|
On August 09 2012 11:21 sjperera wrote:
No, Mules don't cost minerals... you end up with the same amount of minerals, just at a later time. Supply drops! Now they actually add minerals as that's frees up 100 minerals for other uses
Gee I don't know what to say except read the previous answers as to why it doesn't work that way in real life scenarioes, I honestly didn't think we'd have 2 of those in the same page :p
|
I think this approach by Blizzard to put this out there, give it a contained area to play with, and at least gather some data (whether they use it/posts/etc) is a good sign.
As to the changes, I don't have a problem with them at my bad levels of play anyway.
|
On August 09 2012 10:21 zala2023 wrote:
this so called raven buff might as well as not exist since i hoestly dont think it will do anything
how about give reduce HSM energy to 75 like all the other AOE spells
Reducing HSM energy cost isn't a good solution. The reason you don't see it even though it does a lot of damage is that the casting range is too short. It's either going to get fungaled or otherwise killed before it has a chance to fire, which makes it usually not worth the risk. I would sooner advocate buffing the range to 8, maaaaybe 9, but keeping the energy cost where it is, and certainly no lower than 100. If Terrans could launch HSM in the same volume and with the same frequency as storm or fungal, it would probably break the game. The damage output would be ludicrous.
|
On August 09 2012 11:28 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:21 zala2023 wrote:
this so called raven buff might as well as not exist since i hoestly dont think it will do anything
how about give reduce HSM energy to 75 like all the other AOE spells Reducing HSM energy cost isn't a good solution. The reason you don't see it even though it does a lot of damage is that the casting range is too short. It's either going to get fungaled or otherwise killed before it has a chance to fire, which makes it usually not worth the risk. I would sooner advocate buffing the range to 8, maaaaybe 9, but keeping the energy cost where it is, and certainly no lower than 100. If Terrans could launch HSM in the same volume and with the same frequency as storm or fungal, it would probably break the game. The damage output would be ludicrous.
I honestly don't think it's the right direction to take, the spell is so strong that it needs all those limitations because otherwise it would be like you said broken.
How about making it less broken (less damage, less aoe), and lowering its cost and improving the range. I think it's much better to have something useable but not too ridiculously powerful than having something OP as fck but nearly unuseable (i.e useless).
|
On August 09 2012 10:41 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:31 Myrddraal wrote:
A lot of people seem to be focused a lot on the Raven's HSM spell and how long it takes to get, but I think Raven's should primarily be used to clean up creep without having to waste so many minerals on scans (obviously mostly in late game since I realise Ravens are a pain to get) and for using PDD in Viking vs Corrupter wars. Scans do not cost any minerals, you just get those minerals later. Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:31 Myrddraal wrote:
Then HSM should be an afterthought, ie "I'll get this upgrade and if the situation comes where I can HSM his Corrupters/Broods I'll go for it, if not I'll use the energy for PDD". Cute, but what else do we have against Broodlords/Corruptors? 25 damage Snipe? Clunky Thors whose slow damage can easily be negated by chain Transfuses, if they manage to reach Broodlords while being literally swarmed by Broodlings? BattleCruisers which take years to build and aren't even so hot against Corruptors? Vikings which are absolute garbage against Fungal/Corruptors/ITs? Marines that never get in range?...
What else? Considering late game Raven HSM usage is still fairly uncommon, that means most players are making do with Vikings, yes they are bad if they get fungled and against IT's, but their long range allows them to be used as long as they are micro'd properly. I shouldn't really have to explain this since not every single late game scenario is won by Zerg as your post seems to suggest.
On top of that I am suggesting that Terran mix in Raven's and use pdd to help them in the Corrupter/Viking war, which, given roughly similar army sizes, upgrades, unit control and positioning, should give Terran a significant advantage.
|
Hooray.
1) Creep tumor build radius, vision radius, and creep spread radius decreased from 10 to 8.
At this time, this shouldnt change much. Moving the radius from 10 to 8 should just stop the spread after the tumors 30 second cooldown. (Using two tumors)
Meaning Progressing creep should not change, because the creep stops as soon as the cooldown is done.
