. It rewards intelligent use, it promotes protoss aggression by helping defense at home and allowing you to recall, depending on how you want to use it, as well as give an extra bit of strength in engagements with timewarp.
Duration of Nexus cannon I could see but what would that change really? First thing that comes to mind is 1gate expands in PvP where you use photon overcharge to stall for time until your production kicks in. It was made to help Protoss in Protoss vs Zerg but as I'm no good on the field of PvZ, I will let others talk about it. In Protoss vs Terran it rewards and promotes insanely greedy play as in high rewards with little risk as it shuts down basically every early agression of paired with detection of any sort (cannons, robo, stargate oracle). This means Terran not only cannot apply pressure early, but the midgame timings Terran has don't work out as well because the greed paid of by then. In addition to that (and I think thats the bigger threat) it made blink allin insanely more powerful and severe to Terran as well as promotes early gate aggression due to giving vision to the wall making you lose your wall. You can see its power combined with a 10 gate in Bomber vs Rain on Whirlwind for example.
I can agree with that. How would you go about changing it if you could?
I'd also say that if protoss didn't have the core as it is now then terran would outgreed protoss heavily, like they did in beta and at the start of HotS before people figured out how to use their core. PvT was hell back then, terran would always have a faster third and delay yours for ages while your only advantage was heavy upgrades. On some maps it was downright impossible to take a third (Star Station, Whirlwind) at a reasonable time. Only smart players like Seed used their core well to defend drops, etc. and that's why they had good winrates.
So the core is definitely needed and I personally don't see how you could change it in a way that couldn't be easily exploited, especially by terran.
|
Northern Ireland23953 Posts
The onus is on you when suggesting a change.
Rather than just saying burrow change = more dynamic play, how so?
|
IMHO, the plantary nexus is here to stay, it is actually lore from BW, where Zeratul and the pilot toss had to break into a heavily guarded Nexus/temple and unleashed a global level anti-bio blast.
Terrans need to gear their aggression instead to either keep Protoss warping in more gateway units and lose in infrastructure for the late game or keep their intel low. Blizzard through the lowered cost of static defenses, new units and large maps has indirectly indicated 3base play is the new normal.
I hope LSN will go away, seriously, this thread is finally showing some promise.
|
In the onegoal mod, the msc has a move called harden, which puts harden shields on buildings in a certain area. It could be interesting at the very least to remove photon overcharge and add that to it, since it wouldn't hard counter terran aggression, and it would be useful against roach aggression, and it would still be useful lategame unlike photon overcharge.
|
lol the 5M stuff even made me laugh. So how to contact you ingame? Write me pm and we can go for it. Still I have to admit that an old guy like me probably can't go over the long path of a bo9, at least not at one single day!
|
Austria24417 Posts
On August 02 2013 20:31 bo1b wrote:
In the onegoal mod, the msc has a move called harden, which puts harden shields on buildings in a certain area. It could be interesting at the very least to remove photon overcharge and add that to it, since it wouldn't hard counter terran aggression, and it would be useful against roach aggression, and it would still be useful lategame unlike photon overcharge.
Protoss would never be able to take a third in PvT. Heavily dislike that idea.
|
On August 02 2013 20:20 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 20:15 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 20:03 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:51 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:44 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:36 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? You got the skeleton of it right, so that's better than I expected. But, honestly, do you want a medal for straw-maning my arguments instead of replying to the full post which I took the time to write out? Edit: you can actually read the core of my arguments in the OP of this thread. Might be useful. On August 02 2013 19:37 DarkLordOlli wrote:On August 02 2013 19:35 saddaromma wrote:On August 02 2013 19:23 Ghanburighan wrote:On August 02 2013 19:20 saddaromma wrote:
[quote]
Oh fuck, look what they made of TvT, it used to be such a beautiful matchup with helbats dropping everywhere. Now its completely broken. Progamers are retiring, viewership is falling and players are not laddering anymore. Well done, you couldn't say anything about the substantial arguments, so you cut out one sentence and take a swing at the MIRROR MU comment. Real good form. And for the record, hellbats needed to be nerfed but that doesn't mean it was done in the correct way. your substantial arguments: changing anything is bad because it can break the game and progamers will starve since they have no income. We shouldn't risk anything, leave the game as it is, and metagame will solve everything. Am I getting it right? As long as the game is still being figured out, that is the smart way to go about things, yes. So you both think this thread is unnecessary? How could you possibly think that after reading what we have written? Ok, is there something in your mind you'd want to change in SC2? Yes, I, like Scarlett and Major, think the msc will be next to be nerfed. But I'm not clever enough to think of a good nerf. There's the safety argument: nexus cannon shuts down all aggression from the moment the msc is out until the 9 minute mark. Then there's the mobility argument, it allows P to snipe zerg bases for free with recall (actually not that big of a problem). Third is the soul train argument (time warp), but it's not a common build either. So I'm guessing that if the Nexus cannon will get nerfed, it will likely be either range (but seige tanks and protecting vital buildings and mineral lines) or duration (60 seconds is forever in SC2 terms). I'd suspect it's more likely going to be duration to allow for more timings, but I don't know the implications because it's beyond me. As for range, from a T perspective it will either allow early tank pushes again or it will allow you to threaten the natural and try to run into the main, forcing an additional sentry from the P. Would blizz risk another era of 111 (is it even viable without the nexus cannon in the age of viable stargate play with oracles?) I honestly do not know. That's why I'm just waiting for someone smarter to start the discussion, and I'll wait until I know I can contribute something useful to it. Ok, now I see, we're talking about apples and oranges. You care about balance and you want it to be perfect. I want the game to be more diverse and more options existed (ofc, with balance in mind). But sadly, there is no Designated Design Discussion Thread. Therefore I post my suggestions here, which I think is acceptable, since it also affects balance. its better if we stop talking to each other. Please support my campaign for actual balance discussion then! http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=423668Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 20:19 NarutO wrote:On August 02 2013 20:15 DarkLordOlli wrote:
I don't see why it should be nerfed. I personally find it to be in a close to perfect state right now. It rewards intelligent use, it promotes protoss aggression by helping defense at home and allowing you to recall, depending on how you want to use it, as well as give an extra bit of strength in engagements with timewarp.
