EPTa really specific Ninja ZvP nerf (1.4.0 PTR) - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PPTouch
99 Posts
| ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On September 13 2011 06:20 PPTouch wrote: has anyone tested if surrounding your stalkers super tightly with forcefields will make it so banelings cannot even hit the prtosos untis when dropped? I'm not 100% sure that such a test would be entirely useful, since a protoss player who's up against baneling drops may not want to pack his units so tightly together-- if he makes even the slightest error he will lose. Also, this won't be doable if you have colossi in your group as they will just step on the forcefields  | ||
|
PPTouch
99 Posts
On September 13 2011 06:24 Blazinghand wrote: I'm not 100% sure that such a test would be entirely useful, since a protoss player who's up against baneling drops may not want to pack his units so tightly together-- if he makes even the slightest error he will lose. Also, this won't be doable if you have colossi in your group as they will just step on the forcefields Depends on how tightly you pack your units- with perfect micro I think you could pack everything lcose enough togather while not having colossi too close to forcefields (at lest at 200/200) that bane rain would not even hit the ball- it's worth a test. | ||
|
Navillus
United States1188 Posts
| ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
Clbull
United Kingdom1439 Posts
- 24 Banelings - 6 Overlords - 30 Zealots - 4 Colossus As you can see in this video, my findings are inconclusive plus I am not sure if the nerf is active or not on the EU PTR. On both tests (1.3 live and 1.4 PTR), I did a crapton of damage on an a-moving Zealot Colossus ball with 24 Banelings. However, what I can say is that the army made it out a little bit more intact on the 1.4 PTR than it did on the 1.3 Live client. Then again, this could have just been me doing it slightly wrong. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a huge nerf on paper. However, I think it would depend on your unit composition and just how many banelings and overlords you are willing to waste. Plus I didn't use the forcefield trick that anybody mentioned. I hope it gets reversed nonetheless. Zerg need more ways to fight a deathball anyways. | ||
|
Kajarn
United States126 Posts
| ||
|
ZergBonjwa
Canada104 Posts
| ||
|
Ruscour
5233 Posts
| ||
|
Dhalphir
Australia1305 Posts
| ||
|
iblink
Netherlands36 Posts
| ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
| ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On September 13 2011 08:05 Zelniq wrote: edited thread title and OP yoyo let's go play some more typhon peaks ^^ | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On September 13 2011 08:05 Zelniq wrote: edited thread title and OP All-in-all I think this thread is a great success. Empirical testing wins out and becomes the OP! <3 I'm surprised the playXP people didn't double-check thought it did take several tries to find the truth. | ||
|
I Hott Sauce I
United States91 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
InstantKarma
United States205 Posts
On September 13 2011 08:05 Zelniq wrote: edited thread title and OP You didn't cite the evidence for the test being false. There are multiple videos of this nerf. Are they just hallucinations? How are they incorrect? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On September 13 2011 08:33 InstantKarma wrote: You didn't cite the evidence for the test being false. There are multiple videos of this nerf. Are they just hallucinations? How are they incorrect? They are incorrect because there are small gaps in between the zealots where the banelings land, and sometimes those gaps are too big and sometimes they're too small and that caused the difference between the tests. | ||
|
BrodiaQ
United States892 Posts
| ||
|
chestnutman
176 Posts
On September 13 2011 08:36 Blazinghand wrote: They are incorrect because there are small gaps in between the zealots where the banelings land, and sometimes those gaps are too big and sometimes they're too small and that caused the difference between the tests. Ye, just did some testing myself, nothing changed to baneling drops. You cant drop on super tigh unit balls just like you cant drop on top of tightly built buildings. The banelings will just stop to drop. So what is that bug fix in the patch notes really about? Anyone knows? | ||
|
DustyShelf
United Kingdom111 Posts
First off I should really clarify that I 100% agree with the TL;DR on the original post That is: "it probably requires unrealistic conditions to take full effect" I apologise for my sensationalist headline and minimalist commentary on my initial posting on reddit, it has resulted in the community wildly overreacting to the change. It probably wont be an issue for most games. I have performed further testing on more realistic death balls and have clarified that everything should be okay. Anyway, I did want to clarify a couple of things. The tests were not "failed" in any way. While I appreciate that I used a somewhat unrealistic parameters but I really wanted to see if there was any change between the two versions, hence I made a huge ball of closely clumped together zealots. I verified my results multiple times. Exactly the same micro and setup was used almost every single time. The holes circled in the OP are not real gaps but merely appear to be due to the perspective of the 3d. Unless 1.4 also has also made changes to the way one can clump a bunch of zealots those gaps do not exist To clarify my findings: There is a difference between 1.3 and 1.4 in the way that the drop code is handled. In 1.3 it will permit the dropping of units into a tight cluster of units if it cannot find available space within a specific radius. In 1.4 it will delay the drop command until if finds viable space. However in 1.4 if it fails to find available space within a specific period of time the drop command will be cancelled. This is why in my 1.4 test you can see that most of the overlords fail to drop their full contingent of banelings. Now while this should not be an issue in most games my fear is that cunning players of the future will find mechanisms to exploit this logic and cause baneling drops to fail. I really wanted to bring light to the fact that there is a flaw in the new logic in 1.4 that should be resolved before people find mechanisms to exploit it. I have added some musings to my thread on battle.net (*shudders*) and I hope the devs take note and consider improving the logic. One example of such exploits that concern me is how players exploit the "hold" position command on workers in micro fights to make melee troops act idiotically. People seem to champion this as "amazing micro" whereas (as a software engineer) I see it as just a flaw in the system that should be fixed (not that I dislike players that do it but I don't like the fact that the exploit exists at all). Once more I'd like to apologise for creating the video without the proper commentary alongside it to put into context and for my sensationalist title. I will be more careful with any future postings I make. Thanks for reading this far. TL;DR; "it probably requires unrealistic conditions to take full effect" (but there is a difference between the two versions and the tests were genuine) --------- EDIT: WHOA! Check the post at the top of this page that states: has anyone tested if surrounding your stalkers super tightly with forcefields will make it so banelings cannot even hit the prtosos untis when dropped? I just did a couple of tests... and by all means we really need to test this further, preferably with two people to make the micro good (as its tough to do it all as one person)..... but from what I can gather It's true. I don't know if it is unrealistic to have so many sentries/FFs but it is at least possible. | ||
| ||
