|
On September 06 2011 13:25 templar rage wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 13:17 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 13:12 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 12:57 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 12:49 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 12:26 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 12:22 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 06 2011 12:16 Jimbo77 wrote:
1. Make a little cooldown, around 7-8 sec, to infested terran spawn.
2. Make FG be researchable (cost around 175/200)
3. Reduce NP range to 5 or 6.
4. Make infested terran spawn not possible while burrowed.
That would balance infestors. Is this a joke post? Is it balance thread or what? These changes are obvious for everyone but blizz and zergs. It's a balance thread, not a try-to-nerf-a-unit-into-oblivion thread. Every one of those changes is retarded, except possibly #4. 1)What use is 1 IT per infestor? Might as well remove the spell 2)Cost is retarded, as is researching the spell. Personally, I wouldn't even mind if HTs came with storm, so don't even try it. 3)Then it would be worthless. You should be able to NP from out of range, otherwise you're never even getting one off. 4)This is the only one that isn't completely LOLtastic. I wouldn't implement it though. 1) FG is use per 1 infestor. Didn't you know? 2) Cost is very good. Maybe even too small. Your thoughts about HT are just your thoughts. 3) Ok. Let the range be as it is, but increase the energy cost to 150. 4) Obvious balance reason. P.S. IT have never been used by one infestor. But when there are 10 infestors it's just a loliend of your Nexus or CC. That's why cooldownd must be made. You obviously missed the point of what I was saying about ITs. Their strength (like most Zerg stuff) comes from the fact that you get a ton of them quickly. If I have 10 infestors, then spawning 10 ITs now, 10 more in 7-8 seconds, etc is worthless. The first wave just die without doing anything before the next ones come. It's pretty obvious you just want Infestors to go the way of the Reaper. I got your point. But shouldn't you got mine? Without cooldown it's just ridiculously OP spell. Let's fix it somehow. And cooldown not the worst choice . MB not 7-8 but 4-5 sec would be good. Cooldown is absolutely the worst way to go about it IMO. I don't know if ITs are OP, but if they are, adding any cooldown at all would absolutely ruin the spell. Tbh, I'm not really sure if there is anything they can directly do to ITs without ruining it. I really don't think it needs any nerf at all. I really don't know what to say. If you think that Infestors are so OP that the ridiculous changes you suggest are necessary, then switch to Zerg and abuse them yourself. The fact that you even think any of those are good (unless you're trolling me, in which case I applaud you because it worked) makes me believe you just suck at dealing with them in a game. All I can say to that is "get better".
So, you say that cooldown is a bad choice, but don't propose any other... All i can see, you defend infestors in the all ways  That's your right.
But my propositions have a right to live, and i think it's a good ones (i'd say needed ones), since this is a balance thread.
Im not suck at dealing with infestors, i just suggest here balance changes that, in my opinion, must be made, to make this game less one (zerg) sided.
|
On September 06 2011 05:35 Rob28 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2011 15:14 Rabiator wrote:
The only reasonable change to warp-in is to change the cooldown so it actually takes MORE time if you use warp-in compared to straight up building the units in a Gateway, so you have to decide between "get more units faster or from fewer buildings" and "get units wherever you want" ... No offense, but terrible idea. Why not make injected larva morph SLOWER, or mules harvest LESS minerals while we're at it? Warp-ins are a benefit to the protoss that gets balanced out by the benefits the other races also have unique to them. They shouldn't be nerfed in any way, unless you nerf all other races as well.
The upgrade for Warpgate is a MUST HAVE, so it is a terrible design because it is a no-choice-choice. There is no advantage to keeping Gateways at all and it doesnt cost any resources to transmute all your Gateways into Warp Gates.
As a Terran you dont have to get an addon for all of your Barracks, because getting one costs resources for each building and quite a lot of lost production time. So Terrans have a REAL CHOICE to make compared to Protoss ...
Personally I would have nothing against setting a limit to the number of larvae being stacked on one hatchery, so Zerg would have to build more than one macro hatchery in the late game.
Next time you answer I would like for you to actually engage your brain and say WHY my idea is terrible ...
|
On September 06 2011 09:59 sharktopus. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 07:26 Belial88 wrote:
As Idra said, Protoss are [playing] stupid. I'm not trying to flame here, but if you watch the GSL games (please, do a search of Nestea or Losira, and watch all the ZvPs in the last.... year. Nestea has had 3 ZvPs in the last 4 months, and all of the games are just embarassingly bad by P), P always does some goofy, gimmicky strat like stargate or DT, which can be stable and great, but Zerg just hard counters it too well (still taking a fast third, etc) and just comes out ahead. From there it's GG. Oh well if Idra said it... The stats are out for August, and those don't lie: http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.pngProtoss is at a 46.9% winrate vs Terran and Zerg opponents. I find it hard to believe that the reason for this is because "Protoss are [playing] stupid."
52.9% win rate in ZvP is pretty balanced IMO.