Receding creep is less effective because there are more tumors everywhere.
However testing this early game should be interesting in ZvT AND ZvP.
Using that creep at the third to stop some Protoss harass seems to be iffy.
Also the other problem is how fast one can connect creep towards bases.
2) Raven movement acceleration increased from 2 to 2.25.
Raven movement speed increased from 2.25 to 2.5.
Why make terran more micro heavy.
Buffing the raven doesnt make it anymore useful.
It takes way to much time and resources to be able to use raven effectively in a nice macro ball.
Some Statistics
Infestor Cost + Time - 100/150 50 Seconds
50 Energy
With Pathogen + 30 Seconds Initially +150/150
75 Energy
Raven Cost + Time - 100/200 60 Seconds
50 energy
With Seeker Missle + 50 Seconds Initially +150/150
Still 50 Energy
This means that once an infestor pops out, with pathogen it can immideatly use fungal growth @ 75 energy
Effectively can be used for stuns and some damage.
Also know that fungal is an instant cast. (Ability's effect is placed as soon as spell is casted)
A raven however, after initially spawning, needs a whopping 133 seconds to even use one HSM.
~100 for a PDD
I can see where Blizzard is going that increasing speed may help micro ravens, but fungal still out ranges HSM, and the time it takes for one HSM to even grab is too high.
Even after one use, the time it take for yet another is about 100 seconds.
Comparing the auto turret to infested terrans is no day in the park either.
Overall ravens just need a buff in either their energy cost, or upgrades.
HSM costs too much energy and the upgrades for the raven are ridiculous.
Also Auto turrets do not gain upgrades from armory upgrades unlike broodlings or infested terrans.
Overall patch, Zerg gets punished for not working on cooldowns
Ravens are sitll bad.
|
I feel like seeker missile should have a minimum range of like ~3. Give them a little freedom to buff it maybe but allow it to function properly instead of this suicide raven stuff (which doesn't allow the mechanic of the seeker missile to be used and it's also really icky as a spectator, imo.)
Balance and need for it aside, the raven's a unit that has needed some looking into so I'm glad they're trying some stuff.
As a map maker, I measure distances between expansions in creep tumors so that change will be a bit of a pain.
|
I like the creep change. This is a change that will affect non-top leagues a lot more than GSL players, and that's where Terrans seem to struggle.
|
Dear god yes thank you! Raven buff = yeah good idea 
|
|
|
Cool, maybe Raven will finally see some action. I think what blizzard is trying to do here, is just make them "support" the bioball, by adding couple of them to the mix and not like spamming them, which is the case with HT and Infestor.
|
On August 09 2012 11:38 Myrddraal wrote:
What else? Considering late game Raven HSM usage is still fairly uncommon, that means most players are making do with Vikings, yes they are bad if they get fungled and against IT's, but their long range allows them to be used as long as they are micro'd properly.
Then, being air units, some of them inevitably clump, they're hit by a Fungal and Corruptors make quick work of them. Rinse and repeat. Vikings may look great on paper, but the truth is they're horribly cost-inefficient against Zerg air supported by Infestor—not to mention that to make them “work,” you often have to overmake them which leaves you very vulnerable to the classic Ultralisk switch.
On August 09 2012 11:38 Myrddraal wrote:
I shouldn't really have to explain this since not every single late game scenario is won by Zerg as your post seems to suggest.
That's not my point. What I'm saying is Terrans do not have realistic, cost-efficient armies against Broodlords/Corruptors/Infestors/Queens. Same thing for Protoss, by the way. When I say “realistic,” I mean maybe ultimate Ghosts/BC/Ravens armies can be efficient, same as Carriers/Mothership/Storm/Archons can compete, but Zergs won't let you get there anyway if the game is roughly equal (too long, too costly, need to survive until that with inferior armies, etc.). That being said, of course you can still win even if you're cost-inefficient... if you have a much stronger economy (e. g. Taeja vs IdrA on Entombed Valley @ last ASUS Tournament).
On August 09 2012 11:38 Myrddraal wrote:
On top of that I am suggesting that Terran mix in Raven's and use pdd to help them in the Corrupter/Viking war, which, given roughly similar army sizes, upgrades, unit control and positioning, should give Terran a significant advantage.
