| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PPTouch
99 Posts
On September 07 2011 05:24 Toadvine wrote: Ok, just ignore my earlier post. I don't think there's any point in trying to discuss this with you any longer. Don't bother, I played this guy on ladder and he paused the game for 15 minutes and whined about protoss before sending workers to mine. Quite the player. | ||
|
features
Ireland160 Posts
On September 07 2011 04:56 Shiori wrote: Here's the difference: going infestors as Zerg does not represent a risky investment in tech. You won't ever attack to realize that your army composition is useless. Compare protoss: if you go HTs and he goes anything but lings, hydras and/or infestors, you've lost. yeah you can try to switch into archon play, but archons are intensely expensive and still get affected by fungal. Dont agree with that at all, HT Immortal, is a more solid, RELIABLE build than stalker Colossus, especially against roach infester. | ||
|
Seluck
Russian Federation2 Posts
| ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
On September 07 2011 03:42 sharktopus. wrote: I'm not a huge fan of the MULE, I never thought it was an entirely fair unit. Nerfing the amount of minerals it harvests by a certain percentage would be fair in my opinion. The way it is now allows Terran to recover from cheese, all-ins, and just all around poor play too easily. I'm just going to throw this out and see what you guys think, it's something that crossed my mind but I haven't really put any thought into how it would affect Terran's gameplay since I don't play Terran. Anyhow, what if after building an orbital, Terran had to research the ability to either MULE with it or scan with it? If they chose to MULE, they would have to get their engineering bay out and make a turret for detection, or go the starport route and get a raven. The problem with the mule is that its a necessity in the early game. If terran did not have mules then both protoss and zerg can get such an easy economic lead by just the first 5 minuets of the game. Seriously, play a game with a terran as either race and tell him he cant mule whatsoever. Then once the game is done, take a look at the economic graph. At the same time however, its a disaster of a mechanic when you add in gold minerals or a way to fall back when you lose with an all-in... yet still put yourself in a reasonably economic position. What I would like is the mule to be replaced by something else. Something that can give terran a way to stay on par with other races reasonably in the economic game, but not to the extent where it is just some "super scv". | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
I actually think this thread is a very good idea, (partly) because I thought of it about 2 months ago but never bothered to do it (though I also did think of the idea of a dedicated balance whine thread for raging and frustration) but in the last page a lot of the posts are just... biased. People just go to extremes and state absolutes far too often. "Protoss deathball is unbeatable" "Terran are better in every way" "Zerg can take 3rds ZvP without punishment" All of these things are people mistaking meta game problems with balance. Examples are seen all the time. I'm gonna go with PvZ for this: Remember when 6gate timings were the greatest shit ever? How MC could roll Zerg after Zerg without care with variations of that. Or when sentry timings were considered unstoppable? How mid game Protoss just crushed zerg with awesome timings? Now, I think even the most die hard Zergs would admit that Protoss appear to have a disadvantage on 2 (while trying to get a 3rd) bases. I'm sure at some point in the matchup Protoss will regain that advantage, however temporarily, and learn how to punish Zerg taking fast thirds. Right now I think Zerg have a better understanding of the matchup. That will change. Look at BW. The matchup dynamics change constantly. All the fucking time. One race gains an edge over the other, and then the other race responds. That's how a good RTS develops, and SC2 is a fucking brilliant RTS. Mind you, that doesn't mean that the game can't be imbalanced. I don't think 46% winrate is enough to say that Protoss are too weak, but I do think that Terran being the top race consistently for and entire year says something. However, I don't know this, it's just a vague feeling. Perhaps I'm completely wrong and once Protoss 2gate expand and Zerg triple hatch first Terran will suck. Who the fucks knows? P.S. When trying to explain why another race is having trouble, please please please don't just say that the entire race is stupid. It's inflammatory, inaccurate, and frankly, fucking stupid. | ||
|
Jimbo77
139 Posts
On September 06 2011 23:00 templar rage wrote: 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. One thing i can not understand - why are you saying again and again that i do constantly loose to zerg's infestors and that's the reason of my posting here.  Really, it's strange, and, trust me, it is not. How can i analyze one's games/looses not even having any information about this one's at all?...I still hope these changes eventually will be made to the infestors to be actually balanced. P.S. And could you please tell me, where is the border between actual balance suggestion and "nerf it as i can't beat it" (as you stated above)? | ||
|
templar rage
United States2509 Posts