Besides even though I win most of my ZvPs and I think it's "EZ PZ", I'll take Belial's defense here and say the late game is still imbalanced (in my humble opinion).
The problem is that Protoss players either cheese or go for builds that allow no aggression, allowing the Zerg to pretty much get all the economy he'll ever need before even starting to make units.
The MU is one metagame change away from favouring Protoss again IMO. What Protoss really needs is a build that allows them to expand with gateways instead of relying on cannons. Then it's a lot more tricky for the zerg if they have to guess whether it's a timing push or an economic build, and it's impossible to take a third (without taking a stupid risk). Then it'll be early 2011 ZvP all over again, with the deathball rolling over everything.
Note that I'm not saying Protoss is OP, in fact I think their early game might be underpowered (and the stats show that). But I'm just saying those who are calling for drastic infestor nerfs or HT buffs are clueless, as late game Protoss is already ridiculous if they get there.
|
Each of the units you listed have the potential to be cost efficient, I agree. But, there is also micro needed, as 3 of those have abilities that must be used properly in order for them to be considered efficient. If a Protoss screws up at all with either a FF, blink, FB, or storm, it is likely they lose the battle, and possibly the game. Immortals, Void Rays, and Colossi are units, not unlike the Broodlord, that, alone are very, very fragile. Without proper support, they cannot do much of anything. Being the "heavy hitters" they are, these units are going to draw the most attention, and of course be targeted the most. If they are not used nearly perfectly, they are not going to be the efficient units you claim them to be.
While early game FF is important, I wouldn't say a lot of the FF 'abuse' (an arguable term, but you understand what I mean) is pro micro but rather just doing something. There's micro involved, indeed, when it's 3 sentries holding the line against a roach/ling aggression, but drawing mass forcefield lines in end-game with a deathball is not pro micro, and often times it's not even necessary, it's just insult to injury. And while VR/Colossi/Immortals may be fragile units on their own, they aren't with support, and making sure your Vr/Colossi/Immortals stay alive when someone has just simply sat back and massed up an army, is not skill.
And while at the pro level, particularly in PvP and PvT, you see a lot of dancing and micro, in ZvP, protoss simply has to a-move the deathball.
But we're not arguing "what race is easiest' here. What I'm arguing, is how imbalanced Protoss deathball can be. Blizzard acknowledged this, and put a band-aid with the infestor (somehow this spellcaster is Zerg's counter to VR and Colossi) but having a solution lie in only a single unit that can so easily be countered by HT, is shoddy.
So, by this, you are saying that Protoss requires no micro lategame? I am sorry, but I don't see this. If anything, I see Zerg especially with Broodlord Roach compositions this way.
I was saying it balanced the game, in which not micro'ing punished Protoss. Now BL/Roach may or may not be balanced (I dont think it is, it's quite easy to roll with the right army units made in response). But Protoss does not need micro to beat Zerg in the endgame. You can mass a deathball, and move out. If infestors are present, then you need some micro to FB the infestors, but nothing that is hard to pull off like reaver micro or dragoon micro. And regardless, again, this isn't a thread about which race is easier, it's that Protoss armies just roll Zerg.
For the sake of argument, lets just say a deathball takes pro micro to execute. It's really irrelevant to the point anyways.
I am not even sure what to say to this comment. All throughout your comments on this page, I am seeing a "Toss is OP Zerg is terrible" theme. When the Protoss has his "200/200 deathball" and a 3 base economy, shouldn't the Zerg have at least 4-5 maybe even 6 bases, and potentially a macro hatch in their main unless the Zerg got harassed and was behind? Something that I find very useful against the deathball is flanking, just as the swarm was designed. What is the Protoss going to do? They would have to nail seemingly perfect FFs, storms, FBs, and hope that their army doesnt lose too much supply, because of a "300 food push" from the Zerg. Idk, I think that a 1a syndrome is part of the reason why a deathball is so effective. Because of the expense of the colossus, they need to be in the back, and a flank would leave them much more defenseless since they would have less support.
A 3 base push from Protoss, maxed or not, will come before Hive tech. You can try rushing for an extremely fast fourth base (and that's automatically assuming P won't move out with a 2 base timing push but will take a fast third) and Hive (assuming Protoss won't push at any moment, whch they would do), but you'll die if Protoss ever moves out before maxing. The ultralisk patch change was a much needed change, but this just makes it viable to get Hive and use ultras in time against a 4 base Protoss, not 3 base.
Zerg will have 4-5 base on a 3 base Protoss, but they wont be running long enough to reap rewards from. Not only does Zerg have to wait on infestation pit, hive, and tech of choice, but Ultralisks/BL takes over a minute to morph on top of that. So relying on hive tech as necessary counters, isn't really feasible. Yes, if ultralisks were somehow lair tech, the game would be a lot more balanced in regards to deathballs, but would present much more complicated issues.