Don't worry, Terrans did not wait you to use Ravens. (;
|
Decent changes. But until the issues with hsm ( poor range and extremely high energy cost) are looked at, dont know if just speed can help. But who knows.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:08 bellsNkeys wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 08:56 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 07:52 bellsNkeys wrote:On August 09 2012 06:21 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 06:18 ragz_gt wrote:On August 09 2012 06:12 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 06:08 ragz_gt wrote:On August 09 2012 06:03 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 05:58 ragz_gt wrote:On August 09 2012 05:52 Whitewing wrote:
[quote]
Rest of zerg army sucks ass once the infestors are good, the infestors are literally the lynch-pin of the entire army. Take them out of the equation and everything starts falling apart. Ghosts also don't kill the composition/dps as badly as you think. Sure they aren't as high damage dealers, but they don't need to be, and you have more army supply anyway due to the mules. Plus, ghosts can still snipe, even though it does 20 less damage than it used to, after you take out the infestors, so it's not like they're completely worthless or anything after the infestors are dead. They still do 10/20(light) a pop + upgrades.
You keep saying the infestor is good against everything, that's completely irrelevant, because your ghosts are stopping them entirely. It just doesn't matter what they are good against, because they're dead/useless with good ghost usage. Take ghosts and infestors completely out of the equation (assume they trade, not fair because ghosts still help after the infestors are gone but just imagine it): terran army vs. zerg army with no infestors. Terran army will win almost every time no problem. +3 Ghost DSP is 1/3 (2/3 against light) of +3 marine on a per supply bases, it's beyond bad. Terran army win will almost time against Zerg with no infestors, yes, but when you swap out 20 marine for 10 ghost (that's without considering resource/build cost), it's not on the same page. *rolls eyes* Are you seriously arguing that trading 20 marines for 10 ghosts to take out all of your opponents infestors is a bad deal for you, especially since, if you don't take out those infestors, they'll just kill your 20 marines easily anyway. No, I'm saying: Against a infestorless (especially roach based) army, ghost is pretty useless. Zerg can tech switch alot faster than Terran can. If Terran makes too many ghost compare to infestor, Zerg can just max out on roach and GG. Zerg don't have a problem of "making too many infestor", so they can arbitrary shift the infestor/ghost balance. This is compounded because Zerg can make 20 infestors at once, Terran can't make 20 ghost at once. It's like Colosus / Viking balance, except if P have 10 Robo bay built already. Okay, you try a max roach army against a marine/marauder/medivac/tank composition with 10-20 ghosts mixed in and see how that goes for you, especially since you have no roach attack upgrades. Hell, even give the terran supply tied up in some vikings, you'll get rolled hilariously easily. You're just making things up at this point, have you ever actually seen a high level zerg player switch to mass roach in the late game? Not pure roach, just the infestor supply worth of roach (or ultra, BL, or anything not infestor). Have you tried to engage a maxed out zerg army without infestor when you have a dozen ghost? It's literally like 1/3 of your supply just disappeared before engaging. Roaches aren't even a consideration, they're just BAD. And you're just making shit up at this point, I'm not discussing this with you anymore. Until you can figure out that 12 ghosts (24 supply) is not 1/3 of your army supply (if your army is a whopping 72 supply total, you've got other problems besides composition), trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time. It kind of annoys me that ever since Zerg players found out the infestor was an amazing unit, all of a sudden everything else is bad. And when Terran found out that mass ghost late game TvZ was good it gets nerfed to hell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked Zerg players have won numerous tournaments and GSLs with muta/ling/bling in ZvT and there have been no significant Terran buff nor Zerg nerfs that affect the muta/ling/bling composition. My main issue with ghosts is that they're more situational whereas Z and P can blindly make infestors and sentries/HTs and it will always help them. The good thing is that Blizzard at least tried to give the Raven that role as well, but failed pretty hard at it. Terran players have gotten much better at defeating and defending muta/ling/bling play, and again, that's not an end-game composition, it's a mid-game strategy. If you're stuck in ling/bling/muta while terran is on a late game economy/tech level with good upgrades, you just lose. Infestors are straight up superior against terran in the mid-game for the most part, and are essential late game, because without them in your composition, you just straight up lose to terran end-game. Ghosts are designed to fit into the race. They are a purely support unit designed to negate essential units from other races so that the rest of the superior terran force can crush an enemy missing a required unit. The units fill different roles: Infestors are a lockdown/damage dealing/harass unit, high templar are a damage dealing/ weak caster negator, and ghosts are an excellent caster negater/harass unit. I agree that Terran players have adapted against muta/ling/bling play, but same argument applies that pure marine-tank is a mid-game composition as well. I'd have to disagree that HTs are weak caster negators. Feedback is very powerful but toss would obviously rather use storms. Doesn't make them necessarily weak against casters. And I don't buy that ghosts are just for support and were created purposely to negate other spellcasters. There was nobody saying that until the snipe nerf was applied. It was more of an excuse to make the nerf acceptable, but imo is pure bullshit.
