|
I dont get it, their removing carriers when they are trying to make mech viable?
How is the tempest suppose to stop mass collossi late game PvP? Blink stalker will wreck it before it even matters or collossi will melt the person who made tempest army so fast and then just blink under and kill tempest. The tempest has shit DPS and no splash vs something that can splash and has high DPS. Collossi also has better synergy with gateway unit cause of the gateway upgrade. Why in the world would you decide to make a Tempest in PvP? It the same reason people didnt make carriers in BW but I can atleast see carriers being somewat viable compare to tempest if they were in BW. Honestly, in the TvP battle report, the protoss had 5+ tempest and the terran mech army just walk into the toss base and win. That is how PvP would go if the toss went Tempest. I dont understand...
Wish there was a discussion about the warhound :/
|
On August 21 2012 16:10 FataLe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 15:58 bhfberserk wrote:
Not really a big fan of MC able to move.... how will he gangnam style though?
Just spilt my orange juice at that lol.
|
Feels like they are not rushing into things, I hope they will listen to the player base and give this expansion the time it needs.
|
I thought they nerfed thors because of thor rushes (it was very good VS toss when strike cannons was a cooldown as you could one-shot every immo), not because of Thorzain.
Also the blue flame nerf was fine, TvT was just a fucking mess "I better kill all his workers before he does it to me".
Apart from that I agree with Avilo, it seems they jumped on every occasion to nerf T, and are now reluctant to any tiny buff (raven speed lol).
Hopefully, HotS is coming.
|
On August 21 2012 12:46 Eps wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 11:37 aeroblaster wrote:
A truly evil combo would be Abduct + Neural I don't fear Abduct + Neural as much as I fear Blinding Cloud + Fungal Growth. I know everyone misses the old Defiler Dark Swarm. But what the hell is going on in the mind of Blizz devs that think giving a race that has a Micro-eliminating spell, along with a new spell that minimize Bio-Range to 1 would be a good idea? Better be hoping for those clutch EMPs or that you have some Sieged-up Tanks in a solid position. Well, atleast they gave Battle Hellions to combat this as the "new" firebat.
The bio cloud doesn't make any sense at all, they said they wanted to fill gaps, but does zerg have problems with bio at infestation pit tech?
Also I dislike the turtling and greed in the early game, but I blame map makers.
|
On August 21 2012 14:58 avilo wrote:Just food for thought. Tanks nerfed because of 1 map (steppes of war). Thors nerfed immediately after 1 bo5 (thorzain vs MC). Ghost snipe nerfed after a few series of MVP and others (course of 3-4 weeks only after people started to use ghosts). Blue flame nerfed after one tournament weekend of use.Now, fast forward to over the last 5-6 months of Zerg/Protoss dominance and Terran struggling... They say they acknowledge finally there may be an issue TvZ and will work on it. After 1 tournament weekend of IEM, David Kim believes that Zergs are struggling (3/4 finalists were Zerg), majority of previous tournies also Z/P heavy with the exception of taeja).  Something is very wrong.
Tweaks on the game at that time doesn't have the same impact as today. And they pretty much nerfed some specifics builds (or the fact that one unit counter all T3 of Zerg).
The Queen change was good because o two things:
- Terran was claiming complete map control too easy with just one opening, denying creep spread, killing drones sometimes. It was strangely balanced, but it was so boring and counter-intutitive. Where's is the risk of this opening? It is so rewarding, but you can sitll tech, still expand, there were no hold back.
- Fixed ZvZ increasing defenders advantage. Now, a more defensive oriented Zerg can fight to reach midgame, instead of just dying to baneling all-ins.
Now you finally have to learn to play late game TvZ instead fo just relying on one unit or heavy advantage gained by a easier midgame.
|
Damn it, Carriers aren't bad and it's madness that someone actually suggested free interceptors to 8-14 range units from a race that often floats masses of minerals and complains about not knowing what to spend it on, saying "gas is king" (though granted, we're seeing more and more zealot+war prism harassment these days). Aiyaiyai!
|
On August 21 2012 19:13 Herect wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 14:58 avilo wrote:Just food for thought. Tanks nerfed because of 1 map (steppes of war). Thors nerfed immediately after 1 bo5 (thorzain vs MC). Ghost snipe nerfed after a few series of MVP and others (course of 3-4 weeks only after people started to use ghosts). Blue flame nerfed after one tournament weekend of use.Now, fast forward to over the last 5-6 months of Zerg/Protoss dominance and Terran struggling... They say they acknowledge finally there may be an issue TvZ and will work on it. After 1 tournament weekend of IEM, David Kim believes that Zergs are struggling (3/4 finalists were Zerg), majority of previous tournies also Z/P heavy with the exception of taeja). Something is very wrong. Tweaks on the game at that time doesn't have the same impact as today. And they pretty much nerfed some specifics builds (or the fact that one unit counter all T3 of Zerg). The Queen change was good because o two things: - Terran was claiming complete map control too easy with just one opening, denying creep spread, killing drones sometimes. It was strangely balanced, but it was so boring and counter-intutitive. Where's is the risk of this opening? It is so rewarding, but you can sitll tech, still expand, there were no hold back. - Fixed ZvZ increasing defenders advantage. Now, a more defensive oriented Zerg can fight to reach midgame, instead of just dying to baneling all-ins.