Flanking is something that's extremely map dependent. For example, on Taldarim, it's just impossible to flank a 3 base Protoss. They wall off the third, and have a deathball in place. They don't need to worry about a flank when moving out because their composition will just win.
On a side note, infested Terran is fine. While IT harass is deadly, losing the 4-5 Infestors necessary to snipe a base hurts a LOT more than losing a base. I've played, and seen, many games in ZvZ where infestors popped, you go to harass, and when you kill their main, is when a huge roach army is rolling you. It's not at all different in cost and effectiveness as loading up 3 medivacs full of marines.
|
On September 06 2011 14:28 MilesTeg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 09:59 sharktopus. wrote:On September 06 2011 07:26 Belial88 wrote:
As Idra said, Protoss are [playing] stupid. I'm not trying to flame here, but if you watch the GSL games (please, do a search of Nestea or Losira, and watch all the ZvPs in the last.... year. Nestea has had 3 ZvPs in the last 4 months, and all of the games are just embarassingly bad by P), P always does some goofy, gimmicky strat like stargate or DT, which can be stable and great, but Zerg just hard counters it too well (still taking a fast third, etc) and just comes out ahead. From there it's GG. Oh well if Idra said it... The stats are out for August, and those don't lie: http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.pngProtoss is at a 46.9% winrate vs Terran and Zerg opponents. I find it hard to believe that the reason for this is because "Protoss are [playing] stupid." 52.9% win rate in ZvP is pretty balanced IMO. Besides even though I win most of my ZvPs and I think it's "EZ PZ", I'll take Belial's defense here and say the late game is still imbalanced (in my humble opinion). The problem is that Protoss players either cheese or go for builds that allow no aggression, allowing the Zerg to pretty much get all the economy he'll ever need before even starting to make units. The MU is one metagame change away from favouring Protoss again IMO. What Protoss really needs is a build that allows them to expand with gateways instead of relying on cannons. Then it's a lot more tricky for the zerg if they have to guess whether it's a timing push or an economic build, and it's impossible to take a third (without taking a stupid risk). Then it'll be early 2011 ZvP all over again, with the deathball rolling over everything. Note that I'm not saying Protoss is OP, in fact I think their early game might be underpowered (and the stats show that). But I'm just saying those who are calling for drastic infestor nerfs or HT buffs are clueless, as late game Protoss is already ridiculous if they get there.
I don't buy the whole "Protoss go for cheese" thing. I never cheese, and most of the Protoss streams I watch show very little cheese. If a Protoss player does "cheese" against a Zerg opponent, it's only because if we don't find some way to pressure them early, Zerg can easily fast expand and defend their natural and macro up like crazy. Once the original 4-gate timing was nerfed, Zerg was suddenly free to take their natural AND defend it and macro up like crazy.
"Protoss is already ridiculous if they get there"
Keyword there is if. With the current winrate, I'd say it's not really something Terran or Zerg has to worry about that often. It has always been my understanding that the goal of the game was to keep things around a 50% winrate for each race, so clearly if Zerg and Terran are up at 50 and 52 respectively, and Toss is down at 46, then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Saying that it's cheese or that Protoss players are stupid is not acceptable, nor is it the case. Look at what's happening to the pro players at events like MLG or in the GSL, I don't think any of them are stupid nor do they play cheesy.
You can't honestly believe that Protoss having a winrate against Terran of 46.7% and a winrate of 47.1% against Zerg is due to cheese and stupidity.
|
^ No, from what I understand there is a 5% margin of error.
I tend to look at the GSL statistics, because you can at least explain what's going on. With ladder stats... it could just be a 4 gate or cannon rush, which will probably win at least over 50%. There's a lot of 4 gaters who are suffering from being placed too high. But with the GSL, we can see the reason Protoss is losing is because they are just bad players. You have 'top' Protoss like anypro, hongun, and inca... and they are just terrible. We all saw the inca finals (maybe DT will work this time!), and anypro makes over 10 gates on 2 base to make up for poor macro (what's a third?) - and that's including robo and twilight tech. Compare that with Losira and Nestea, or MVP or Nada, and they are just all around better players.
We see it in the pro league, and often times the ladder is dominated by the trends from the top tournaments. Protoss just go for stargate, DT, and their gimmicky plays too often. Even in the Destiny vs Incontrol series, we saw Incontrol go for a shoddy zealot/archon composition every time.
White-Ra is an example of a good, macro oriented player, and he crushes face. MC plays fairly macro, but usually plays a bit risky and has some sort of gimmicky play (with a huge emphasis on micro that allows him to stay ahead). But all in all, most Protoss play very gimmicky. Show me a single game of a top level Zerg winning a game against a Protoss who gets Stalker/Colossi going or a deathball going. Because it never happens at that level, the metagame right now is dominated by Zerg knowing how to own Protoss openings, and Protoss are struggling with Zerg confidently taking fast thirds and staying on hatch tech for long periods of time for economy.
