|
Can we stop talking about nerfing things please? - 9:10 KST |
On August 22 2011 13:20 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 13:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On August 22 2011 13:07 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 13:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 22 2011 12:28 Brian333 wrote:
I think the most frustrating thing is the general community response to this entire debacle.
Zergs have problems with 5-rax reaper rush -- Reapers are nerfed hard.
Zergs have problems with 2-rax openings -- Bunkers are nerfed.
Zergs have problems with air-openings -- Spore Crawler root timing is decreased.
Zergs have problems with 2-gate openings -- Zealot build time nerfed.
Zergs have problems with Blink-Stalker all-ins -- Fungal Growth changed to stop Blink.
Zergs have problems with various early-game pressure / all-ins -- Roach range increased to 4.
Terrans have problems with Voidray harass / contain / all-in builds -- Voidrays are nerfed hard.
Protoss have problems with 4-gate v 4-gate in PvP -- Warp-gate nerfed, Pylon power range nerfed.
Protoss / Zerg have problems with stim-timing pushes -- Stim research nerfed.
Blizzard has shown time and time again that in a game that has yet to reach meta-game stability and strategic maturity that if the margin of error is too thin on the defender's side and the execution too easy on the aggressor's side, adjustments are made. Yet...
Protoss have problems with 1/1/1 -- DEAL WITH IT Let's assume that everything you just said was true. I don't think it is, as others have pointed out. But let's assume that those changes were made specifically and solely to deal with the particular issues you identified above. Each of those changes were targeted and focused. They changed a single, specific aspect of a race. They tried to affect a specific thing and nothing beyond that specific thing. What targeted, focused change would you suggest to deal with 1/1/1? Nerfing MULEs? That's hardly a focused change, as it would affect the Terrans throughout mid and late game. Nerf Marines? Same problem. Nerf Tanks or Vikings? It's a staple unit; you can't just go around nerfing it, because then the Terrans will be vulnerable to something else. If 1/1/1 is a problem, there is no simple single thing you can change that will fix everything without simultaneously breaking tons of other stuff. So even if Blizzard decides to fix it pre-HOTS, it's not going to be a quick, easy thing. Reduce banshee damage to non light armored units. I suggested this about a dozen pages ago and people couldn't really argue against it. This actually seems like a pretty good idea. As with all balance changes, you need to attempt to make arguments against it. Would this break anything else? In any matchup? Would it hurt TvZ? Is there a zerg build where terrans only response is banshees? Remember. Damage to lights are the same, so drone harass is unaffected.
Sure, I'll argue against it, at least for TvZ. Banshees in TvZ are... situational, to say the least. They used to be a lot better before the spore root time was decreased, and when the game was in it's earlier stages. However, a queen will now beat a banshee 1 on 1, but unscouted banshees are still going to kill quite a lot of drones, and do a lot of damage. Queens beat banshees anyway, because almost ALL top Z players get a third queen, and 3 queens beat the initial 2 banshees even without micro.
There isn't really a Z build that is punished by banshees unless you scan and see no early evo while getting an early starport, in which case cloakshees would wreak havoc regardless of damage to queens or not. I don't really see it breaking anything...
|
On August 22 2011 13:56 Flonomenalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 13:20 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 13:17 Flonomenalz wrote:On August 22 2011 13:07 Medrea wrote:On August 22 2011 13:05 NicolBolas wrote:On August 22 2011 12:28 Brian333 wrote:
I think the most frustrating thing is the general community response to this entire debacle.
Zergs have problems with 5-rax reaper rush -- Reapers are nerfed hard.
Zergs have problems with 2-rax openings -- Bunkers are nerfed.
Zergs have problems with air-openings -- Spore Crawler root timing is decreased.
Zergs have problems with 2-gate openings -- Zealot build time nerfed.
Zergs have problems with Blink-Stalker all-ins -- Fungal Growth changed to stop Blink.
Zergs have problems with various early-game pressure / all-ins -- Roach range increased to 4.
Terrans have problems with Voidray harass / contain / all-in builds -- Voidrays are nerfed hard.
Protoss have problems with 4-gate v 4-gate in PvP -- Warp-gate nerfed, Pylon power range nerfed.
Protoss / Zerg have problems with stim-timing pushes -- Stim research nerfed.
Blizzard has shown time and time again that in a game that has yet to reach meta-game stability and strategic maturity that if the margin of error is too thin on the defender's side and the execution too easy on the aggressor's side, adjustments are made. Yet...