On September 07 2011 06:19 Jimbo77 wrote: One thing i can not understand - why are you saying again and again that i do constantly loose to zerg's infestors and that's the reason of my posting here. Really, it's strange, and, trust me, it is not. How can i analyze one's games/looses not even having any information about this one's at all?...I still hope these changes eventually will be made to the infestors to be actually balanced. P.S. And could you please tell me, where is the border between actual balance suggestion and "nerf it as i can't beat it" (as you stated above)? Because your changes are so ludicrous that only someone who can't beat Infestors would actually propose them in their right mind. You don't hear people say "Oh, I beat Infestors just fine" and also call for the kind of drastic change you're suggesting. I honestly don't understand how someone can take your apparent position. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'll admit, the border is a gray area, but there is a point where the changes are just so absurd that it's just looking to nerf the unit into oblivion. Your changes fall into that category, and as stated above, I don't understand how anyone could possibly take your position, so I define it as "QQ I can't beat infestors". If you can (probably not), try to objectively think about what your changes would do to the Infestor. Would you really still use it if your changes were implemented? I know you're going to say yes, but please try to actually back it up logically. | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On September 06 2011 07:26 Belial88 wrote: Protoss is way too OP against Zerg in endgame. Stalker/Colossi/Sentry with HT support just owns Zerg. Stalker/Colossi kills any roach based composition, and with HT support, any infestor based composition gets rolled. I know people like to cite the GSL stats, but if you watch all of Nestea or Losira's games, you'll see that all of them end before hive tech or even infestation pit, and all of them end with either some gimmicky all in like hydra, roach/ling, or spinecrawler timing, or overwhelming Protoss who tries to do a 2 base all-in with a 3 base economy from a fast third. Just watch. Anypro and Hongun? These guys make 10+ gates on 2 base, or do some failed DT opener over and over. MC vs Losira/Nestea has not ever happened. So the idea that the game is balanced or protoss is losing to Zerg because of game balance is ridiculous. These games go a certain way, and Zerg beat it, before a macro game occurs. 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. Zerg has plenty of ways to deal with the Protoss death ball, and usually go into the late-game with an econ advantage as is expected out of Zerg these days, since Zerg has by far the best mechanics for fast expanding and holding it compared to Protoss. Once Zerg figured out that the way to beat Protoss late-game isn't to go roach/hydra or roach/hydra + corrupter, their win rates went up dramatically. It's not that HTs don't counter infestors, it's that broodlords backed by infestors is brutally efficient, and all Zerg needs is one good engagement without having all their infestors feedbacked (not hard when they use their overlords as a screen to block vision), after which Protoss cannot reproduce fast enough to hold the Zerg because robo units and HTs (with enough energy for storm) cannot be instantly replaced, and Protoss needs those units to be efficient. Nestea and Losira may never have taken a Protoss to late-game, but saying that the only reason they win is because they haven't played MC is kind of ridiculous considering MC just got taken out by Moon 0-2. | ||
|
Jimbo77
139 Posts
On September 07 2011 06:33 templar rage wrote: Because your changes are so ludicrous that only someone who can't beat Infestors would actually propose them in their right mind. You don't hear people say "Oh, I beat Infestors just fine" and also call for the kind of drastic change you're suggesting. I honestly don't understand how someone can take your apparent position. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I'll admit, the border is a gray area, but there is a point where the changes are just so absurd that it's just looking to nerf the unit into oblivion. Your changes fall into that category, and as stated above, I don't understand how anyone could possibly take your position, so I define it as "QQ I can't beat infestors". If you can (probably not), try to objectively think about what your changes would do to the Infestor. Would you really still use it if your changes were implemented? I know you're going to say yes, but please try to actually back it up logically. Well, grey area... that's already good. You begin to understand that there is no clear border. Now - "I don't understand how anyone could possibly take your position"... So, it's you who don't understand? Or really there is none who can take my changes seriously? Be honest. Do you really think there is none who think infestors is imba at now? Don't deceive yourself. | ||
|
ThatGuy89
United Kingdom1968 Posts
Infestors seem to take place in any MU and as a terran and toss you cant let zerg have infestors without you having ghosts and HT similarly, as toss you cant have a terran having ghosts without having HT this is probably biased but it seems like toss are screwed in any engagement if a terran or zerg go into it with ghosts/infestors and you have no HT. EMP can be deadly, and a combo of fungal/NP can win a battle and really punish a player for being slighlty out of position. In PvT, i dont think the matchup would be fine without 1/1/1 EMP can be too powerful. Obviously terrans aim the emp to hit the HT. But even if you miss, it can still win you the fight, and the game. In comparison, feedback has to be on each ghost, and storm - although incredibly strong if stood in it - is too easilly dodged and unreliable. I know you can use FF - but in order to FF a bio ball together and then storm it you need to have the sentry/ht at the front and then they'll just get EMPed. If one EMP hits your HT, thats it, you get rolled with no AOE damage you got no chance. Even the most perfect storm will not win you an engagment outright i hope this isnt sounding too biased, its not meant to be, it just feels like the HT is the weakest and most unreliable of all 3 spell casters and i think thats what breaks PvT | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
