EPTIt makes it more viable in mid game for clearing creep and auto-turret harrassing, but keeps the HSM function as a late-game deathball tool. allows you to have them for longer to build up energy. if it entered mid-game zvt meta, it might even force zerg to shift to a muta transition to stop harrass or snipe ravens. just tossing it out there, don't throw me to the wolves.
[D] The raven buff does not address TvZ issues - Page 35
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
If this thread can't remain civil then we'll have to close it. Thread will be moderated harshly from pg.3 onwards. | ||
|
jliu
282 Posts
It makes it more viable in mid game for clearing creep and auto-turret harrassing, but keeps the HSM function as a late-game deathball tool. allows you to have them for longer to build up energy. if it entered mid-game zvt meta, it might even force zerg to shift to a muta transition to stop harrass or snipe ravens. just tossing it out there, don't throw me to the wolves. | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On August 21 2012 00:41 zmansman17 wrote: Why would lings run right into tanks, which are irradiated? It's not like energy is free or can be repeatedly cast. Give Zergs more respect than just running their lings into irradiated units. My picture of a zerg player is someone who is missing many brain cells and attacks me only when the drool from their mouth gets too heavy and their head hits the keyboard's a button. Yup | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On August 21 2012 00:43 jliu wrote: random idea that's probably been mentioned, but what about decreasing the cost of the Raven by 50gas? Then you increase the cost of the HSM upgrade? It makes it more viable in mid game for clearing creep and auto-turret harrassing, but keeps the HSM function as a late-game deathball tool. allows you to have them for longer to build up energy. if it entered mid-game zvt meta, it might even force zerg to shift to a muta transition to stop harrass or snipe ravens. just tossing it out there, don't throw me to the wolves. I'm not a very good player but my biggest problem with Ravens isn't the fact that they are expensive or slow or whatever (which I do have a problem with but...) it's more the fact that I can get them out, and they're still kinda paperweights until I get energy for HSM, which takes a really long time. | ||
|
skadumdums
United States20 Posts
I don't post much especially in balance matters, but I would like to ask a question to the terran players. This is not a snipe and it does not contain a snarky tone. If infestor fungal were to be nerfed, how does zerg deal with endgame marine production? I'm sure everyone sees at a minimum of 10 rax with reactors during that endgame period, that's 20 reactorsrines at a time with more queued with no more effort than holding down a button for the entirety of the endgame all which can be financed by quickly muling up a newly gotten base. Add in 7-10 medivacs which will almost completely negate the fungal spell. With a production rate of that caliber zerg injects and baneling usage cant keep up enough to protect.the broodlords in the sky. Add in 3 properly times starports with reactors Vikings can't really be negated. | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
On August 21 2012 00:54 skadumdums wrote: Hello TL, I don't post much especially in balance matters, but I would like to ask a question to the terran players. This is not a snipe and it does not contain a snarky tone. If infestor fungal were to be nerfed, how does zerg deal with endgame marine production? I'm sure everyone sees at a minimum of 10 rax with reactors during that endgame period, that's 20 reactorsrines at a time with more queued with no more effort than holding down a button for the entirety of the endgame all which can be financed by quickly muling up a newly gotten base. Add in 7-10 medivacs which will almost completely negate the fungal spell. With a production rate of that caliber zerg injects and baneling usage cant keep up enough to protect.the broodlords in the sky. Add in 3 properly times starports with reactors Vikings can't really be negated. Believe it or not, you can nerf something without completely neutering it. I think getting rid of the root, and throwing a slow on there would be not too bad. | ||
|
zeross
France310 Posts