Protoss have problems with 1/1/1 -- DEAL WITH IT Let's assume that everything you just said was true. I don't think it is, as others have pointed out. But let's assume that those changes were made specifically and solely to deal with the particular issues you identified above. Each of those changes were targeted and focused. They changed a single, specific aspect of a race. They tried to affect a specific thing and nothing beyond that specific thing. What targeted, focused change would you suggest to deal with 1/1/1? Nerfing MULEs? That's hardly a focused change, as it would affect the Terrans throughout mid and late game. Nerf Marines? Same problem. Nerf Tanks or Vikings? It's a staple unit; you can't just go around nerfing it, because then the Terrans will be vulnerable to something else. If 1/1/1 is a problem, there is no simple single thing you can change that will fix everything without simultaneously breaking tons of other stuff. So even if Blizzard decides to fix it pre-HOTS, it's not going to be a quick, easy thing. Reduce banshee damage to non light armored units. I suggested this about a dozen pages ago and people couldn't really argue against it. This actually seems like a pretty good idea. As with all balance changes, you need to attempt to make arguments against it. Would this break anything else? In any matchup? Would it hurt TvZ? Is there a zerg build where terrans only response is banshees? Remember. Damage to lights are the same, so drone harass is unaffected. Sure, I'll argue against it, at least for TvZ. Banshees in TvZ are... situational, to say the least. They used to be a lot better before the spore root time was decreased, and when the game was in it's earlier stages. However, a queen will now beat a banshee 1 on 1, but unscouted banshees are still going to kill quite a lot of drones, and do a lot of damage. Queens beat banshees anyway, because almost ALL top Z players get a third queen, and 3 queens beat the initial 2 banshees even without micro. There isn't really a Z build that is punished by banshees unless you scan and see no early evo while getting an early starport, in which case cloakshees would wreak havoc regardless of damage to queens or not. I don't really see it breaking anything...
Thats FOR the balance change. Not against it. Right?
|
On August 22 2011 13:48 Deezl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 06:03 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Something like this was a possibility ever since so many protoss players began to rely on 15nexus and 1gate expand. I've never understood the economic necessity of expanding so soon. 1gate robo and 1gate star (for phoenix) builds can yield economically sound mid games without sacrificing early game information. I don't think there is such an economic necessity. I think protoss players saw that they could get away with really early expansions and so they did it. Now it's back to being a coinflip like it ought to be. Rushing to gather information remains the most reliable way to get to mid game on even ground or to win outright against opponents not intending to enter mid game. Of course, this requires perfect use of the information, so it is a more difficult way to play until all the necessary knowledge has been discovered, at which point it makes all the things it counters absolutely obsolete. I imagine 1-1-1 is one such thing. Tyler, we really appreciate the post and all, but don't 1-gate SG expo and 1-gate Robo expo both fall to the 1/1/1 all-in, and in some cases fall to the Marine/SCV all-in (stargate?) What is the point of scouting it if you can't live through it? What do you think about Hallucinate as a viable scouting alternative vs. T?
hallucinate got worse because wp got nerfed and it eats your chrono.
i think robo and even stargate tends to have more utility since you need detection in case of cloak and phoenix can kinda harass banshees or at least prevent them from poking around.
|
On August 22 2011 13:53 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 13:42 Truedot wrote:
If any damage reduction, I'd say slightly less to light (such as -4 per volley). that'd make it like the good old wraith, doubled up of course due to it being a two shotter, meaning it wouldn't wipe workers so fast giving you time to respond. its worse than mutalisks for this reason. it'd also allow your cheaper ground based light units to counter it somewhat. marines wouldn't get completely rocked, hydras wouldn't either. This would make them a unit that doesn't directly counter AA but is highly damaging to armor, which seems like what its for to begin with. It also makes some sense due to thors countering it, but then it woukld also counter thor hard and with cloak to boot.
terrans can easy mode with mass banshee/viking/tank/thor, and just sit there and waste you because your air based AA gets owned by thor/vik, while your bround based AA gets owned by banshee tank/thor.
The unit just needs to counter armored as well as it does now, and counter light less well. Its meant to snipe out tanks colossi thors and whatnot, its not meant to kill AA chances completely or force a reaction that causes you to lose 100% of the time.