- Necessary to terran early game economy, esp before full mineral saturation. - They offer a unique "investment" option for terrans. You feel slightly ahead, but not by much? Build an extra CC and turn it into an OC. 2.5 mules late you regained your investment and every extra mule become pure profit - with the added benefit of extra scv production (think of it as investing 550 for constant CB on probes ~ investment comes back in 3 minutes later) - Very late game they allow terran to "live off" mules: leaving behind only maybe 12 scvs for gas = bigger army, but these situations 30 minutes into the game can be quite rare and unique. - There is a tactical aspect to mules: you can save them up and float an OC over to a gold and spam mules. The gold will be depleted in record times. In combination of the "investment OC" option, this is a very strong economical benefit. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On September 07 2011 06:48 ThatGuy89 wrote: I think the game atm seems to be revolving around the spellcasters. its rare to find a decent macro game where at least one race - normally the winning one - has their spellcaster Infestors seem to take place in any MU and as a terran and toss you cant let zerg have infestors without you having ghosts and HT similarly, as toss you cant have a terran having ghosts without having HT this is probably biased but it seems like toss are screwed in any engagement if a terran or zerg go into it with ghosts/infestors and you have no HT. EMP can be deadly, and a combo of fungal/NP can win a battle and really punish a player for being slighlty out of position. In PvT, i dont think the matchup would be fine without 1/1/1 EMP can be too powerful. Obviously terrans aim the emp to hit the HT. But even if you miss, it can still win you the fight, and the game. In comparison, feedback has to be on each ghost, and storm - although incredibly strong if stood in it - is too easilly dodged and unreliable. I know you can use FF - but in order to FF a bio ball together and then storm it you need to have the sentry/ht at the front and then they'll just get EMPed. If one EMP hits your HT, thats it, you get rolled with no AOE damage you got no chance. Even the most perfect storm will not win you an engagment outright i hope this isnt sounding too biased, its not meant to be, it just feels like the HT is the weakest and most unreliable of all 3 spell casters and i think thats what breaks PvT The only thing I don't agree is the bolded one  Ghosts counter HTs pretty hard so you don't really want them, but Collo instead.Pretty much agree on everything else. You also forgot to mention that HT tech is the slowest and most expensive tech from all three casters. Quite sad for a spell that makes laughable damage unless marines/hydra spend a picnic day under it. | ||
|
sharktopus.
United States456 Posts
On September 07 2011 06:13 Energizer wrote: The problem with the mule is that its a necessity in the early game. If terran did not have mules then both protoss and zerg can get such an easy economic lead by just the first 5 minuets of the game. Seriously, play a game with a terran as either race and tell him he cant mule whatsoever. Then once the game is done, take a look at the economic graph. At the same time however, its a disaster of a mechanic when you add in gold minerals or a way to fall back when you lose with an all-in... yet still put yourself in a reasonably economic position. What I would like is the mule to be replaced by something else. Something that can give terran a way to stay on par with other races reasonably in the economic game, but not to the extent where it is just some "super scv". It either needs to cost more energy, have its mining ability nerfed, or both. Have you ever seen a a Terran with enough energy on his orbitals to MULE an entire gold mineral field? it's insane. | ||
|
oni_link
Germany165 Posts
it is true that mules on gold minerals are somewhat insane,but its also true that terran has the weakest worker mechanics being unable to chronoboost or drone explode. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
1) A speed buff to 2.25 speed. or 2) +1 range increase on Feedback and storm I also maintain that it would be wise to observe how effective the HT-in-Warp-Prism thing work after 1.4 goes live before testing such changes in the next PTR. | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
On September 07 2011 06:19 MCDayC wrote: I'm a Protoss player before anyone starts. I actually think this thread is a very good idea, (partly) because I thought of it about 2 months ago but never bothered to do it (though I also did think of the idea of a dedicated balance whine thread for raging and frustration) but in the last page a lot of the posts are just... biased. People just go to extremes and state absolutes far too often. "Protoss deathball is unbeatable" "Terran are better in every way" "Zerg can take 3rds ZvP without punishment" All of these things are people mistaking meta game problems with balance. Examples are seen all the time. I'm gonna go with PvZ for this: Remember when 6gate timings were the greatest shit ever? How MC could roll Zerg after Zerg without care with variations of that. Or when sentry timings were considered unstoppable? How mid game Protoss just crushed zerg with awesome timings? Now, I think even the most die hard Zergs would admit that Protoss appear to have a disadvantage on 2 (while trying to get a 3rd) bases. I'm