|
On September 16 2011 07:39 Jimbo77 wrote:
Second, the most needed, change to NP is increase energy cost to, at least, 150.
Range change 9->7 is a good step, but this creature needs really more tweaks.
IT should be the next step. Then FG.
I dunno, they still have to research it so I don't really agree with the 150 energy. The infestor can be played like 30 different ways, which is cool and I think essential to the unit's identity, so requiring 150 energy for NP would leave an infestor useless for a good deal of it's life on the map.
|
On September 16 2011 07:39 tehemperorer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:36 rdj107 wrote:On September 16 2011 07:21 iamke55 wrote:
Looks like QQ wins again. At this point I really wish Idra and his legion of fanboys played Protoss instead. I have no doubt we would still have KA, NP wouldn't work vs massive, and roaches would have 3 range if that were the case. Sorry but what? This is a stupid comment even when you're not shoehorning it in where it's completely irrelevant. Also in what way is 7 range suddenly not a nerf? It's arguably worse than not effecting massive at all, how did the "QQ" win? The 9 range NP negates a costly upgrade, that's not something that needs to be addressed?
Please don't argue against points I didn't make.
|
Just by the way, as I watch the argument about winning percentage in GSL in PvZ, I counted every game/match that was going on in GSL Code S August, Code A August, Up and Downs August and GSTL (starting from week 6 as it was the first week of August if I am not mistaken) and here are the numbers:
PvZ - 29 games out of which 22 were won by Zerg. It was 17 out of 24 matches (counting Bo1s as a "match"). Which is 75,86% games won by Zerg and 24,14% by Protoss. So Heavenly was probably right about the numbers he presented. Although I do think, this is too small of a statistical sample, considering we are talking the best players in the world, it certainly suggest that something is wrong in the matchup.
|
blizzard is getting the balance much better, thank you for listenning the community, the nerf now is very fair! but still think fungal is the same shit lolol
|
150 energy would be decent, but with this lower range they are going to be easy to feedback if they go for the NP, especially since high templar can be behind a few units and still have the range to pull it off.
|
Well, I can't say I'm thrilled with the change. I don't really see why it had to be nerfed at all. Protoss were getting much better at focusing down infestors, and now infestors almost completely useless against tanks.
We'll see how it works out though I guess.
|
On September 16 2011 07:37 tehemperorer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:34 aWildRATTATA wrote:On September 16 2011 07:31 tehemperorer wrote:On September 16 2011 07:29 Turbo.Tactics wrote:On September 16 2011 07:27 branflakes14 wrote:On September 16 2011 07:26 Turbo.Tactics wrote:
How many times do you see NP beeing used without the infestors getting sniped. Now imagine the same with less range. Awful change... I rather take the non massive and NP 1 blink out of range than this. If it happens often you won't even notice the range change :D Well played Sir! I guess the appropriate reaction is to burn your mana on fungals rather than hoping the enemy doesnt move. Or combine fungal and NP which at least takes some skill and keeps them alive for at least 1 blink cooldown. Nope just find their sentries and fungal them, then move in for the gg. It's often times just that easy. 3 fungals, 12 seconds. Go try it against someone who keeps them on a seperate hotkey. High masters, zergs do it all the time. engage, sac a portion of lings to fungal the sentries; I have to stay balled up anyways and if my position is too spread I either lose lone sentries or drop too many FF. If it's ling roach infestor, I get baited force fields to deplete the energy too; after that there's not much you can do about anything. With infestors and NP/FG combo like it is, the outcome of the engagements in PvZ are way too pivotal/decisive and balance is way too fragile.
Going to learn that style this week. Thx!