This will also benefit a protoss as zealots will stand much more of a chance to get rid of marines while stalkers and sentry knock down the banshee. Thats the problem with protoss. Their meat screen vanishes from the huge dps of these things, leaving the vulnerable units, well, vulnerable. If zealots became a cost effective measure, being that they are the cheapest protoss unit barring intys, then the all-in gets countered not by some extra ability of protoss but by protoss being able to field a cheap enough response. The same will hold true for zerg, as it will become more cost effective to have hydras, and to have fewer to counter a relatively cheap air unit that does tons of damage.
To put things in perspective, I'd like to list out corruptor vs Banshee, only because they are the same cost in two different races.
Banshee:
AG only (anti-ground).
moderate hp
12x2 damage per attack round VS ALL. no damage restriction. (24 damage vs 0 armor, 22 vs 1 armor, etc)
high rate of fire
ability to cloak.
fast speed
LIGHT, being countered directly by very few units in game.
Corruptor:
AA only
high hp
14 damage (+6 to massive ONLY)
moderate rate of fire
ability to corrupt (+20% more damage to unit until it dies, cd on 15)
moderate speed
ARMORED, being countered directly by a wide assortment of units.
If we take into consideration these two are EQUAL cost, you can see that the banshee has far more utility and far more early game potential for deadly damage. why compare an AA to an AG? because when a weapon gets specialized its meant to be deadly at that specialization. Ok, so the corruptor kind of underperforms in the ability and damage department, at least you can get that corruptor out fast to deal with banshees. oh, 120 seconds to build a spire? nvm. The point is that its far quicker to tech to a highly deadly unit that also features a lot more ways it can be used and a lot more early game danger than it is to get the unit that runs it off, but cant chase it and kill it, which itself, has very low utility other than direct confrontation. And these units are the same price.
Different races should be different. One race shouldn't have something that completely gives the finger to common sense cost/utility equations. No. The 2shot mechanic on both workers and marines defines TvT in early-midgame. Just because you can't manage to deal with one banshee is not a good reason to nerf it. If you just nerf it's damage to non-light, it really only affects TvZ 2port in other matchups. Single port banshees usually don't end up killing queens if there is creep spread between main and natural. If you have air dominance in TvT and make a banshee, it's just going to kill tanks slower, the other guy is still going to have to unsiege and run because he can't shoot up. As of right now though, banshees rip stalkers to shreds(even 3/3/3 stalkers lose to a banshee), so even if protoss cleans up the ground army, reinforcing stalkers sometimes aren't enough to deal with the 3 leftover banshees.
What... people can't deal with low numbers of a unit that costs 150/100? It would make 2port banshees worse? It just seems like you keep listing good reasons why the banshee needs a nerf.
|
On August 22 2011 14:01 fraktoasters wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 13:53 Amui wrote:On August 22 2011 13:42 Truedot wrote:
If any damage reduction, I'd say slightly less to light (such as -4 per volley). that'd make it like the good old wraith, doubled up of course due to it being a two shotter, meaning it wouldn't wipe workers so fast giving you time to respond. its worse than mutalisks for this reason. it'd also allow your cheaper ground based light units to counter it somewhat. marines wouldn't get completely rocked, hydras wouldn't either. This would make them a unit that doesn't directly counter AA but is highly damaging to armor, which seems like what its for to begin with. It also makes some sense due to thors countering it, but then it woukld also counter thor hard and with cloak to boot.
terrans can easy mode with mass banshee/viking/tank/thor, and just sit there and waste you because your air based AA gets owned by thor/vik, while your bround based AA gets owned by banshee tank/thor.
The unit just needs to counter armored as well as it does now, and counter light less well. Its meant to snipe out tanks colossi thors and whatnot, its not meant to kill AA chances completely or force a reaction that causes you to lose 100% of the time.
This will also benefit a protoss as zealots will stand much more of a chance to get rid of marines while stalkers and sentry knock down the banshee. Thats the problem with protoss. Their meat screen vanishes from the huge dps of these things, leaving the vulnerable units, well, vulnerable. If zealots became a cost effective measure, being that they are the cheapest protoss unit barring intys, then the all-in gets countered not by some extra ability of protoss but by protoss being able to field a cheap enough response. The same will hold true for zerg, as it will become more cost effective to have hydras, and to have fewer to counter a relatively cheap air unit that does tons of damage.
To put things in perspective, I'd like to list out corruptor vs Banshee, only because they are the same cost in two different races.
Banshee:
AG only (anti-ground).
moderate hp
12x2 damage per attack round VS ALL. no damage restriction. (24 damage vs 0 armor, 22 vs 1 armor, etc)
high rate of fire
ability to cloak.
fast speed
LIGHT, being countered directly by very few units in game.