Instead of the terran it's now the zerg who does the same build every game (6 queen) it's safe, you can tech, you can get your 3rd and creep spread. Where's the risk of this opening?
I like it in ZvZ though.
I dislike the mothership core, just like the queen buff it kills early game strategies. 11/11, 2 rax, marine/hellion drop, banshees (you're gonna lose it if you get anywhere near the mineral line) are all pretty bad once the protoss gets his MC.
|
On August 21 2012 15:08 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 15:00 FataLe wrote:On August 21 2012 14:58 avilo wrote:Just food for thought. Tanks nerfed because of 1 map (steppes of war). Thors nerfed immediately after 1 bo5 (thorzain vs MC). Ghost snipe nerfed after a few series of MVP and others (course of 3-4 weeks only after people started to use ghosts). Blue flame nerfed after one tournament weekend of use.Now, fast forward to over the last 5-6 months of Zerg/Protoss dominance and Terran struggling... They say they acknowledge finally there may be an issue TvZ and will work on it. After 1 tournament weekend of IEM, David Kim believes that Zergs are struggling (3/4 finalists were Zerg), majority of previous tournies also Z/P heavy with the exception of taeja). Something is very wrong. Yea, your attitude toward the game. It would be interesting to know the exact thought process/reasoning behind the recent interview statements is all i'm saying  considering a majority of the community would disagree with the assessment that "Zerg is struggling."
They have explained the reasons behind each of those nerfs when they took place. I remember each of them and they all sounded very reasonable(snipe might be the exception, but it was still a bit nuts) And why would Blizzard explain themselves again when the community has shown it is far from level headed when it comes to balance.
And I don't see protoss/zerg dominance over the last 5-6 months. The win rates have never dropped below 40% for terran, which is more than can be said for protoss and zerg in the worst days of terran dominance.
|
On August 21 2012 19:13 Herect wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 14:58 avilo wrote:Just food for thought. Tanks nerfed because of 1 map (steppes of war). Thors nerfed immediately after 1 bo5 (thorzain vs MC). Ghost snipe nerfed after a few series of MVP and others (course of 3-4 weeks only after people started to use ghosts). Blue flame nerfed after one tournament weekend of use.Now, fast forward to over the last 5-6 months of Zerg/Protoss dominance and Terran struggling... They say they acknowledge finally there may be an issue TvZ and will work on it. After 1 tournament weekend of IEM, David Kim believes that Zergs are struggling (3/4 finalists were Zerg), majority of previous tournies also Z/P heavy with the exception of taeja). Something is very wrong. Tweaks on the game at that time doesn't have the same impact as today. And they pretty much nerfed some specifics builds (or the fact that one unit counter all T3 of Zerg). The Queen change was good because o two things: - Terran was claiming complete map control too easy with just one opening, denying creep spread, killing drones sometimes. It was strangely balanced, but it was so boring and counter-intutitive. Where's is the risk of this opening? It is so rewarding, but you can sitll tech, still expand, there were no hold back. - Fixed ZvZ increasing defenders advantage. Now, a more defensive oriented Zerg can fight to reach midgame, instead of just dying to baneling all-ins. Now you finally have to learn to play late game TvZ instead fo just relying on one unit or heavy advantage gained by a easier midgame.
Also, the fact that one terran opening was being use against zerg regardless of map is pretty silly. I don't know a protoss build that I can do against zerg or terran on every map and claim total map control.
|
On August 21 2012 19:06 NormandyBoy wrote:
I thought they nerfed thors because of thor rushes (it was very good VS toss when strike cannons was a cooldown as you could one-shot every immo), not because of Thorzain.
no, it was allegedly primarily a mass thor pathing/obscuring issue. I think David Kim denied it being based on Thorzain specifically, but Thorzain was the only guy going mass thor at that time, so it's obviously not true
http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/140933
First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible.
I guess they didn't notice that every big unit in the game obscures smaller units. And they also didn't notice that adding the energy bar only stops mass thor in tvp. It's a shining example of a game developer's inability to think holistically about his game
|
On August 21 2012 19:26 Quotidian wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 19:06 NormandyBoy wrote:
I thought they nerfed thors because of thor rushes (it was very good VS toss when strike cannons was a cooldown as you could one-shot every immo), not because of Thorzain.
no, it's was allegedly primarily a mass thor pathing/obscuring issue. I think David Kim denied it being based on Thorzain specifically, but Thorzain was the only guy going mass thor at that time, so it's obviously not true http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/140933Show nested quote +First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible. I guess they didn't notice that every big unit in the game obscures smaller units. And they also didn't notice that adding the energy bar only stops mass thor in tvp. It's a shining example of a game developer's inability to think holistically about his game
I think they did it more for two base all-in using thor-marine. It was a brutal build and with the strike cannons, the terran could lock down any immortals the protoss built to deal with it. This was back in the days of the range 5 immortals vs range 7 thors as well.