One last question; so forcing a zergs reaction isnt enough to get an advantage as long as his third lives?
|
On September 16 2011 07:13 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:09 MMello wrote:On September 16 2011 07:06 Yaotzin wrote:On September 16 2011 07:04 ZAiNs wrote:I wish Blizzard would use this strategy for Protoss, they still have time to put back in Amulet  . Amulet was OP and anti-skill though. Good riddance. That said they removed 2 of our upgrades completely, which is just sad. I want more upgrades for stuff! No words for how bad you are We needed Amulet to survive mid / late game PvT... drops all over the place raping face lol lets take away the only thing protoss uses to defend.. Because we all know cannons fucking suck PvT I'm Protoss. I hate Terran (ask a mod if you want  ). Amulet encouraged lazy, bad, uninteresting play. "oh, I fucked up and lost my 3 templar? I'll just warp in 3 more". Keeping them alive via smart positioning and warp prisms makes for a much better game. Protoss may well need some help in lategame pvt, but it shouldn't come from stronger templar because they are fine.
Am i missing something where toss have infinite gas? whats the cheat code bro?
|
On September 16 2011 07:43 rdj107 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:39 tehemperorer wrote:On September 16 2011 07:36 rdj107 wrote:On September 16 2011 07:21 iamke55 wrote:
Looks like QQ wins again. At this point I really wish Idra and his legion of fanboys played Protoss instead. I have no doubt we would still have KA, NP wouldn't work vs massive, and roaches would have 3 range if that were the case. Sorry but what? This is a stupid comment even when you're not shoehorning it in where it's completely irrelevant. Also in what way is 7 range suddenly not a nerf? It's arguably worse than not effecting massive at all, how did the "QQ" win? The 9 range NP negates a costly upgrade, that's not something that needs to be addressed? Please don't argue against points I didn't make.
Your post indicates that 7 range is a nerf, and that QQ didn't win. In regards to the nerfed range, my post poses the problem that a 9 range NP (the way it is) currently negates a necessary and costly Protoss upgrade, which was intended to prompt you into rethinking your stance.
|
On September 16 2011 07:31 cydial wrote:
They should've nerfed fungal growth, it is the scrubbiest mechanic in this game right now.
Make fungal growth like maelstrom from BW (only immobilizes) but make it longer... make it 6 or 7 seconds.
The obvious problem being that most zerg units are of shorter range, but faster than most terran or protoss units, meaning that only an immobilize would have very little synergy with the rest of the zerg army. It'd still be useful against zealots, archons, blink stalkers and hellions, but would be a fairly heavy investment into gas for mostly odd/niche uses, like immobilize marines + banelings, immobilizing banshees or void rays etc etc.
Should be interesting to see how this goes. My gut feeling is that it's gonna virtually negate neural parasite as a response to colossus, as no matter how good your positioning unless you neural parasite every single colossus and none of your infestors get sniped by the stalkers that should now also be in range, 9 range is always going to be more than 7 so any free colossus are probably laser beaming all over your shit.
It's also confusing, because I'd have a hard time agreeing that neural parasite is what was making the infestor such a versatile unit. I'd be more likely to pin it on the strength and cheap cost of fungal as well as the harass potential of infested terrans. To balance that, I could see a shift in fungal that proportionally scales damage and duration to energy cost, but raises energy cost to 125 or so. This would effectively halve the number of fungals an army of infestors would have as well as force the Zerg to be a bit more careful about where he throws fungals. It would have added "buffs" in doing this such as making marines die in one fungal pretty much no matter what but for the most part it'd help decrease a Zerg's ability to get an army of 15 infestors and lock something down with fungals until the end of time.
|
Personally, I feel like this is another bad change from Blizzard (another as in the other NP change was dumb too), and they should really stop messing with NP and focus on fixing Zerg the proper way.
Why I think this is a bad change
+ Show Spoiler +I am a Zerg player and I DO feel like the Infestor is too strong, but NP is not the reason for that. However, it is a critically important spell for Zerg and nerfing it will make the game feel even more imbalanced than it is now.
Why the Infestor is OP
+ Show Spoiler +My gripe with the Infestor is that Infested Terran's and Fungal Growth are a little bit too strong because they are very "extreme" spells in a sense. Let me try to explain.
Fungal Growth
+ Show Spoiler +Fungal Growth not only holds units in place, but it also does a good amount of damage. Essentially it is Zerg's best form of DPS and space control, which are two important roles in a race's army that should not be filled by one unit, never mind by one spell.