Corruptor:
AA only
high hp
14 damage (+6 to massive ONLY)
moderate rate of fire
ability to corrupt (+20% more damage to unit until it dies, cd on 15)
moderate speed
ARMORED, being countered directly by a wide assortment of units.
If we take into consideration these two are EQUAL cost, you can see that the banshee has far more utility and far more early game potential for deadly damage. why compare an AA to an AG? because when a weapon gets specialized its meant to be deadly at that specialization. Ok, so the corruptor kind of underperforms in the ability and damage department, at least you can get that corruptor out fast to deal with banshees. oh, 120 seconds to build a spire? nvm. The point is that its far quicker to tech to a highly deadly unit that also features a lot more ways it can be used and a lot more early game danger than it is to get the unit that runs it off, but cant chase it and kill it, which itself, has very low utility other than direct confrontation. And these units are the same price.
Different races should be different. One race shouldn't have something that completely gives the finger to common sense cost/utility equations. No. The 2shot mechanic on both workers and marines defines TvT in early-midgame. Just because you can't manage to deal with one banshee is not a good reason to nerf it. If you just nerf it's damage to non-light, it really only affects TvZ 2port in other matchups. Single port banshees usually don't end up killing queens if there is creep spread between main and natural. If you have air dominance in TvT and make a banshee, it's just going to kill tanks slower, the other guy is still going to have to unsiege and run because he can't shoot up. As of right now though, banshees rip stalkers to shreds(even 3/3/3 stalkers lose to a banshee), so even if protoss cleans up the ground army, reinforcing stalkers sometimes aren't enough to deal with the 3 leftover banshees. What... people can't deal with low numbers of a unit that costs 150/100? It would make 2port banshees worse? It just seems like you keep listing good reasons why the banshee needs a nerf.
Yeah I was confused when i read that too. I think he got confused halfway through or something.
|
On August 22 2011 14:01 fraktoasters wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 13:53 Amui wrote:On August 22 2011 13:42 Truedot wrote:
If any damage reduction, I'd say slightly less to light (such as -4 per volley). that'd make it like the good old wraith, doubled up of course due to it being a two shotter, meaning it wouldn't wipe workers so fast giving you time to respond. its worse than mutalisks for this reason. it'd also allow your cheaper ground based light units to counter it somewhat. marines wouldn't get completely rocked, hydras wouldn't either. This would make them a unit that doesn't directly counter AA but is highly damaging to armor, which seems like what its for to begin with. It also makes some sense due to thors countering it, but then it woukld also counter thor hard and with cloak to boot.
terrans can easy mode with mass banshee/viking/tank/thor, and just sit there and waste you because your air based AA gets owned by thor/vik, while your bround based AA gets owned by banshee tank/thor.
The unit just needs to counter armored as well as it does now, and counter light less well. Its meant to snipe out tanks colossi thors and whatnot, its not meant to kill AA chances completely or force a reaction that causes you to lose 100% of the time.
This will also benefit a protoss as zealots will stand much more of a chance to get rid of marines while stalkers and sentry knock down the banshee. Thats the problem with protoss. Their meat screen vanishes from the huge dps of these things, leaving the vulnerable units, well, vulnerable. If zealots became a cost effective measure, being that they are the cheapest protoss unit barring intys, then the all-in gets countered not by some extra ability of protoss but by protoss being able to field a cheap enough response. The same will hold true for zerg, as it will become more cost effective to have hydras, and to have fewer to counter a relatively cheap air unit that does tons of damage.
To put things in perspective, I'd like to list out corruptor vs Banshee, only because they are the same cost in two different races.
Banshee:
AG only (anti-ground).
moderate hp
12x2 damage per attack round VS ALL. no damage restriction. (24 damage vs 0 armor, 22 vs 1 armor, etc)
high rate of fire
ability to cloak.
fast speed
LIGHT, being countered directly by very few units in game.
Corruptor:
AA only
high hp
14 damage (+6 to massive ONLY)
moderate rate of fire
ability to corrupt (+20% more damage to unit until it dies, cd on 15)
moderate speed
ARMORED, being countered directly by a wide assortment of units.
If we take into consideration these two are EQUAL cost, you can see that the banshee has far more utility and far more early game potential for deadly damage. why compare an AA to an AG? because when a weapon gets specialized its meant to be deadly at that specialization. Ok, so the corruptor kind of underperforms in the ability and damage department, at least you can get that corruptor out fast to deal with banshees. oh, 120 seconds to build a spire? nvm. The point is that its far quicker to tech to a highly deadly unit that also features a lot more ways it can be used and a lot more early game danger than it is to get the unit that runs it off, but cant chase it and kill it, which itself, has very low utility other than direct confrontation. And these units are the same price.
