EPTa really specific Ninja ZvP nerf (1.4.0 PTR) - Page 18
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JiYan
United States3660 Posts
| ||
NonY
8450 Posts
On September 13 2011 04:32 PenguinWithNuke wrote: I hope Blizzard is trolling. Why would you ever hope Blizzard is trolling? This anti-Blizzard/pro-chaos attitude adds nothing to the discussion. If you think Blizzard made a mistake, then explain why you think it's a mistake and leave it at that. It's absurd to tell us that you hope that they're making the mistake on purpose so that they can have a laugh about it. | ||
|
DustyShelf
United Kingdom111 Posts
The logic _has_ changed. The tests were _not_ failures they were just unrealistic in a 1v1 setting (it would still be possible to exploit this in say: monobattles as per the original test). However there is only one obvious 1v1 game play change and that is that you can now counter bling drops by surrounding your army with force fields (however impractical this might be). Aside from those edge cases, bling drops they will still behave in pretty much the same fashion in your normal 1v1 unless some sort crazy micro is developed to exploit the issue (which might not even be possible). | ||
|
grobo
Japan6115 Posts
On September 14 2011 01:52 QTIP. wrote: Really... you should probably re-read the OP. On September 14 2011 01:43 Binabik wrote: Why are there 5 people responding with the exact same answer if the "problem" is already solved -_- Stop with the "re-read the OP/i'm such a good citizen"-crap, Chill said pretty much the exact same thing i did, but for some reason you let that pass, how peculiar. The fact is that this change is still in the current version of the PTR, i know that it's unlikely that this will ever have an impact on the game, but it's still not impossible. | ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
On September 14 2011 03:17 grobo wrote: Stop with the "re-read the OP/i'm such a good citizen"-crap, Chill said pretty much the exact same thing i did, but for some reason you let that pass, how peculiar. The fact is that this change is still in the current version of the PTR, i know that it's unlikely that this will ever have an impact on the game, but it's still not impossible. Chill posted that before it become apparent that the testing method was flawed. If Chill posted after the update mentioning that this is UNTRUE, then I'm sure people would have corrected him. More importantly, the only reason I bothered to respond was how emotionally distressed you were by the change. "I'm not even mad anymore, it's just sad. The game i love so much is seriously turning to shit." As well as.... "I fear SC2 has become too popular and in order to maximize profit Blizzard decides to cater to the "wrong" crowd." (lol) These statements are quite inconsistent with your following comment of "i know that it's unlikely that this will ever have an impact on the game, but it's still not impossible." So you are beyond anger but now sad, despite knowing that this will probably be a non-issue going into the future. OK... If anything, I was hoping you would neither be mad / sad with the news updated in the OP. Looks like I've made you mad somehow... sorry about that. | ||
|
rale
United States40 Posts
On 1.3, if you attempt a moving drop in an area that's completely occupied, the dropped baneling will deflect to the nearest open point, up to a certain distance. The maximum deflection distance seems to be about 1.5 times the diameter of a forcefield. If there is no open space within the deflection range, it would drop even in areas occupied by units. On 1.4, if there are no open spaces within the deflection range, the unit is simply not dropped. In practice, this means you can defend baneling drops by forcefield-donuting your own army, but the risk of doing so is great. The slightest opening will draw most of the banelings in, and it's quite difficult to donut yourself if your army contains any colossus or archons. Also, if there are any infestors in the zerg army, it's obviously suicide. | ||
|
EmilA
Denmark3219 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:34 rale wrote: After testing it more myself, I agree there is a change. On 1.3, if you attempt a moving drop in an area that's completely occupied, the dropped baneling will deflect to the nearest open point, up to a certain distance. The maximum deflection distance seems to be about 1.5 times the diameter of a forcefield. If there is no open space within the deflection range, it would drop even in areas occupied by units. On 1.4, if there are no open spaces within the deflection range, the unit is simply not dropped. In practice, this means you can defend baneling drops by forcefield-donuting your own army, but the risk of doing so is great. The slightest opening will draw most of the banelings in, and it's quite difficult to donut yourself if your army contains any colossus or archons. Also, if there are any infestors in the zerg army, it's obviously suicide. This is about what I found, though it appears that even when I click a big clump of units to move around the center unit, they'll sometimes form small gaps. So it's hard to test properly. | ||
|
cactusjack914
United States183 Posts
| ||
BigFan
TLADT24836 Posts
| ||
|
DustyShelf
United Kingdom111 Posts
In the current version we're playing you CAN drop banes into densely packed areas. | ||
Supamang
United States2113 Posts
And yet people still continue to post about how this ninja nerf is bullshit. wtf is wrong with you guys? | ||
|
DustyShelf
United Kingdom111 Posts