... Um, right, you don't stick with pure marine tank for lategame TvZ, you add in marauders, ravens, vikings and ghosts, and often some thors too. Not sure how that is relevant. Feedback is pretty decent, but it's shorter range than ghost abilities and as a single target spell, will never be as good at shutting down casters as an EMP. The problem that makes them bad at it, is that they are pretty much the slowest unit in the game, which makes controlling against enemy casters pretty damn hard. Doable, but hard.
And yeah, just look at what the unit does, ghosts are anti-caster units. Use them that way. Terran wins if the enemy doesn't have casters and you you play well, so make the unit that takes away their casters.
|
On August 09 2012 11:44 Cylindrical wrote:
Hooray.
1) Creep tumor build radius, vision radius, and creep spread radius decreased from 10 to 8.
At this time, this shouldnt change much. Moving the radius from 10 to 8 should just stop the spread after the tumors 30 second cooldown. (Using two tumors)
Meaning Progressing creep should not change, because the creep stops as soon as the cooldown is done.
Receding creep is less effective because there are more tumors everywhere.
However testing this early game should be interesting in ZvT AND ZvP.
Using that creep at the third to stop some Protoss harass seems to be iffy.
Also the other problem is how fast one can connect creep towards bases.
2) Raven movement acceleration increased from 2 to 2.25.
Raven movement speed increased from 2.25 to 2.5.
Why make terran more micro heavy.
Buffing the raven doesnt make it anymore useful.
It takes way to much time and resources to be able to use raven effectively in a nice macro ball.
Some Statistics
Infestor Cost + Time - 100/150 50 Seconds
50 Energy
With Pathogen + 30 Seconds Initially +150/150
75 Energy
Raven Cost + Time - 100/200 60 Seconds
50 energy
With Seeker Missle + 50 Seconds Initially +150/150
Still 50 Energy
This means that once an infestor pops out, with pathogen it can immideatly use fungal growth @ 75 energy
Effectively can be used for stuns and some damage.
Also know that fungal is an instant cast. (Ability's effect is placed as soon as spell is casted)
A raven however, after initially spawning, needs a whopping 133 seconds to even use one HSM.
~100 for a PDD
I can see where Blizzard is going that increasing speed may help micro ravens, but fungal still out ranges HSM, and the time it takes for one HSM to even grab is too high.
Even after one use, the time it take for yet another is about 100 seconds.
Comparing the auto turret to infested terrans is no day in the park either.
Overall ravens just need a buff in either their energy cost, or upgrades.
HSM costs too much energy and the upgrades for the raven are ridiculous.
Also Auto turrets do not gain upgrades from armory upgrades unlike broodlings or infested terrans.
Overall patch, Zerg gets punished for not working on cooldowns
Ravens are sitll bad.
Is this after the energy upgrade? Cos it's nothing different than timing your upgrades like Zergs do with Pathogen Glands and Toss did with Khydarin Amulet when it existed.
I have no argument against the damage or energy costs my major 'beef' with the Raven is the build time.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On August 09 2012 12:16 Mackus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 11:44 Cylindrical wrote:
Hooray.