The reason why fungal is so damn strong is because Blizzard buffed the shit out of it in order to compensate for other weaknesses in the Zerg army, mostly how weak Zerg is when maxed on non tier 3 units (i.e. Protoss deathball vs. roach hydra corruptor). Buffing the Infestor's fungal was a way for Blizzard to give Zerg the ability to have a stronger army when maxed because an Infestor with energy for a couple of fungals can do a lot more damage then one roach, yet they are even in supply.
This also freed up Zerg players by giving them the ability to use a LOT of Infestor's in their play, which allows for things like harassment (burrow move + infested terrans/fungal growth), and forcing engagements and throwing down masses of infested terrans to guarantee a victory. These tactics are situational and only possible because of how strong fungal is, since you can rely on the damage and space control when your opponent forces you to defend or does something to prevent you from harassing/attacking them.
Infested Terrans
+ Show Spoiler +Infested Terran's are also overpowered in a way because, as I said, Zergs are allowed to make so many Infestors now and the Infested Terran ability becomes exponentially stronger (not literally for all the math nerds =P) as the number of Infestors being used increases. This is a problem because they essentially increase the food capacity of Zerg when on the offensive, and this tilts the very end game phase in favor of Zerg as long as they survive up to that point on even grounds with their opponent. A 200/200 Zerg army consisting of a lot of Infestors and sometimes a few Brood Lords PLUS up to 8 infested terrans per infestor (which many times Zergs have 10 or so Infestors) is more than the average 200/200 army can handle.
The state of the game pre patch 1.4
+ Show Spoiler +As OP as I think the Infestor is, I do not think that Zerg is OP overall. Yes, Zerg may be too strong in the end game, but it is pretty hard to get there on even footing, which is the only time Zerg's OPness (no pun intended) can really be abused. This is the reason why the Infestor is as strong as it is, why it needs to be as strong as it is, and why so many non Zergs bitch about the Infestor being OP. It is a very similar situation to the Protoss deathball we used to see, except I feel like it is somewhat easier to prevent by doing damage early game.
The state of the game post patch 1.4
+ Show Spoiler +Bringing it all back a little more on the topic of NP specifically, it is just Blizzard putting another band aid over the gaping wound that is the design of Zerg. Maybe nerfing NP nearly to uselessness will balance out the win %'s of Zerg vs Protoss (and vs Terran too I suppose, but I really think this is aimed for ZvP), but it will not truly balance the game. It will actually do the opposite. Depending on the way the game plays out, Zerg will still have an unfair advantage in some certain situations and Protoss will have unfair advantages in other certain situations. The real battle will be early on, seeing which side can force the favorable situation. That sounds stupid because that is generally how any game should be played right? But the key word here is unfair. By an unfair advantage I really mean an unearned advantage.
|
This is much more fair in which when you NP the infestor is much easier to kill, but still harder to hit when they are used for fungal. I like this
|
On September 16 2011 07:29 R3N wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 07:18 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 07:11 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 07:04 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 07:02 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:45 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:37 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:24 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 06:21 R3N wrote:On September 16 2011 06:16 Heavenly wrote:
[quote]
Here, I'll make ridiculous unfounded statements too: Protoss units are not cost-effective versus zerg. If you prove your statement I'll prove mine.