On August 21 2012 00:54 skadumdums wrote: Hello TL, I don't post much especially in balance matters, but I would like to ask a question to the terran players. This is not a snipe and it does not contain a snarky tone. If infestor fungal were to be nerfed, how does zerg deal with endgame marine production? I'm sure everyone sees at a minimum of 10 rax with reactors during that endgame period, that's 20 reactorsrines at a time with more queued with no more effort than holding down a button for the entirety of the endgame all which can be financed by quickly muling up a newly gotten base. Add in 7-10 medivacs which will almost completely negate the fungal spell. With a production rate of that caliber zerg injects and baneling usage cant keep up enough to protect.the broodlords in the sky. Add in 3 properly times starports with reactors Vikings can't really be negated. well marines need to be microed (correctly splited/stimmed at the right time..) to be effective against the zergs, so the bolded sentence is a bit of an underestimation from your part. my answer would be that a nerf don't always mean to go from OP to useless in a single patch. the real problem is that fungal does well against the majority of terran army (marines and viking particularly) and feel to the terran like the pre-nerf ghost must had feeled for the zerg. i think fungal should deal less effectively against viking, forcing the zerg to have more corruptors and less broods, without changing the effects on the bio side. | ||
|
kaokentake
383 Posts
marines being raped by fungal are ok i guess because storm is the same deal. but vikings are the real killer. vikings only have 120 health (wtf?) but they need such low health in order to be balanced with their high dps My idea is to give vikings double health, but reduce their attackrate in air and ground modes by 50%. This means a viking takes twice as long to die, but takes twice as long to kill things. Actually double health is a stretch but my point is you can increase viking health and still keep it combat balanced by reducing attackspeed. corrupters and vikings are balanced to kill eachother in a 1v1 fight with one having like 1health remianing, vikings and corrupters are evenly balanced combat stats wise, however corrupters have much more health and less dps, while vikings were balanced with more dps and less health. Dunno why blizzard felt this to be requires but I do not believe the reason for vikings low health is due to their range. Instead I believe the RANGE of vikings is balanced out in the fact that they cant transform into broodlords. Lets compare vikings, corrupters, and pheonix. Ive faced some tosses that go collossi pheonix and its very strong because pheonix and vikings deal equal dps to eachother, but pheonix have 50% more health than vikings and cost the same. But this is blizzards balance logic because pheonix cannot transform into ground mode and fight ground units and I agree with them there Pheonix beat vikings easily, but lose to corrupters because of corrupters high armor. While vikings are even with corrupters. The balance in all of this is that pheonix are massively FASTER than corrupters and in the ZvP matchup pheonix can pickoff queens and infestors with good micro and pheonix heavily counter mutalisks so they needed to be balanced to lose to corrupters. Now back to vikings. My point in all of this was comparing combat stats between pheonix/viking/corrupter and trying to show that I believe blizzard simply gave vikings low health because they felt it would be cool to give them highdamage/lowhealth and they never suspected the metagame to get to this world where you got vikings trying to kill mass broodlords but they all get stunlock killed by 3 fungal growths. So I suggest you increase viking health but lower attackspeed, thus keeping the same dps per health ratio thus same combat stats ratio but they are stronger against AoE like fungal so now it takes 5fungals to kill vikings instead of 3 | ||
|
fds
Slovenia258 Posts
So I suggest you increase viking health but lower attackspeed, thus keeping the same dps per health ratio thus same combat stats ratio but they are stronger against AoE like fungal so now it takes 5fungals to kill vikings instead of 3 I think that would create a problem in TvP as colossus would be alive too long. In my opinion it would be better idea to toy with armor type. At the moment vikings are armored + mechanical so they take bonus damage from fungal (double damage). Maybe swap armor type on vikings to light. To adjust phoenix vs vikings they would also have to swap phoenix bonus damage on biological instead of light (for mutas...). OR just remove fungal's bonus damage on armored  On the end I would be much happier if Blizzard would only remove snare from fungal and replace it with slow. | ||
|
Maxd11
United States680 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10126 Posts