Duration of Nexus cannon I could see but what would that change really? First thing that comes to mind is 1gate expands in PvP where you use photon overcharge to stall for time until your production kicks in. It was made to help Protoss in Protoss vs Zerg but as I'm no good on the field of PvZ, I will let others talk about it. In Protoss vs Terran it rewards and promotes insanely greedy play as in high rewards with little risk as it shuts down basically every early agression of paired with detection of any sort (cannons, robo, stargate oracle). This means Terran not only cannot apply pressure early, but the midgame timings Terran has don't work out as well because the greed paid of by then. In addition to that (and I think thats the bigger threat) it made blink allin insanely more powerful and severe to Terran as well as promotes early gate aggression due to giving vision to the wall making you lose your wall. You can see its power combined with a 10 gate in Bomber vs Rain on Whirlwind for example. I can agree with that. How would you go about changing it if you could? I'd also say that if protoss didn't have the core as it is now then terran would outgreed protoss heavily, like they did in beta and at the start of HotS before people figured out how to use their core. PvT was hell back then, terran would always have a faster third and delay yours for ages while your only advantage was heavy upgrades. On some maps it was downright impossible to take a third (Star Station, Whirlwind) at a reasonable time. Only smart players like Seed used their core well to defend drops, etc. and that's why they had good winrates. So the core is definitely needed and I personally don't see how you could change it in a way that couldn't be easily exploited, especially by terran.
While Terran could agreed Protoss in WoL, I feel like Protoss got their fair share of being greedy themselves now. They actually can skip the amount of sentries that were needed to defend in WoL and the mothershipcore still stands strong, also they are allowed faster upgrade and/or tech if they so wish due to it.
The problem I see is that right now, Terran cannot safely be greedy themselves. For Protoss there really are two options, be greedy from the start or scout and decide if you want to take your early game safety into midgame and punish a greedy Terran or if you want to play a lategame. There is no choice for Protoss to be greedy or not, because when not playing an allin, its always the best option as its safe. I don't like the take on the game that Terran can be GREEDY without punishment, but right now we are forced into a safemode (if we don't want to flip the coin) while still not being able to punish the greed of the significant other.
Personally I would love if the MSC somehow didn't provide highground vision to other units and/or couldn't fly. I realize that this is a big nerf to it and I'm pretty okay with making up in another point for it. Buff its speed and/or range to cast photon overcharge or other spells. I really couldn't care less, what I am really worried is blink allin as this build usually puts you ahead, no matter the response of Terran (if played well) and oracle+MSC or early gate + MSc pressure. All of the problems really come from it granting vision and the timewarp. How to really nerf/buff? Not sure.
I am totally fine with it being defensively amazing with photon overcharge and timewarp, no one forces me into the engagement, yet when he decides to be aggressive, I am FORCED to respond and for example blink allin, which is and was strong to begin with, gets completely frustrating when even the scv pull due to Timewarp is of no use (in addition to that, comes faster and without robo = more stalkers). The sentry already got a free hallucination so if you would need to start iwth that to blink allin, that would be great (just a suggestion ofcourse).
|
On August 02 2013 20:32 LSN wrote:
lol the 5M stuff even made me laugh. So how to contact you ingame? Write me pm and we can go for it. Still I have to admit that an old guy like me probably can't go over the long path of a bo9, at least not at one single day!
You realize a permban is not to be lifted right? ;-)
|
On August 02 2013 20:33 DarkLordOlli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2013 20:31 bo1b wrote:
In the onegoal mod, the msc has a move called harden, which puts harden shields on buildings in a certain area. It could be interesting at the very least to remove photon overcharge and add that to it, since it wouldn't hard counter terran aggression, and it would be useful against roach aggression, and it would still be useful lategame unlike photon overcharge. Protoss would never be able to take a third in PvT. Heavily dislike that idea.
Protoss is the only race I don't feel comfortable playing so I'll take your word for it
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