You're also going on a completely different tangent of the original statement that you'll have more infestors than templar. Proven my statement? So you really do believe protoss units are to be as easily massed as zerg? I think you need to enlighten the entire starcraft community and ofc, blizzard about this gospel of truth. As the other way 'round is widely accepted by everyone but you. Also we were talking about gas efficient and you came in straying shit about archons and how roaches beat them. What is the first part even talking about? What? I never said anything remotely like that. And watch any GSL ZvP. Z destroys P utterly in the matchup. This month was like 25% winrate and it would've been lower if protoss didn't one base all-in a couple games. Zerg completely shits on protoss and you are sitting here acting as if stalker/archon kills THREE zerg armies, which has never actually happened. You're just making random inaccurate statements, probably from your experiences in silver league or something, hence my sarcasm. Um, my talking about roaches v archons was in response to saying that roaches are a soft counter and me saying they aren't. That was me responding to a statement, not me going on a tangent. Lol, there are 2 more zergs in code S than 'toss and that "25% winrate" that you pulled from your ass was not far there off (the other way 'round) couple of months ago when zerg had no answer to 'toss a-moving balls. I just got promoted to masters in season 3 where I fail to see any balance issues ZvP but I do understand bronzies and 'toss trolls thinking so as they can't a-move anymore (HT requires 'T' left click  ) And oh roaches aren't a soft-counter to archons? So you think they're a hard-counter? LoL. As I already stated in previous posts, they do ok in midgame not because they're any particularly good against archons but because aren't as good at that point, you need allot of them en masse for their AoE to show real effect. That and with roaches scaling terribly , they ain't going to hold anymore. But I dunno why I'm saying this to you as you believe zerg units are as strong as toss individually... The 25% winrate I pulled "from my ass" is actually 23.5% in GSL, look it up. While zerg was losing to protoss before, zerg was buffed and began to discover new styles like baneling drops + fungal and now it has been ahead internationally in the matchup since April: http://imgur.com/JvlvyAlso look at the Korean graph and please show me where zerg was ever at 25% versus protoss in Korea: http://i.imgur.com/aZDCO.pngThe lowest was 42.9%, back in September 2010. Lmao, you think that you are going to have a large amount of archons (300 gas) and stalkers in the midgame, enough to put a dent into a roach army? Sorry, try some micro for yourself---fungal growth those archons into place, they are 3 range compared to 4 of roaches and if you focus fire then archons will never get a shot off, so yes, roaches are a hard counter to them. Sorry that you can't beat mass archon/stalker with a-moving mass roach? Roaches do not scale terribly. They scale better with upgrades than stalkers, this is also a fact. They are supply-inefficient, not cost-inefficient. You make up for that by going into high tech units to match protoss high tech units, like infestors and broodlords. Infestor/broodlord is just as good of a deathball as voidray/colossus ever was, and it beats that composition. Watch high level ZvP nowadays so you stop sounding so ignorant. I don't see any 23.5% in any of these graphs nor would it matter even if it was true as both races are being raped by terrans and the fact that TvP is more imbalanced than TvZ matters jack shit when considering (the VERY FEW) ZvP's we have seen. Protoss lost these matches and you take that as a proof of imbalance? That's how it works only in your dreams. Roaches scale terribly. They do shit dmg and their only worth, their relatively high hp, is worthless lategame because of AoE. They are kinda similar to stalkers in that regard, also high hp/ low dps, but unlike stalkers have 4 and not 6 range so worse surface area/less dps and more importantly, more vulnerable to AoE. You can have 50 roaches lategame in a 200/200 army and unless it's a massive concave in like the middle of Tal'Darim (which is the fault of the 'toss, you ain't going to utilize all of them. Not even close. Unlike stalkers which have blink, infinetely more useful than burrow (late game). But that requires micro some thing I'm not even sure you know what it is. Why do you even talk about infestor/broodlords lol. You further my points, as that's exactly what you see lategame ZvP, infestors+broodlords not hurr-durr. 50 roach "micro" (lol...) ass-raped by storms/colossi/archons. Also I watch tons of starcraft (not some much these days tho, too many TvT's in GSL, some of my favourite youtube casters hibernating) so why do you continue with pointless personal attacks when you know nothing about me. Also I see tons of rapage, from both sides and not a one sided infestors+roach pushes you think is so unstoppable. Um, because those graphs don't have August's statistics in them? Lol arguing with you is pointless and you have horrible reading comprehension and overall reasoning skills. Continue to think zerg is bad versus protoss while they do amazingly. Thanks for the debate, it was funny. So you don't have any arguments anymore and refers to personal attacks. Pointless idd. And *once