Different races should be different. One race shouldn't have something that completely gives the finger to common sense cost/utility equations. No. The 2shot mechanic on both workers and marines defines TvT in early-midgame. Just because you can't manage to deal with one banshee is not a good reason to nerf it. If you just nerf it's damage to non-light, it really only affects TvZ 2port in other matchups. Single port banshees usually don't end up killing queens if there is creep spread between main and natural. If you have air dominance in TvT and make a banshee, it's just going to kill tanks slower, the other guy is still going to have to unsiege and run because he can't shoot up. As of right now though, banshees rip stalkers to shreds(even 3/3/3 stalkers lose to a banshee), so even if protoss cleans up the ground army, reinforcing stalkers sometimes aren't enough to deal with the 3 leftover banshees. What... people can't deal with low numbers of a unit that costs 150/100? It would make 2port banshees worse? It just seems like you keep listing good reasons why the banshee needs a nerf.
I'm suggesting a nerf in a different direction. Nerfing it against light is not a good way to go(see original quote)
Edit: I suppose my wording could've been more clear. I support a banshee nerf, but only against non-light(unlike original quote).
|
Personally, I prefer the nexus first with gas steal into 6gate way of dealing with this. It's still hard to deal with (need to delay the push as much while your production gets up and running AND have excellent unit control), but everything else I have tried just dies. Nothing but 6gate zealots en masse with detection and a few stalkers seems to work for me.
Not that my opinion matters coz im not a korean toss so I wouldn't have a clue how hard a time they are having right now. 
I watched saw the mc vs puma games last night too. And honestly, it made me want to cry. MC was looking so far ahead in that first game after he crushed the first push. Then Puma just conjures another whopping army off 6 scvs and one OC off one base.
Now in terran's defense, MC did engage at a choke and apparently MC misread puma and started teching instead of spamming units. But when I was watching the match, I couldn't help but feel that there was definitely something very imba and very wrong about how quickly puma respammed his army of doom off one base and ~6scv's only to crush MC's who was clearly in a superior economic position.
|
On August 22 2011 14:04 Selendis wrote:Personally, I prefer the nexus first with gas steal into 6gate way of dealing with this. It's still hard to deal with (need to delay the push as much while your production gets up and running AND have excellent unit control), but everything else I have tried just dies. Nothing but 6gate zealots en masse with detection and a few stalkers seems to work for me. Not that my opinion matters coz im not a korean toss so I wouldn't have a clue how hard a time they are having right now. I watched saw the mc vs puma games last night too. And honestly, it made me want to cry. MC was looking so far ahead in that first game after he crushed the first push. Then Puma just conjures another whopping army off 6 scvs and one OC off one base. Now in terran's defense, MC did engage at a choke and apparently MC misread puma and started teching instead of spamming units. But when I was watching the match, I couldn't help but feel that there was definitely something very imba and very wrong about how quickly puma respammed his army of doom off one base and ~6scv's only to crush MC's who was clearly in a superior economic position.
Nexus first gas steal?? Whats stopping them from 2 raxing you to death after they scout that? You're down 475 minerals... thats obscenely bad.
|
On August 22 2011 14:03 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 14:01 fraktoasters wrote:On August 22 2011 13:53 Amui wrote:On August 22 2011 13:42 Truedot wrote:
If any damage reduction, I'd say slightly less to light (such as -4 per volley). that'd make it like the good old wraith, doubled up of course due to it being a two shotter, meaning it wouldn't wipe workers so fast giving you time to respond. its worse than mutalisks for this reason. it'd also allow your cheaper ground based light units to counter it somewhat. marines wouldn't get completely rocked, hydras wouldn't either. This would make them a unit that doesn't directly counter AA but is highly damaging to armor, which seems like what its for to begin with. It also makes some sense due to thors countering it, but then it woukld also counter thor hard and with cloak to boot.
terrans can easy mode with mass banshee/viking/tank/thor, and just sit there and waste you because your air based AA gets owned by thor/vik, while your bround based AA gets owned by banshee tank/thor.
The unit just needs to counter armored as well as it does now, and counter light less well. Its meant to snipe out tanks colossi thors and whatnot, its not meant to kill AA chances completely or force a reaction that causes you to lose 100% of the time.