I'd say the reason Protoss win rates are low are because:
1. 1-1-1 (tvp is not my forte, that's whatever)
2. Zerg taking super fast thirds against FFE and owning it, which was the most popular opening early this year. I imagine soon, FFE will be seen as an autoloss strat, a bad opener against Zerg who can easily punish it, and right now the match-up is dominated by Protoss losing to fast thirds while going FFE. It's not enough to make the statistic outside the margin of error, but it's enough to tilt to Zerg's favor 3%.
|
The margin of error is irrelevant, as the overall order is accurate enough to depict whats happening on ladder.
Zerg can confidently take fast thirds because Protoss has no way of punishing it. We can't even really punish a fast natural. It's a struggle because you can't possibly macro the way a Zerg can as Protoss.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on top pro Protoss players being gimmicky. I just don't believe that's the case and apparently you do. I think if there were different ways of playing the match-ups, Protoss players (especially Korean pros) would have figured it out by now, considering the last patch that made the main balance changes came out in like May (right?).
|
On September 06 2011 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 05:35 Rob28 wrote:On September 05 2011 15:14 Rabiator wrote:
The only reasonable change to warp-in is to change the cooldown so it actually takes MORE time if you use warp-in compared to straight up building the units in a Gateway, so you have to decide between "get more units faster or from fewer buildings" and "get units wherever you want" ... No offense, but terrible idea. Why not make injected larva morph SLOWER, or mules harvest LESS minerals while we're at it? Warp-ins are a benefit to the protoss that gets balanced out by the benefits the other races also have unique to them. They shouldn't be nerfed in any way, unless you nerf all other races as well. The upgrade for Warpgate is a MUST HAVE, so it is a terrible design because it is a no-choice-choice. There is no advantage to keeping Gateways at all and it doesnt cost any resources to transmute all your Gateways into Warp Gates. As a Terran you dont have to get an addon for all of your Barracks, because getting one costs resources for each building and quite a lot of lost production time. So Terrans have a REAL CHOICE to make compared to Protoss ... Personally I would have nothing against setting a limit to the number of larvae being stacked on one hatchery, so Zerg would have to build more than one macro hatchery in the late game. Next time you answer I would like for you to actually engage your brain and say WHY my idea is terrible ...
I actually like the idea of making regular gateway build times at least equivalent to warp gate build times. As a former zerg player who's randoming now, I find protoss macro frustrating because of never being able to rally units to a battle without having to go off-screen for a few seconds.
I don't see why Blizzard can't give people the choice to use warp gates or not rather than making them (for all intents and purposes) compulsory. That way warp gates could be still be used for all-ins and 'special tactic' play while those of us who are crap at multitasking and prefer being able to rally units to the battle could also do so. Build times might need to be jiggled around with but I can't see any serious objection to giving people this choice.
|
On September 06 2011 15:03 sharktopus. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 14:28 MilesTeg wrote:On September 06 2011 09:59 sharktopus. wrote:On September 06 2011 07:26 Belial88 wrote:
As Idra said, Protoss are [playing] stupid. I'm not trying to flame here, but if you watch the GSL games (please, do a search of Nestea or Losira, and watch all the ZvPs in the last.... year. Nestea has had 3 ZvPs in the last 4 months, and all of the games are just embarassingly bad by P), P always does some goofy, gimmicky strat like stargate or DT, which can be stable and great, but Zerg just hard counters it too well (still taking a fast third, etc) and just comes out ahead. From there it's GG. Oh well if Idra said it... The stats are out for August, and those don't lie: http://i.imgur.com/Jvlvy.pngProtoss is at a 46.9% winrate vs Terran and Zerg opponents. I find it hard to believe that the reason for this is because "Protoss are [playing] stupid." 52.9% win rate in ZvP is pretty balanced IMO. Besides even though I win most of my ZvPs and I think it's "EZ PZ", I'll take Belial's defense here and say the late game is still imbalanced (in my humble opinion). The problem is that Protoss players either cheese or go for builds that allow no aggression, allowing the Zerg to pretty much get all the economy he'll ever need before even starting to make units. The MU is one metagame change away from favouring Protoss again IMO. What Protoss really needs is a build that allows them to expand with gateways instead of relying on cannons. Then it's a lot more tricky for the zerg if they have to guess whether it's a timing push or an economic build, and it's impossible to take a third (without taking a stupid risk). Then it'll be early 2011 ZvP all over again, with the deathball rolling over everything. Note that I'm not saying Protoss is OP, in fact I think their early game might be underpowered (and the stats show that). But I'm just saying those who are calling for drastic infestor nerfs or HT buffs are clueless, as late game Protoss is already ridiculous if they get there. I don't buy the whole "Protoss go for cheese" thing. I never cheese, and most of the Protoss streams I watch show very little cheese. If a Protoss player does "cheese" against a Zerg opponent, it's only because if we don't find some way to pressure them early, Zerg can easily fast expand and defend their natural and macro up like crazy. Once the original 4-gate timing was nerfed, Zerg was suddenly free to take their natural AND defend it and macro up like crazy. "Protoss is already ridiculous if they get there" Keyword there is if. With the current winrate, I'd say it's not really something Terran or Zerg has to worry about that often. It has always been my understanding that the goal of the game was to keep things around a 50% winrate for each race, so clearly if Zerg and Terran are up at 50 and 52 respectively, and Toss is down at 46, then there is an issue that needs to be addressed. Saying that it's cheese or that Protoss players are stupid is not acceptable, nor is it the case. Look at what's happening to the pro players at events like MLG or in the GSL, I don't think any of them are stupid nor do they play cheesy. You can't honestly believe that Protoss having a winrate against Terran of 46.7% and a winrate of 47.1% against Zerg is due to cheese and stupidity.