again*, it doesn't matter it if those "statistics" (requires more than one season...) are true cause we have so few ZvP's this season. Reading comprehension fail idd. You also used personal attacks the entire time and are just stating completely random things. Arguing with you is pointless because you seem to have no idea what is actually being argued. Here, I'll humor you one more time and try to make this as simple as possible. I have explained why roaches are bad in a 200/200 engagement of pure roaches. It is their supply inefficiency and being outranged so more stalkers engage. I acknowledged this the entire time, but roaches are most cost-effective than stalkers in anything that's not a maxed out scenario where range comes into play. However that scenario never happens because no one goes to 200/200 roaches anymore.The reason I brought infestor/broodlord into it is the same reason you brought up storms/colossi/archons beating roaches---because we are moving into late game past t1 of stalker v roach into t3, and zerg should have t3 to beat protoss' t3. No shit that roaches die to colossi/storm/archons with stalker support in the late game, stalkers also die to broodlords and infestors with roach support very cost-inefficiently. Also roach damage is higher than stalker damage at 3/3, so how can you say they have shit damage when they have more DPS at half the cost? I was discussing with another guy, you came in and started with the insults Why do you even defend yourselves when I throw 'em back. No one has ever gone 200/200 roaches because it's laughable- not just because of supply inefficient but because they can't fucking accomplish anything. Lol, you never mentioned stalker range, and dps I did, and you don't have arguments against it and trying to save your skin by blatant lying. Also that a 1 3/3 upgrade roach have more dps than a stalker is irrelevant in lategame, because *again* you cannot utilize them unless the terrain favors you and you 'toss opponent is bad; something you never wrote or understand and trying to look as if you do. You didn't acknowledge shit as you never mentioned or even insinuated these things, you were saying roaches are a hard counter to archons lol. Why should zerg have t3 to beat toss t3? Mass roach! It really works lulz... Also never did I say you ain't allowed to build roaches lategame (they are an excellent reinforcement-unit, more firepower than lings often) but you absolutely cannot mass them lategame or you're playing it wrong.
Your original statement:
As I said, I'm zerg and not protoss. My units aren't ½ as efficient as yours. That's why I get access to more bases faster than you can. Zerg can't win any half-decent ZvP on equal bases.
So as you can see, since you apparently have no idea what this argument has been about, we are taking about cost-efficiency of units.
You never said anything at all about range. What you said regarding roaches dps:
That and with roaches scaling terribly , they ain't going to hold anymore. But I dunno why I'm saying this to you as you believe zerg units are as strong as toss individually...
Which is wrong. I responded by saying this:
Roaches do not scale terribly. They scale better with upgrades than stalkers, this is also a fact. They are supply-inefficient, not cost-inefficient. You make up for that by going into high tech units to match protoss high tech units, like infestors and broodlords. Infestor/broodlord is just as good of a deathball as voidray/colossus ever was, and it beats that composition. Watch high level ZvP nowadays so you stop sounding so ignorant.
Yes, roaches do beat stalkers individually with 2/2 or 3/3 upgrades, do a unit tester, so that zerg unit is as strong as toss individually. In the early game, 2 roaches beat a stalker extremely easily as well, and those are the same cost units. As for t3, ultra beats colossi one on one, as does broodlord obviously. Not sure how ultra and broodlord do versus archon but I'm pretty certain they win, if archon can even get into range of the broodlord.
Me saying roaches are a hard counter to archons was one small thing you are putting way out of proportion (since you love doing that and ignoring 99% of the rest of my post) when I said it as a response to:
First of all what the heck do you mean with stalker/sentry is an additional gas?? You can't stay on lings forever, not when there are too many archons/HT's (but it works in midgame I admit) so you have to switch to roaches which are at best a soft-counter to archons in midgame, and become increasingly bad as upgrades and armies getting bigger.
So maybe you I can use more gas for infestors midgame but the game isn't balanced in just the midgame and my actual army is worse than yours. Remember your stalker/archon ball requires TWO or even three equivalent zerg armies so I end up using more gas than you (increasingly) anyways.
Here you are acting as if stalker/archon kills "even three" equivalent zerg armies, which I stated isn't the case, because roaches also beat archons cost-effectively, and in a situation where they will have a lot of archons you will have infestors to fungal and archons won't ever even enter the battle. That was me responding to you and you're acting like I went off on a random tangent, which was never the case.
As for this:
Lol, you never mentioned stalker range, and dps I did, and you don't have arguments against it and trying to save your skin by blatant lying.