This will also benefit a protoss as zealots will stand much more of a chance to get rid of marines while stalkers and sentry knock down the banshee. Thats the problem with protoss. Their meat screen vanishes from the huge dps of these things, leaving the vulnerable units, well, vulnerable. If zealots became a cost effective measure, being that they are the cheapest protoss unit barring intys, then the all-in gets countered not by some extra ability of protoss but by protoss being able to field a cheap enough response. The same will hold true for zerg, as it will become more cost effective to have hydras, and to have fewer to counter a relatively cheap air unit that does tons of damage.
To put things in perspective, I'd like to list out corruptor vs Banshee, only because they are the same cost in two different races.
Banshee:
AG only (anti-ground).
moderate hp
12x2 damage per attack round VS ALL. no damage restriction. (24 damage vs 0 armor, 22 vs 1 armor, etc)
high rate of fire
ability to cloak.
fast speed
LIGHT, being countered directly by very few units in game.
Corruptor:
AA only
high hp
14 damage (+6 to massive ONLY)
moderate rate of fire
ability to corrupt (+20% more damage to unit until it dies, cd on 15)
moderate speed
ARMORED, being countered directly by a wide assortment of units.
If we take into consideration these two are EQUAL cost, you can see that the banshee has far more utility and far more early game potential for deadly damage. why compare an AA to an AG? because when a weapon gets specialized its meant to be deadly at that specialization. Ok, so the corruptor kind of underperforms in the ability and damage department, at least you can get that corruptor out fast to deal with banshees. oh, 120 seconds to build a spire? nvm. The point is that its far quicker to tech to a highly deadly unit that also features a lot more ways it can be used and a lot more early game danger than it is to get the unit that runs it off, but cant chase it and kill it, which itself, has very low utility other than direct confrontation. And these units are the same price.
Different races should be different. One race shouldn't have something that completely gives the finger to common sense cost/utility equations. No. The 2shot mechanic on both workers and marines defines TvT in early-midgame. Just because you can't manage to deal with one banshee is not a good reason to nerf it. If you just nerf it's damage to non-light, it really only affects TvZ 2port in other matchups. Single port banshees usually don't end up killing queens if there is creep spread between main and natural. If you have air dominance in TvT and make a banshee, it's just going to kill tanks slower, the other guy is still going to have to unsiege and run because he can't shoot up. As of right now though, banshees rip stalkers to shreds(even 3/3/3 stalkers lose to a banshee), so even if protoss cleans up the ground army, reinforcing stalkers sometimes aren't enough to deal with the 3 leftover banshees. What... people can't deal with low numbers of a unit that costs 150/100? It would make 2port banshees worse? It just seems like you keep listing good reasons why the banshee needs a nerf. I'm suggesting a nerf in a different direction. Nerfing it against light is not a good way to go(see original quote)
Oh, well thats a small part of the puzzle really. Blizzard has the right people and capable minds of mathematically resolving this.
|
This might be a stupid idea, but:
I would like to see mules changed to a spell that increases mineral income at a CC by 5% or so. So when T pulls 20 SCVs they actually lose mineral income. This would make it so holding off the initial push isnt followed up by another very strong push.
|
On August 22 2011 14:05 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 14:04 Selendis wrote:Personally, I prefer the nexus first with gas steal into 6gate way of dealing with this. It's still hard to deal with (need to delay the push as much while your production gets up and running AND have excellent unit control), but everything else I have tried just dies. Nothing but 6gate zealots en masse with detection and a few stalkers seems to work for me. Not that my opinion matters coz im not a korean toss so I wouldn't have a clue how hard a time they are having right now. I watched saw the mc vs puma games last night too. And honestly, it made me want to cry. MC was looking so far ahead in that first game after he crushed the first push. Then Puma just conjures another whopping army off 6 scvs and one OC off one base. Now in terran's defense, MC did engage at a choke and apparently MC misread puma and started teching instead of spamming units. But when I was watching the match, I couldn't help but feel that there was definitely something very imba and very wrong about how quickly puma respammed his army of doom off one base and ~6scv's only to crush MC's who was clearly in a superior economic position. Nexus first gas steal?? Whats stopping them from 2 raxing you to death after they scout that? You're down 475 minerals... thats obscenely bad.