sure at some point in the matchup Protoss will regain that advantage, however temporarily, and learn how to punish Zerg taking fast thirds. Right now I think Zerg have a better understanding of the matchup. That will change. Look at BW. The matchup dynamics change constantly. All the fucking time. One race gains an edge over the other, and then the other race responds. That's how a good RTS develops, and SC2 is a fucking brilliant RTS. Mind you, that doesn't mean that the game can't be imbalanced. I don't think 46% winrate is enough to say that Protoss are too weak, but I do think that Terran being the top race consistently for and entire year says something. However, I don't know this, it's just a vague feeling. Perhaps I'm completely wrong and once Protoss 2gate expand and Zerg triple hatch first Terran will suck. Who the fucks knows? P.S. When trying to explain why another race is having trouble, please please please don't just say that the entire race is stupid. It's inflammatory, inaccurate, and frankly, fucking stupid. Great post, I can't agree more. Yeah, sorry I don't really have anything else to add, just thought the post deserved more visibility. | ||
|
templar rage
United States2509 Posts
On September 07 2011 06:45 Jimbo77 wrote: Well, grey area... that's already good. You begin to understand that there is no clear border. Now - "I don't understand how anyone could possibly take your position"... So, it's you who don't understand? Or really there is none who can take my changes seriously? Be honest. Do you really think there is none who think infestors is imba at now? Don't deceive yourself. You're either really good at twisting words or just really bad with reading comprehension. I said there is no clear border between "legitimate change" (whatever that means) and "too much of a nerf". Just because they're a gray area doesn't mean a proposed change can't be clearly one or the other. In your case, I (and probably everyone else) think that it's clearly an over-nerf. No one is going to take your changes seriously because they're so insane. As for not understanding your position, the combination of you wanting such drastic changes and claiming to have no problem dealing with Infestors does not make sense. People just don't say "Oh, kiting roaches with marauders is easy. Let's make concussive shell a permanent effect to make it even easier". That's essentially what your position is saying. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Really, do you? I say something, then you say something completely unrelated and somehow think that it's relevant. Do I really think there are none who think Infestors are imbalanced? Of course not, and exhibit A is yourself. How is that relevant? I'm not going to continue to bang my head against the wall that is your thick skull. If you can't see how bad your changes are, then I don't know what to say. You say it's obvious to everyone but Blizzard and Zergs that you're right? Well, in reality, it's obvious to everyone but you that you're FOS. | ||
|
templar rage
United States2509 Posts
On September 07 2011 08:51 RavenLoud wrote: I still maintain that HTs need to be considered for a slight buff to offset the removal of the Amulet, which they were obviously designed in mind with. 2) +1 range increase on Feedback and storm I also maintain that it would be wise to observe how effective the HT-in-Warp-Prism thing work after 1.4 goes live before testing such changes in the next PTR. The problem I have with this is that, with this change, HTs and Ghosts have 10 range on their spells, while Infestors have 9. It's already easier to nullify Infestors with Ghosts/HTs than vice-versa (due to no mana-draining spell). My opinion on the matter is to make the range on all the spells of those units the same. I don't necessarily have a problem with a buff to HTs (though I can't really think of a viable one atm), but this one in particular seems kind of unfair. | ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
On September 07 2011 09:29 templar rage wrote: My opinion on the matter is to make the range on all the spells of those units the same. Ghosts HTs and Infestors already have the same range. But that doesn't work because EMP(a mana drain) is AOE so it gets an effective range of +1 because of the aoe. Storm and Fungal get the same benifit. 9 casting range 10 effective range. | ||
|
sharktopus.
United States456 Posts
On September 07 2011 08:48 oni_link wrote: a fine balance change would be that terran mules no longer harvest 42 gold minerals instead of the regular 30 blue. it is true that mules on gold minerals are somewhat insane,but its also true that terran has the weakest worker mechanics being unable to chronoboost or drone explode. Aside from using chrono boost a couple times back to back on the nexus at the start of a game to get probes out, it's really not used that much on probe production unless our mineral line is taken out by an attack and we have to try and get probe count back up as fast as possible. We have too many other things to use chrono on to spend it on probe production (warpgate research and upgrades) after the start of a game. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 mouzHeroMarine StarCraft: Brood War 596White-Ra  282PiGStarcraft269 IndyStarCraft  151ProTech116 UpATreeSC 113Livibee  49BRAT_OK  46JuggernautJason22 ForJumy  11Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
RSL Revival
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
GuMiho vs MaNa
herO vs ShoWTimE
Classic vs TBD
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
Cure vs Reynor
IPSL
ZZZero vs rasowy
Napoleon vs KameZerg
BSL 21
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
RSL Revival
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