You're right, I thought I brought up stalker range but I didn't. I only talked about supply inefficiency. But you then say "you did", when you never brought up any facts about stalker range or dps, just vague statements about roaches not scaling---that is blatant lying.
Also roach damage is higher than stalker damage at 3/3, so how can you say they have shit damage when they have more DPS at half the cost?
[/quote]
Why should zerg have t3 to beat toss t3? Mass roach! It really works lulz...
Also never did I say you ain't allowed to build roaches lategame (they are an excellent reinforcement-unit, more firepower than lings often) but you absolutely cannot mass them lategame or you're playing it wrong.
No idea what you are even talking about here. I didn't say to do mass roach 200/200, I said the opposite, and I didn't say anything about not building roaches late game. I'm talking about cost-efficiency of the races since you claimed zerg isn't half as efficient, but roaches are cost-efficient in the beginning and mid-game and then you transition into t3 when protoss begins to mass its t3 as well. Watch MorroW's games, especially v Huk and v Puzzle, where he easily wins all late game engagements with amazing cost-efficiency as well.
This is why arguing with you is pointless, because you don't even know what you said five minutes ago.
|
I honestly think this change is fair. The massive change was STUPIDLY over kill, thank God they fixed that but I think this one is reasonable.
|
United States7166 Posts
as for my real thoughts/rant about NP in general:
I hate the concept of Neural Parasite for starcraft, I've always hated it and will likely always hate it. Mind control spells are just way too hard to balance properly and this spell will always remain either too weak or too powerful. That's been my opinion since before SC2 beta even came out up until now, and still hold strue. I think in its current form it is its closest to balanced as its ever been, especially with the slow movement speed + fragility of the caster, but still feels slightly too powerful in some situations (once again, impossible to balance).
I don't think a lot of people really can appreciate or understand this range decrease until they see it in action. Range 7 is going to feel very different now, I think it's going to surprise most people somewhat when they first see it. My guess it's just going to remain slightly on the "too weak" side, but given how the infestor already has 2 good spells it will likely remain like this for a long while. I'm sure a lot of people won't really understand the significance until they see it for themselves..
..It would be cool if along with this nerf, they also made it cast-able while Burrowed. Then there would be a lot more tactical utility for it, for example fungaling/sniping observers, as well as situationally being able to initiate battles with it vs especially terran, ofc with some danger of a scan quickly making your burrow-NP intention backfire. But I digress..it's pointless to talk about wishlist patch changes. Anyways, I think now players will have to rely a lot more on hive tech to deal with colossi...which is a good thing for pushing the metagame a little, though I still wish they wouldn't neuter NP in the process
|
why do people continually suggest that infestors are "easy" to mass..they are 150 each...If someone can mass a unit with such gas cost and have supporting units...your doing something wrong.
|
Nerfs NP for a majority of the circumstances they wanted to nerf it for while not allowing a Terran who decides to just mass Thors walk all over a Zerg player.
Sounds reasonable to me.
|
On September 16 2011 07:39 Jimbo77 wrote:
Second, the most needed, change to NP is increase energy cost to, at least, 150.
Range change 9->7 is a good step, but this creature needs really more tweaks.
IT should be the next step. Then FG.
Changing NP to 126 energy could end hilariously.
|
On September 16 2011 07:31 darkness wrote:
I'm not going to comment whether old NP change was good or not.
It's just disgusting that whining wins once again.
Too bad whining doesn`t win when it comes to b.net 0.2 suggestions.
|
On September 16 2011 04:31 crms wrote:
blizzard seems just as lost and clueless as ever.
I don't mind that they nerf/buff shit but the ideas behind their changes just show a complete lack of intelligence to approaching this game as an esport. the direction and decision making behind their changes are heading sc2 to a sad place.
oh well d3/dota2 soon. ^_^
does nobody agree with this? Its not about the individual changes it's the fact they give almost no time for strategy/skill to increase. Anytime something is hard its immediately patched. This style of 'balancing' is going to make the game dull and boring. Imagine BW with this mentality. ~_~
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