No I agree with you and I don't think they're stupid of course.
But first of all it's a little bit silly to repeat the 46 and 47% numbers like it's a total disaster while it's really not that bad especially in PvZ.
For the cheese, it's true that it's not as bad as in the beginning of the game. But if you look at pro games a large percentage are a 2 base gateway push that has no chance of winning unless it does a lot of damage (and actually no chance at all if scouted at a pro level).
In any case my point was that the problem is clearly in the early game in both matchups. And talking about strictly PvZ I think the problem could be solved by trying other builds. FFE and 3 gate sentries are... well, bad, I think it's time to accept it. If Protoss truly can't expand safely with anything else then it's the early game that needs to be adressed. But my opinion is that someone will come up with an economical build that can still threaten to be an aggression, and Protoss players will roll all over Zergs again.
|
^ And that was my point, if there was other builds to use, I think they would've been figured out by now, considering when the last patch came out that made the balance changes we're referring to.
If you consider the amount of time pros are practicing each day (especially in Korea), I think it's pretty safe to assume that a new build would have shown up by now if there was one. With the way the game stands now, I really don't think Protoss has any opening strats that have not been discovered yet, which is why you still continue to see the same openers time after time.
The purpose of restating the winrate percentages is just to paint a fairly accurate picture of what is happening on ladder right now. I don't view it as a total disaster, but I think it shows that something needs to be addressed.
|
What I find entertaining about complaints about Toss lategames is that they by in large seem so myopic. The better posts acknowledge the differences in when Toss tend to win games, but still hold that lategame toss is too strong. They argue (in essence) that this difficult and expensive composition to attain is too effective in straight up toe to toe fights. The zergs also argue what might be a more important (though debatable) point that the econ advantage is too minor to be of signifcant strategic boon (or even marginal). Terrans are argue that their cheap highly effective army gets decimated by splash (though they have extremely strong counters) and that in the super lategame the frontloaded remax abilities of toss lead to windows where the toss army gains too much momentum. I have some issues with the zerg claim, but I could see some credible arguments. The terran argument I feel is disproven by experience and might simply be an issue of how people percieve a matchup should playout/ when/how pressure can be applied and what the appropriate responses should be.
With regards to warp gates, I think the argument against front loaded build time is absolutely silly in light of the weakness of gateway units. The argument is only a serious issue if we're talking about a pylon by production lines. Gateway units lose in straight up fights to comparable forces. The issue that zergs in particular have is that warpgates facilitate massing troops up in a much easier and straight forward manner than a thousand different little rally points. The argument should be phrased in terms of momentum rather than some BS idea that Toss magically gets units immediately at no cost (iff after a 200/200 engagement).
As a toss, whats difficult to understand about those lines of thought is... when exactly are we supposed to win? PvT is pretty well balanced if not favoring terran imo. It becomes a composition/upgrade fight (though the direct attack upgrade advantage benefits Terran to a greater extent.) PvZ has a super costly immobile force against a cheaper army behind what should be a larger economy (due to ease of expansion because of their mobility and early/midgame defensive advantages/abilities). If you nerf our splash or further cut down our expensive and timely to create lategame army.... well what do we do then?
edit: also have to admit the numbers are far far better for Toss than I expected after watching a good number of the toss gsl matches and 2-3 mlg matches. Also, I think ironically enough the "better" player argument might apply to the foreign scene rather than the korean one if we think about the practice reps of the players.
|
On September 06 2011 12:16 Jimbo77 wrote:
1. Make a little cooldown, around 7-8 sec, to infested terran spawn.
2. Make FG be researchable (cost around 175/200)
3. Reduce NP range to 5 or 6.
4. Make infested terran spawn not possible while burrowed.
That would balance infestors.
I love 'balance' suggestions that are essentially 'Make it so that every time I lost against X, I would have won instead.'
"1. I don't like building an observer or a cannon in response to enemy tech. Make it so that zerg would have to put 1500g of infestors in my mineral line in order to do shield-only damage against my nexus. Sneaking two or three cloaked units into a base and sniping vital tech or economy is just not on."
"2. I'd like another couple of minutes to mass my favourite units and shove them down Zerg's throat before I need to worry about making appropriate tech choices."