On August 21 2012 03:38 fds wrote: I think that would create a problem in TvP as colossus would be alive too long. In my opinion it would be better idea to toy with armor type. At the moment vikings are armored + mechanical so they take bonus damage from fungal (double damage). Maybe swap armor type on vikings to light. To adjust phoenix vs vikings they would also have to swap phoenix bonus damage on biological instead of light (for mutas...). OR just remove fungal's bonus damage on armored On the end I would be much happier if Blizzard would only remove snare from fungal and replace it with slow. I think the root is ok, so zerg can connect their melee units easier. Theproblem is they hitting air or raping vikings imho, of course that would have a lot of repercussions aside TvZ so i don't really how to change it. The change to no double damage to armored seems spot on. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On August 21 2012 03:51 Maxd11 wrote: Apparently this change and the creep one aren't being considered anymore. No they said they are putting it on hold and it may still be in but they aren't sure now. | ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On August 21 2012 03:51 Maxd11 wrote: Apparently this change and the creep one aren't being considered anymore. Thanks Taeja and MVP!!! | ||
|
kaokentake
383 Posts
How about new snipe, 100 energy for 100 damage, refunds 25 energy when used against a psionic unit. now its 75 energy to snipe casters instead of 50 energy due to 1shotting instead of 2shotting them. This snipe would probably be overpowered honestly, because even in the past it wasnt snipes energy/damage ratio that made it overpowered, it was its dps. In mass ghost battles all the ghosts never used their energy anyway, with this change their dps would INCREASE from its old stats (making it even stronger and more overpowered) but it just means the ghosts deplete all their energy instead of 50% of their energy. 3ghosts (6food) vs 1ultralisk (6food). Ghosts simply cast 5snipes and kill the ultralisk in a second. Same for broodlords. In many ways, this snipe would be as powerful as the current lame ass stankin fungal that kills 30 vikings in 3 seconds stunlocking them What do you guys think EDIT: vikings do not take "double damage" from fungal... lol.. they take 40 like any armored unit | ||
|
superstartran
United States4013 Posts
On August 21 2012 00:41 NightOfTheDead wrote: According to this logic. BW never was a decent game, cause if there is something difficult to overcome, it needs to be patched. Guess what, BW havent been patched for a long long time, and still it is amazingly competetive. Although WoL is a different beast, glaring imbalances should be patched, but not several months after patch. There will be no patch before Hots anyway, why bother. What? Mech was difficult to use as Terran, and you were always playing behind on economy, vision, map control, etc. but a 3 base Terran could easily smash a 5 base Z if he controlled his Tank/Sci Vessel/Mech army properly. Late game T with a fully maxed out Mech army in proper position kills 3+ 200 supply BW Z armies no problem. The issue is that Z players think that it is somehow balanced that not only do they have a superior late game, that they also need to have the ability to have completely uncontested vision, map control, and exponential economical growth on top of that late game. Any Z player who is saying get better is simply riding the train, because every single Z if you look through their post history that has said "get better" says that to Terran players, but always go into ZvP threads about how +2 Blink Stalkers is impossible to hold without perfect injects, or how 2 base 1/1 sentry/immortal/prism pushes are impossible to stop even if scouted. Both TvP and ZvP are both better match-ups to watch and play right now because all races have some sort of chance of winning. Even in TvP, if the Terran gets solid EMPs off late game with a good flank/spread on units, while also keeping his Medivacs alive, he will crush a Protoss 200 deathball army late game (I've seen it too often from beta till now to say that it doesn't). Sure, the Protoss is at a significant advantage, but it is nothing like TvZ late game where the Terran is literally helpless unless the Zerg player just makes massive mistakes. If Z players want to have their superior map control and vision early game than they need to give up something later in the game to balance it out. They already have arguably the strongest macro mechanic in the game in terms of countering (the ability to tech switch on the fly is extremely deadly late game) units, there's no reason that they need to also have super cost efficient Infestors or have that much superior map control, vision, etc. in the early game. They have to give up one of them, or Blizzard is going to have to do something dramatically different in HotS like make Battle Helions/Warhounds overpowered as shit. TL;DR TvZ will never be balanced if you maintain Terran's shitty late game or continue to allow Z's to take 3rds virtually uncontested while having complete map control and superior vision on the field + having a better late game. Either Blizzard is going to have to do massive overhauls to Z themselves, or they are simply going to have to buff the living snot out of Terran deathball in general. The easier route is going to be buffing Terran late game, allowing a Terran to match a Z with 5 bases with just 3 bases like BW Terran can. | ||
|