I think thats actually one of the key issues at hand here. Any rock solid way of stopping the 1-1-1 is so drastic it just flat out dies to 2 rax.
|
Sigh...Why are people even mentioning the Banshee, did anyone even read the OP? It's marines that are the problem, Banshees have nothing to do with it. Haven't you see the build TheBestfou does? Where he gets 2 reactor'd marine with tanks and skips banshees all together? That I find extremely harder to hold since you need to blindly make fast Collosi (Since nothing but AOE kills mass marines) but fast collosi loses to 1/1/1. Durp.
|
diamond P here, it requires some but not to much skill to pull off and has a 90%+ winrate, seems pretty imba to me.
|
On August 22 2011 14:06 Scythe90 wrote:
This might be a stupid idea, but:
I would like to see mules changed to a spell that increases mineral income at a CC by 5% or so. So when T pulls 20 SCVs they actually lose mineral income. This would make it so holding off the initial push isnt followed up by another very strong push.
Rather than anything transcendental like that. I think a reduction in the amount it brings in over time is more appropriate.
|
On August 22 2011 14:02 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 14:01 fraktoasters wrote:On August 22 2011 13:53 Amui wrote:On August 22 2011 13:42 Truedot wrote:
If any damage reduction, I'd say slightly less to light (such as -4 per volley). that'd make it like the good old wraith, doubled up of course due to it being a two shotter, meaning it wouldn't wipe workers so fast giving you time to respond. its worse than mutalisks for this reason. it'd also allow your cheaper ground based light units to counter it somewhat. marines wouldn't get completely rocked, hydras wouldn't either. This would make them a unit that doesn't directly counter AA but is highly damaging to armor, which seems like what its for to begin with. It also makes some sense due to thors countering it, but then it woukld also counter thor hard and with cloak to boot.
terrans can easy mode with mass banshee/viking/tank/thor, and just sit there and waste you because your air based AA gets owned by thor/vik, while your bround based AA gets owned by banshee tank/thor.
The unit just needs to counter armored as well as it does now, and counter light less well. Its meant to snipe out tanks colossi thors and whatnot, its not meant to kill AA chances completely or force a reaction that causes you to lose 100% of the time.
This will also benefit a protoss as zealots will stand much more of a chance to get rid of marines while stalkers and sentry knock down the banshee. Thats the problem with protoss. Their meat screen vanishes from the huge dps of these things, leaving the vulnerable units, well, vulnerable. If zealots became a cost effective measure, being that they are the cheapest protoss unit barring intys, then the all-in gets countered not by some extra ability of protoss but by protoss being able to field a cheap enough response. The same will hold true for zerg, as it will become more cost effective to have hydras, and to have fewer to counter a relatively cheap air unit that does tons of damage.
To put things in perspective, I'd like to list out corruptor vs Banshee, only because they are the same cost in two different races.
Banshee:
AG only (anti-ground).
moderate hp
12x2 damage per attack round VS ALL. no damage restriction. (24 damage vs 0 armor, 22 vs 1 armor, etc)
high rate of fire
ability to cloak.
fast speed
LIGHT, being countered directly by very few units in game.
Corruptor:
AA only
high hp
14 damage (+6 to massive ONLY)
moderate rate of fire
ability to corrupt (+20% more damage to unit until it dies, cd on 15)
moderate speed
ARMORED, being countered directly by a wide assortment of units.
If we take into consideration these two are EQUAL cost, you can see that the banshee has far more utility and far more early game potential for deadly damage. why compare an AA to an AG? because when a weapon gets specialized its meant to be deadly at that specialization. Ok, so the corruptor kind of underperforms in the ability and damage department, at least you can get that corruptor out fast to deal with banshees. oh, 120 seconds to build a spire? nvm. The point is that its far quicker to tech to a highly deadly unit that also features a lot more ways it can be used and a lot more early game danger than it is to get the unit that runs it off, but cant chase it and kill it, which itself, has very low utility other than direct confrontation. And these units are the same price.
Different races should be different. One race shouldn't have something that completely gives the finger to common sense cost/utility equations. No. The 2shot mechanic on both workers and marines defines TvT in early-midgame. Just because you can't manage to deal with one banshee is not a good reason to nerf it. If you just nerf it's damage to non-light, it really only affects TvZ 2port in other matchups. Single port banshees usually don't end up killing queens if there is creep spread between main and natural. If you have air dominance in TvT and make a banshee, it's just going to kill tanks slower, the other guy is still going to have to unsiege and run because he can't shoot up. As of right now though, banshees rip stalkers to shreds(even 3/3/3 stalkers lose to a banshee), so even if protoss cleans up the ground army, reinforcing stalkers sometimes aren't enough to deal with the 3 leftover banshees. What... people can't deal with low numbers of a unit that costs 150/100? It would make 2port banshees worse? It just seems like you keep listing good reasons why the banshee needs a nerf. Yeah I was confused when i read that too. I think he got confused halfway through or something.