"3. At the moment, my colossi sometimes get neural parasited when I let them wander around unattended. I don't want that to happen any more."
"4. Being able to attack while permanently cloaked is the most retarded idea I've ever heard."
|
On September 06 2011 13:37 Jimbo77 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 13:25 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 13:17 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 13:12 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 12:57 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 12:49 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 12:26 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 12:22 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 06 2011 12:16 Jimbo77 wrote:
1. Make a little cooldown, around 7-8 sec, to infested terran spawn.
2. Make FG be researchable (cost around 175/200)
3. Reduce NP range to 5 or 6.
4. Make infested terran spawn not possible while burrowed.
That would balance infestors. Is this a joke post? Is it balance thread or what? These changes are obvious for everyone but blizz and zergs. It's a balance thread, not a try-to-nerf-a-unit-into-oblivion thread. Every one of those changes is retarded, except possibly #4. 1)What use is 1 IT per infestor? Might as well remove the spell 2)Cost is retarded, as is researching the spell. Personally, I wouldn't even mind if HTs came with storm, so don't even try it. 3)Then it would be worthless. You should be able to NP from out of range, otherwise you're never even getting one off. 4)This is the only one that isn't completely LOLtastic. I wouldn't implement it though. 1) FG is use per 1 infestor. Didn't you know? 2) Cost is very good. Maybe even too small. Your thoughts about HT are just your thoughts. 3) Ok. Let the range be as it is, but increase the energy cost to 150. 4) Obvious balance reason. P.S. IT have never been used by one infestor. But when there are 10 infestors it's just a loliend of your Nexus or CC. That's why cooldownd must be made. You obviously missed the point of what I was saying about ITs. Their strength (like most Zerg stuff) comes from the fact that you get a ton of them quickly. If I have 10 infestors, then spawning 10 ITs now, 10 more in 7-8 seconds, etc is worthless. The first wave just die without doing anything before the next ones come. It's pretty obvious you just want Infestors to go the way of the Reaper. I got your point. But shouldn't you got mine? Without cooldown it's just ridiculously OP spell. Let's fix it somehow. And cooldown not the worst choice . MB not 7-8 but 4-5 sec would be good. Cooldown is absolutely the worst way to go about it IMO. I don't know if ITs are OP, but if they are, adding any cooldown at all would absolutely ruin the spell. Tbh, I'm not really sure if there is anything they can directly do to ITs without ruining it. I really don't think it needs any nerf at all. I really don't know what to say. If you think that Infestors are so OP that the ridiculous changes you suggest are necessary, then switch to Zerg and abuse them yourself. The fact that you even think any of those are good (unless you're trolling me, in which case I applaud you because it worked) makes me believe you just suck at dealing with them in a game. All I can say to that is "get better". So, you say that cooldown is a bad choice, but don't propose any other... All i can see, you defend infestors in the all ways That's your right. But my propositions have a right to live, and i think it's a good ones (i'd say needed ones), since this is a balance thread. Im not suck at dealing with infestors, i just suggest here balance changes that, in my opinion, must be made, to make this game less one (zerg) sided.
Your changes scream "I just want the Infestor to stop being used because I don't want to learn how to deal with it". As I stated before, this is a balance thread, not a "how can I nerf this unit as hard as possible into the ground" thread. Actual balance suggestions are obviously welcome. Outlining your plan to make the unit unusable is not. Your idea of "balance" is not having to do anything reactive at all. If you can do that, then that's actually way more like to be imbalanced, DUCY?
I don't propose any other changes because I don't believe they're needed (and I don't believe you can really change the spell without ruining it anyway). Maybe if you could take your head out of your ass and actually read my posts, you'd have seen that I said exactly that. Sorry you lose to Zergs a lot, but so do I. You don't see me sit here proposing to effectively remove the Infestor from the game.
|
Remember this much: Protoss only has a few timings when it can be aggressive. On the other hand, Zerg can choose whenever they want to stop droning and be aggressive. While Zergs may complain that late game Protoss is hard, I've found that for a good amount of games, Protoss requires a shtload more micro than Zerg does.
So, here's rule #1: Do not complain that Protoss can 1a to win when Zergs essentially do all of that, and they can always do it early to mid game with roaches and lings. Forcefields can only do so much when you engage in chokes and only when those chokes are on maps.
Now, for the actual balance changes that should be made isn't really how the Infestor got buffed or etc. It's the fact that Zergs never bothered to make Infestors and resorted to whining to buff towards a pretty oped race.
That being said, the counter to Zerg's infestors is to essentially drop and kill buildings and harass ... which will be helped with the much needed warp prism buff.