pmp10
3318 Posts
Thank avilo. Taeja and MVP were not killing that many good zergs. Surely it's the crushing rejection of the raven buff that caused this Now you'll need to wait 6 months for the next baby-step 10% buff - just make sure no to criticize it then. | ||
|
fds
Slovenia258 Posts
EDIT: vikings do not take "double damage" from fungal... lol.. they take 40 like any armored unit Sorry I wrote it in a wrong way. They take extra damage from fungal (not double). With armor change they could take only 30. | ||
|
maartendq
Belgium3115 Posts
On August 21 2012 03:57 superstartran wrote: What? Mech was difficult to use as Terran, and you were always playing behind on economy, vision, map control, etc. but a 3 base Terran could easily smash a 5 base Z if he controlled his Tank/Sci Vessel/Mech army properly. Late game T with a fully maxed out Mech army in proper position kills 3+ 200 supply BW Z armies no problem. The issue is that Z players think that it is somehow balanced that not only do they have a superior late game, that they also need to have the ability to have completely uncontested vision, map control, and exponential economical growth on top of that late game. Any Z player who is saying get better is simply riding the train, because every single Z if you look through their post history that has said "get better" says that to Terran players, but always go into ZvP threads about how +2 Blink Stalkers is impossible to hold without perfect injects, or how 2 base 1/1 sentry/immortal/prism pushes are impossible to stop even if scouted. Both TvP and ZvP are both better match-ups to watch and play right now because all races have some sort of chance of winning. Even in TvP, if the Terran gets solid EMPs off late game with a good flank/spread on units, while also keeping his Medivacs alive, he will crush a Protoss 200 deathball army late game (I've seen it too often from beta till now to say that it doesn't). Sure, the Protoss is at a significant advantage, but it is nothing like TvZ late game where the Terran is literally helpless unless the Zerg player just makes massive mistakes. If Z players want to have their superior map control and vision early game than they need to give up something later in the game to balance it out. They already have arguably the strongest macro mechanic in the game in terms of countering (the ability to tech switch on the fly is extremely deadly late game) units, there's no reason that they need to also have super cost efficient Infestors or have that much superior map control, vision, etc. in the early game. They have to give up one of them, or Blizzard is going to have to do something dramatically different in HotS like make Battle Helions/Warhounds overpowered as shit. TL;DR TvZ will never be balanced if you maintain Terran's shitty late game or continue to allow Z's to take 3rds virtually uncontested while having complete map control and superior vision on the field + having a better late game. Either Blizzard is going to have to do massive overhauls to Z themselves, or they are simply going to have to buff the living snot out of Terran deathball in general. The easier route is going to be buffing Terran late game, allowing a Terran to match a Z with 5 bases with just 3 bases like BW Terran can. This post sums it up rather nicely. Can anyone give this man a medal? | ||
|
ScienceGroen
United States43 Posts
I get the complaints about Terran's weak late game units. The problem that people overlook is that surprise attacks are the terran's late-game tool. Not some spell or unit. You simply can't buff the raven by more than a tiny amount and not have the game spiral out of control. You can't give Terrans a great skyAoE spell (HSM) AND the mobility to drop anywhere on a whim. IMO Fungal doesn't need a nerf, but Terran's need more viable tech paths as MMM is by far the most common right now at all levels. Make mech and skyterran more viable, and fungal gets naturally nerfed. | ||
|
chadissilent
Canada1187 Posts
On August 21 2012 04:21 pmp10 wrote: Thank avilo. Taeja and MVP were not killing that many good zergs. Surely it's the crushing rejection of the raven buff that caused this Now you'll need to wait 6 months for the next baby-step 10% buff - just make sure no to criticize it then. avilo: "yo blizz, i think im progamer and raven buff wont fix TvZ. I dont even make ravens rofl" Blizzard: "hmm, this guy says he's a progamer. Well boys, time to scrap the patch." | ||
|
FlukyS
Ireland485 Posts
On August 20 2012 01:05 blug wrote: Late game scans aren't really as much of an issue because you aren't technically losing 1750 minerals. You just won't get the minerals as fast. If you are talking about early game. Just getting to raven tech can be pretty awkward especially when you are trying to pump out medivacs/vikings. Late game yes I suppose so it doesn't mean much but if you are going banshee how is it a problem to make 1 raven? | ||
| ||