1) Creep tumor build radius, vision radius, and creep spread radius decreased from 10 to 8.
At this time, this shouldnt change much. Moving the radius from 10 to 8 should just stop the spread after the tumors 30 second cooldown. (Using two tumors)
Meaning Progressing creep should not change, because the creep stops as soon as the cooldown is done.
Receding creep is less effective because there are more tumors everywhere.
However testing this early game should be interesting in ZvT AND ZvP.
Using that creep at the third to stop some Protoss harass seems to be iffy.
Also the other problem is how fast one can connect creep towards bases.
2) Raven movement acceleration increased from 2 to 2.25.
Raven movement speed increased from 2.25 to 2.5.
Why make terran more micro heavy.
Buffing the raven doesnt make it anymore useful.
It takes way to much time and resources to be able to use raven effectively in a nice macro ball.
Some Statistics
Infestor Cost + Time - 100/150 50 Seconds
50 Energy
With Pathogen + 30 Seconds Initially +150/150
75 Energy
Raven Cost + Time - 100/200 60 Seconds
50 energy
With Seeker Missle + 50 Seconds Initially +150/150
Still 50 Energy
This means that once an infestor pops out, with pathogen it can immideatly use fungal growth @ 75 energy
Effectively can be used for stuns and some damage.
Also know that fungal is an instant cast. (Ability's effect is placed as soon as spell is casted)
A raven however, after initially spawning, needs a whopping 133 seconds to even use one HSM.
~100 for a PDD
I can see where Blizzard is going that increasing speed may help micro ravens, but fungal still out ranges HSM, and the time it takes for one HSM to even grab is too high.
Even after one use, the time it take for yet another is about 100 seconds.
Comparing the auto turret to infested terrans is no day in the park either.
Overall ravens just need a buff in either their energy cost, or upgrades.
HSM costs too much energy and the upgrades for the raven are ridiculous.
Also Auto turrets do not gain upgrades from armory upgrades unlike broodlings or infested terrans.
Overall patch, Zerg gets punished for not working on cooldowns
Ravens are sitll bad.
Is this after the energy upgrade? Cos it's nothing different than timing your upgrades like Zergs do with Pathogen Glands and Toss did with Khydarin Amulet when it existed. I have no argument against the damage or energy costs my major 'beef' with the Raven is the build time.
As a toss player I will explain how we timed out the amulet upgrade:
"Is it done? SICK! Am I on Cooldown?"
(Yes)
"CHRONOOO MAKE HT! :D"
(No)
"F YEAH I HAVE (look at gas bank) 15 STORMS!!!"
|
I keep thinking that increasing the HSM range would be bad because it would give the zerg more time to dodge it (easily 1 second more if the range goes from 6->9). Range increase would only make sense if the missile is quicker.
|
On August 09 2012 12:20 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:
I keep thinking that increasing the HSM range would be bad because it would give the zerg more time to dodge it (easily 1 second more if the range goes from 6->9). Range increase would only make sense if the missile is quicker.
Not that I'm advocating increasing range, but you do realize all increasing range does is allow for the option to attack further but not necessarily has to be further. If you want to fly your ravens closer before firing, you can still do that.
|
I still see things in SC2 that bother me (as a Protoss player, I don't like for instance that the Protoss race is almost 100% focused on ground units while Stargate play sees very little use at pro-level play), but fixing some of them would necessarily mean screwing pretty seriously with the game balance in the short term so they're things that make more sense to fix for HotS. As a late balance patch for WoL, I really like these proposed changes.
|
On August 09 2012 12:30 Zato-1 wrote:
I still see things in SC2 that bother me (as a Protoss player, I don't like for instance that the Protoss race is almost 100% focused on ground units while Stargate play sees very little use at pro-level play), but fixing some of them would necessarily mean screwing pretty seriously with the game balance in the short term so they're things that make more sense to fix for HotS. As a late balance patch for WoL, I really like these proposed changes.
I actually crunched the numbers behind Stargate vs Z and the amount of damage required to break even is absurd, lol. No wonder everyone hates it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