On another note: With Terran's heavy advantage in game wins, it's always hard to nerf Terran to the point where they won't have an advantage. It's their race design that lets them recover from errors and all-ins (MULEs) and their versatility that even with a slight damage nerf, Terran will be very competent.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On September 06 2011 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 05:35 Rob28 wrote:On September 05 2011 15:14 Rabiator wrote:
The only reasonable change to warp-in is to change the cooldown so it actually takes MORE time if you use warp-in compared to straight up building the units in a Gateway, so you have to decide between "get more units faster or from fewer buildings" and "get units wherever you want" ... No offense, but terrible idea. Why not make injected larva morph SLOWER, or mules harvest LESS minerals while we're at it? Warp-ins are a benefit to the protoss that gets balanced out by the benefits the other races also have unique to them. They shouldn't be nerfed in any way, unless you nerf all other races as well. The upgrade for Warpgate is a MUST HAVE, so it is a terrible design because it is a no-choice-choice. There is no advantage to keeping Gateways at all and it doesnt cost any resources to transmute all your Gateways into Warp Gates. As a Terran you dont have to get an addon for all of your Barracks, because getting one costs resources for each building and quite a lot of lost production time. So Terrans have a REAL CHOICE to make compared to Protoss ... Personally I would have nothing against setting a limit to the number of larvae being stacked on one hatchery, so Zerg would have to build more than one macro hatchery in the late game.
I was under the impression that hatcheries already have a larvae limit (of 19? I think). Granted, It's a pretty high limit, but there is a limit. Is this a suggestion that we lower the existing limit?
|
On September 06 2011 13:37 Jimbo77 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 13:25 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 13:17 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 13:12 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 12:57 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 12:49 templar rage wrote:On September 06 2011 12:26 Jimbo77 wrote:On September 06 2011 12:22 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 06 2011 12:16 Jimbo77 wrote:
1. Make a little cooldown, around 7-8 sec, to infested terran spawn.
2. Make FG be researchable (cost around 175/200)
3. Reduce NP range to 5 or 6.
4. Make infested terran spawn not possible while burrowed.
That would balance infestors. Is this a joke post? Is it balance thread or what? These changes are obvious for everyone but blizz and zergs. It's a balance thread, not a try-to-nerf-a-unit-into-oblivion thread. Every one of those changes is retarded, except possibly #4. 1)What use is 1 IT per infestor? Might as well remove the spell 2)Cost is retarded, as is researching the spell. Personally, I wouldn't even mind if HTs came with storm, so don't even try it. 3)Then it would be worthless. You should be able to NP from out of range, otherwise you're never even getting one off. 4)This is the only one that isn't completely LOLtastic. I wouldn't implement it though. 1) FG is use per 1 infestor. Didn't you know? 2) Cost is very good. Maybe even too small. Your thoughts about HT are just your thoughts. 3) Ok. Let the range be as it is, but increase the energy cost to 150. 4) Obvious balance reason. P.S. IT have never been used by one infestor. But when there are 10 infestors it's just a loliend of your Nexus or CC. That's why cooldownd must be made. You obviously missed the point of what I was saying about ITs. Their strength (like most Zerg stuff) comes from the fact that you get a ton of them quickly. If I have 10 infestors, then spawning 10 ITs now, 10 more in 7-8 seconds, etc is worthless. The first wave just die without doing anything before the next ones come. It's pretty obvious you just want Infestors to go the way of the Reaper. I got your point. But shouldn't you got mine? Without cooldown it's just ridiculously OP spell. Let's fix it somehow. And cooldown not the worst choice . MB not 7-8 but 4-5 sec would be good. Cooldown is absolutely the worst way to go about it IMO. I don't know if ITs are OP, but if they are, adding any cooldown at all would absolutely ruin the spell. Tbh, I'm not really sure if there is anything they can directly do to ITs without ruining it. I really don't think it needs any nerf at all. I really don't know what to say. If you think that Infestors are so OP that the ridiculous changes you suggest are necessary, then switch to Zerg and abuse them yourself. The fact that you even think any of those are good (unless you're trolling me, in which case I applaud you because it worked) makes me believe you just suck at dealing with them in a game. All I can say to that is "get better". So, you say that cooldown is a bad choice, but don't propose any other... All i can see, you defend infestors in the all ways That's your right. But my propositions have a right to live, and i think it's a good ones (i'd say needed ones), since this is a balance thread. Im not suck at dealing with infestors, i just suggest here balance changes that, in my opinion, must be made, to make this game less one (zerg) sided.
Edit: nvm, there's just some bad ideas thrown here that I shouldn't bother getting involved.
|
Umpteen, rofl @ your post! Golden!
Zerg can confidently take fast thirds because Protoss has no way of punishing it. We can't even really punish a fast natural. It's a struggle because you can't possibly macro the way a Zerg can as Protoss.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on top pro Protoss players being gimmicky. I just don't believe that's the case and apparently you do. I think if there were different ways of playing the match-ups, Protoss players (especially Korean pros) would have figured it out by now, considering the last patch that made the main balance changes came out in like May (right?).