Yeah I would definitely appreciate a general decrease in banshee damage. But I've been wanting that for a long time.
|
On August 22 2011 14:07 Benzzro wrote:
Sigh...Why are people even mentioning the Banshee, did anyone even read the OP? It's marines that are the problem, Banshees have nothing to do with it. Haven't you see the build TheBestfou does? Where he gets 2 reactor'd marine with tanks and skips banshees all together? That I find extremely harder to hold since you need to blindly make fast Collosi (Since nothing but AOE kills mass marines) but fast collosi loses to 1/1/1. Durp.
Thebest does a lot of, well, odd things.
But yeah I think the problem is the banshees since we tend to always see terrans ground army is dealt with and now 3 banshees are killing stalkers faster than they can warp in.
|
On August 22 2011 14:07 Benzzro wrote:
Sigh...Why are people even mentioning the Banshee, did anyone even read the OP? It's marines that are the problem, Banshees have nothing to do with it. Haven't you see the build TheBestfou does? Where he gets 2 reactor'd marine with tanks and skips banshees all together? That I find extremely harder to hold since you need to blindly make fast Collosi (Since nothing but AOE kills mass marines) but fast collosi loses to 1/1/1. Durp.
Because banshees force you to make large numbers of stalkers instead of other units that you would want against marine/tank.
But really, we can point at any unit in the Terran comp and say that it deserves a nerf (because they're all freaking good).
|
On August 22 2011 14:05 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2011 14:04 Selendis wrote:Personally, I prefer the nexus first with gas steal into 6gate way of dealing with this. It's still hard to deal with (need to delay the push as much while your production gets up and running AND have excellent unit control), but everything else I have tried just dies. Nothing but 6gate zealots en masse with detection and a few stalkers seems to work for me. Not that my opinion matters coz im not a korean toss so I wouldn't have a clue how hard a time they are having right now. I watched saw the mc vs puma games last night too. And honestly, it made me want to cry. MC was looking so far ahead in that first game after he crushed the first push. Then Puma just conjures another whopping army off 6 scvs and one OC off one base. Now in terran's defense, MC did engage at a choke and apparently MC misread puma and started teching instead of spamming units. But when I was watching the match, I couldn't help but feel that there was definitely something very imba and very wrong about how quickly puma respammed his army of doom off one base and ~6scv's only to crush MC's who was clearly in a superior economic position. Nexus first gas steal?? Whats stopping them from 2 raxing you to death after they scout that? You're down 475 minerals... thats obscenely bad.
You are absolutely right. 2 Rax is very difficult to deal with.
|
does anyone else feel that the crux of protoss' weakness feels like the immortal?
the robo bay is necessary for an observer, but the immortal is basically useless except to counter very specific army compositions. 1/1/1 is NOT one of those compositions.
given that you basically NEED a robo bay to survive 1/1/1 (cloaked banshee and scouting), it's a huge sink, espeically in gas, just to be able to scout your opponent early enough. notice that all other races' scouting methods are mineral-intensive.
then once you do have your robo, it's a dead-weight production unit. producing immortals out of it is a joke, considering the immortal will never reach the tanks if the terran army is positioned correctly, and the followup waves by the terran are comprised of marines, not mech.
sure, they're great against bunkers also, but trading gas-heavy expensive units like immortals for bunkers doesn't sound ideal to me.
if the immortal was a bit more versatile, it would help not only in defense of 1/1/1 but give protoss more offensive options early game. at the moment, putting down 1 gate robo is basically putting your hand up and saying "i will not attack you for ages"
tl;dr
* buff immortals to give protoss more early game options
ideas - longer range/lower dps (everyone's seen the dancing immortal)
- less drastic difference in damage vs light/armored, plus favour faster attack speed over higher damage per shot (improve dps against marines/lings)
- faster move speed for more offensive options (1 gate robo can now lead to pressure)
- "evasion" ability, rather than hardened shield (improve efficacy vs marine/lings who make immortals look like I'mMortals - sorry for the terrible joke -.-")
of course not all of the above, but they're just some of my ideas on how to make a useless unit become a more often used part of the protoss army.
|
The only effective short term solution I see, is to remove the 1/1/1 TvP friendly maps from the tournament map pools. The game balance is so fragile now, so any patch changes can break more than they fix.
The long term solution? Wait for HotS :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