I've been trying for the past few hours to get the mods to change both the title and the opening paragraph of this thread because its all terribly incorrect but I guess they're busy. I'm the guy who made the original vids we're discussing and also this new vid that explains the change in a much better fashion. I did post the new vid in a new thread but that thread got merged into this one and the OP is still not correctly fixed up yet (as I didn't post the OP here so I don't have control over it and no-one reads all the posts from start to end). Just watch the vid to see what i'm on about and realise that there is a change in the PTR (probably not a big deal, but a change nevertheless). | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On September 14 2011 02:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Why would you ever hope Blizzard is trolling? This anti-Blizzard/pro-chaos attitude adds nothing to the discussion. If you think Blizzard made a mistake, then explain why you think it's a mistake and leave it at that. It's absurd to tell us that you hope that they're making the mistake on purpose so that they can have a laugh about it. Do you remember Blizzard once tried to fix a "bug" where units can be produced by holding down a hotkey, so that you must spam press in order to create same units? Everyone knew/knows it was a thinly veiled attempt to nerf zerg's mid-late game unit production. It was rightfully retracted because no one, other than a select few who just will try to justify anything that might cripple other races regardless of its ramification, wanted such a "bug fix" that takes the RTS interface to that of 10 ears ago. One could consider that feeble attempt by Blizzard pathetic, or trolling. Honestly to me this "drop bug fix" kind of reminds me of that failed bug fix. It seems like a backhanded attempt at balancing by interface/game mechanic change. If baneling drops were too strong Blizzard should address it in a direct fashion (e.g. by giving protoss more options to deal with them). Instead, they are going after the game mechanic that may or may not have been a bug (after that baneling morph "bug fix" attempt I do not really trust what Blizzard says). You really have to wonder, even if you hated baneling drops to death, if this is the right way to the balance. My answer is no and Blizzard is either trolling or throwing a towel in racial balance. | ||
|
Belisarius
Australia2589 Posts
On September 14 2011 04:34 rale wrote: After testing it more myself, I agree there is a change. On 1.3, if you attempt a moving drop in an area that's completely occupied, the dropped baneling will deflect to the nearest open point, up to a certain distance. The maximum deflection distance seems to be about 1.5 times the diameter of a forcefield. If there is no open space within the deflection range, it would drop even in areas occupied by units. On 1.4, if there are no open spaces within the deflection range, the unit is simply not dropped. In practice, this means you can defend baneling drops by forcefield-donuting your own army, but the risk of doing so is great. The slightest opening will draw most of the banelings in, and it's quite difficult to donut yourself if your army contains any colossus or archons. Also, if there are any infestors in the zerg army, it's obviously suicide. Thank you. Best post in the last few pages. | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2632 Posts
| ||
|
TissTuss
Sweden33 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On September 14 2011 09:58 TissTuss wrote: So protoss is doing bad atm. Blizzards solution is nerf zergs three ways to deal with the *a* moving deathball by nerfing fungal, baneling drops and NP all at the same time. While terran (the most winning race) have thiere ghosts untouched. It really feels like blizzard dont give a fuck and have no reasoing behind thiere changes. When zerg had the deathball problems with the roach/hydra/corr the responds was *zerg needs to evolve* guess they want protoss players to keep *a* moving to victory. Nice blizzard, nice. As I have mentioned above, I don't think that's the proper way to look at this specific "bug fix". Fungal nerf (absolutely necessary) and neural nerf (somewhat dubious) were, I know zergs don't like them, legitimate ways of balancing the racial power in my eyes. (Though I as a toss would much rather take templar speed increase to 2.25 that will be useful in both PvT and PvZ than neural nerf that is marginally helpful to toss but kills the spectators' excitement) But the drop "bug fix", in both the way it's implemented and the timing of it (Blizzard have known about baneling drops since Fruitdealer's amazing run in the first GSL), is kind of strange and just feels wrong. I already have exampled above how blizzard did try (and failed) to nerf zerg's unit production by disabling the game's interface/mechanism instead of addressing units, techs, maps, or what not. This drop bug fix looks suspiciously similar to that and I can't support this change until Blizzard's honest explanation. | ||
|
Raid
United States398 Posts
On September 13 2011 02:05 Olsson wrote: Great. Two things viable against protoss deathball: Fungal: Nerfed but will still be decent. Baneling Rain: Completely nullified and worthless now. The fungal nerf was not for protoss army it was specifically for marine medivac healing because lololol 2 fungals bye bye marines and damage exceeded medivac healing was pretty stupid. at least 5 or 6 marines will survive now. Someone did a test that if you chain fungal it takes the same amount of fungal to destroy all toss units.. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On September 14 2011 10:17 Raid wrote: The fungal nerf was not for protoss army it was specifically for marine medivac healing because lololol 2 fungals bye bye marines and damage exceeded medivac healing was pretty stupid. at least 5 or 6 marines will survive now. Someone did a test that if you chain fungal it takes the same amount of fungal to destroy all toss units.. Incorrect. David kim addressed in the "chat with the Korean pros" that it was meant to help toss. (1 more fungal v. Stalkers, 2 more v. Void Rays) I think if a zerg can perfectly time fungals without an overlap (which I honestly think is near impossibility) then maybe stalkers might die to the same number of fungals. | ||
|
ch4ppi
Germany802 Posts
On September 14 2011 10:17 Raid wrote: The fungal nerf was not for protoss army it was specifically for marine medivac healing because lololol 2 fungals bye bye marines and damage exceeded medivac healing was pretty stupid. at least 5 or 6 marines will survive now. Someone did a test that if you chain fungal it takes the same amount of fungal to destroy all toss units.. This post is a total fail. Marines will die as they did before. Get your numbers right. The change is especially for ZvP, and again your nr. are wrong. The reason why Fungal was kinda OP against Toss is that Fungal was effectiv against the big hitters, too. The dmg change doesnt change the nr. of fungals that are needed for their "supposed" targets, only for the big hitters | ||
| ||