Then don't FFE. I think it's a bad build, because it relies way too much on doing a 2 base pressure (although the imbalance in the game allows for Protoss to just take a fast third and mass up if they want). 3 gate sentry and 1 gate expand are infinitely better builds - they automatically deny fast thirds from Zerg. It's more like Zerg takes a fast third in response to the 'pressure' of the FE from P, and defending a FFE is a lot easier than defending a third (especially on those stupid laddder maps with rocks), but the payoff is a lot higher so. You know. Don't FFE.
I don't know about your point about korean pros figuring things out. What about the queen, that was never figured out in BW for 11 years. What about the queen in SC2, that wasn't figured out for months (it was never changed in balance). What about the infestor (oh yea it was a shitty unit before patched). So it's very possible the korean pros don't know what the 'best' thing to do is, it's just they do a certain thing, best (rewatch season 1 and 2 of the GSL - ie MKP's mass marine style TvZ would never work against Zerg who know how to make more than 44 drones, which is any diamond leaguer nowadays, and they know ling/bane and even pure ling owns pure marine, esp. better than pure bane).
From the looks of it, it seems right now Protoss are holding fast to an old addage from about 2-3 months ago - that you must pressure Zerg or they go out of control. This is after the whole "lets mass up a crazy deathball" phase, which, may I remind you, is when P had extremely high winrates over Zerg, but the infestor came out, Losira's roach/ling timing came out, and Nestea's super fast third strat against the ever increasingly popular FFE build came out. Protoss are also fixated on MC's saying of "Stargate is imbalanced" (which most Zerg's disagree with rofl) and the ladder popularity of Mass blink stalkers.
Mass blink stalkers may be a bit imbalanced, but it's a coin flip against certain zergs who adopt infestors or fast third bases. Stargate is impossibly hard to make worth it's cost, even when it's not scouted. And a lot of the 2 base timings that P think are so important are being figured out, and crushed easily with taking a fast third.
That being said, the counter to Zerg's infestors is to essentially drop and kill buildings and harass ... which will be helped with the much needed warp prism buff.
Unlike ghosts which can be healed and does a shitton of DPS with regular shots, HT which can turn into archons and be morphed anywhere, instantly, and both which are cheaper and come out quicker and shorter tech paths, the infestor is killed instantly by FB (and is a big fat target) and is made useless when hit by EMP.
While drop is a great 'counter', so is expanding (infestors lack offensive capability compared to say, mutas, or more roaches) and just getting the counter-caster. A ling/Infestor army is really scary, but suddenly turns into a joke of just pure ling when you hit EMP or FB with just 3-4 HT/Ghosts.
|
Expanding without map presence when the zerg has a big infestor ball already in play is just a blind prayer that they won't IT nuke whichever base you leave unoccupied. You're absolutely wrong if you think they don't have a good offensive capability. The type of hefty tier 3 aoe you think protoss can come up with to counter it is something they need a larger economy for.
|
Best MULE idea ever, nerf income by 35%. Those stupid things bring in way to much cash.
|
On September 06 2011 14:24 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 05:35 Rob28 wrote:On September 05 2011 15:14 Rabiator wrote:
The only reasonable change to warp-in is to change the cooldown so it actually takes MORE time if you use warp-in compared to straight up building the units in a Gateway, so you have to decide between "get more units faster or from fewer buildings" and "get units wherever you want" ... No offense, but terrible idea. Why not make injected larva morph SLOWER, or mules harvest LESS minerals while we're at it? Warp-ins are a benefit to the protoss that gets balanced out by the benefits the other races also have unique to them. They shouldn't be nerfed in any way, unless you nerf all other races as well. The upgrade for Warpgate is a MUST HAVE, so it is a terrible design because it is a no-choice-choice. There is no advantage to keeping Gateways at all and it doesnt cost any resources to transmute all your Gateways into Warp Gates. As a Terran you dont have to get an addon for all of your Barracks, because getting one costs resources for each building and quite a lot of lost production time. So Terrans have a REAL CHOICE to make compared to Protoss ... Personally I would have nothing against setting a limit to the number of larvae being stacked on one hatchery, so Zerg would have to build more than one macro hatchery in the late game. Next time you answer I would like for you to actually engage your brain and say WHY my idea is terrible ...
Ok, here's why your idea is terrible (using my brain):
You say that WG tech is a must-have, and so therefore a terrible design. However, it seems to me that the only people this is terrible for is protoss (predicted strategy, limited options, boring to watch/play, etc.) So if I'm understanding you correctly, you proposed nerfing Warpgates. So, my question is this: How could you think it's a good idea to take an aspect of the game that is disadvantageous to protoss, and make it worse by forcing a longer cooldown?
You've said WG is broken, so your solution is to break it more in hopes that Protoss as an alternative stop using it? That's like saying "Hydras are slow off creep, so lets make them slow ON creep as well, so we can see better infestor play"...
If you intended some other kind of solution or message, you certainly didn't communicate it well. Perhaps it is you who should think before posting, rather than I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