Second, we felt counter relationships were turning too heavily. The nature of lockdown abilities in general is that they have the potential to heavily turn the tide of battle against armies that would otherwise counter your units. Most of these abilities, especially for an ability as strong as this one, have to be fairly difficult to bring out and easier to counter. We feel that having the additional counters of EMP/Feedback to the Strike Cannons ability is better so that we don’t get into degenerating situations where the opponent is stuck without recourse.
|
On August 21 2012 18:50 Patate wrote:
So, when are they going to finally decide to make this game a worthy successor to BW and implement the lurker instead of that dumb burrowed broodlord?
This game isn't trying to be Brood War, stop being dumb already.
|
On August 21 2012 03:17 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 03:15 SmileZerg wrote:On August 21 2012 03:05 Chaosvuistje wrote:
I wonder that now the mothership core can move around, how the abilities it has right now will hold up. People like you need to stop making comparisons between the SH and Broodlords, they function completely differently. You quoted the wrong person. The only difference between these 2 is that Broodlords fly + don't have to burrow, and the SH is a ground unit that does have to burrow.
you're actually very wrong about that. i dont know why people do not have the ability to think these days and figure out the key differences between units like SH and BL.
first of all the main difference between BL and SH is mobility. on creep the SH is pretty fast so it can engage and retreat from a battle alot more easily then a BL can. this allows you to do cute harassments on faraway expansions or combine it with drops/nydus worms. BL is a very slow moving unit so you cant retreat with it easily nor can you harass faraway expansions with BL. infact you cant harass at all with a BL. BL is mainly used during direct engagements.
another difference is the spawn units AT WILL command SH has. this is very important because you can turn off the auto cast on SH and chose when they can or cant spawn units. (i assume all of the good players will always have auto cast turned off except when sieging) what this means is that you can set up the most epic ambushes or flanks with SH without the opponent ever noticing. thats something that is impossible to do with BL. when was the last time you flanked with the broodlings on BL?
another very important aspect of SH is the ability to defend pretty much any expansion you want combined with nydus worms. it would be similiar to lurkers of BW that would go into nydus canals and help defend faraway bases from drops/harassment and by enough time for units to get there. obviously you cant do this with BL. the best defense u can do with BLs is sit them above a mass of spines and infestors. yes this is good (altho wasteful IMHO) defense you can only defende that position. your other expansions that are far away are undefended and BLs will never get there in time. SHs on the other hand can defend multiple bases if need be especially with nydus worms being set up everywhere.
anyway those are the main differences between SH and BL. there might be more, but i feel like those are the main key differences of the 2 units. the only thing they share in common is the ability to spawn infinite free units, and even that machanic is different because of the autocast feature on SH.
|
They say they want to stop PvP from being a Collossus wars by adding the Tempest. Why not just remove the fucking Collossus? It's the worst designed unit in the game, and is creating so many problems balancing the game.
|
On August 21 2012 19:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 19:26 Quotidian wrote:On August 21 2012 19:06 NormandyBoy wrote:
I thought they nerfed thors because of thor rushes (it was very good VS toss when strike cannons was a cooldown as you could one-shot every immo), not because of Thorzain.
no, it's was allegedly primarily a mass thor pathing/obscuring issue. I think David Kim denied it being based on Thorzain specifically, but Thorzain was the only guy going mass thor at that time, so it's obviously not true http://sea.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/140933First, we definitely don’t like seeing Thors en masse. Due to the visual size of the unit, as well as a small pathing radius, Thors can obscure the other units in your army too easily. This can be problematic because it's important to know roughly how many units an opponent has when scouting. We want the Thor to be the type of unit that you add to your main army, and we definitely don’t want them to be the core of your army to the point where you strive to build as many as possible. I guess they didn't notice that every big unit in the game obscures smaller units. And they also didn't notice that adding the energy bar only stops mass thor in tvp. It's a shining example of a game developer's inability to think holistically about his game I think they did it more for two base all-in using thor-marine. It was a brutal build and with the strike cannons, the terran could lock down any immortals the protoss built to deal with it. This was back in the days of the range 5 immortals vs range 7 thors as well. Show nested quote +Second, we felt counter relationships were turning too heavily. The nature of lockdown abilities in general is that they have the potential to heavily turn the tide of battle against armies that would otherwise counter your units. Most of these abilities, especially for an ability as strong as this one, have to be fairly difficult to bring out and easier to counter. We feel that having the additional counters of EMP/Feedback to the Strike Cannons ability is better so that we don’t get into degenerating situations where the opponent is stuck without recourse.
When they structure their reasoning into two sections of "first" and "second," I tend to think that is how they thought about the problem. Deal with mass thor first, lockdown second.
Jjakji was successful with 2 base thor/banshee/marine all-ins long after the thor nerf, so I don't think that is true. Thor all-ins were never reliant on the lock down to be successful anyway. Most of the time you never even got the upgrade that early, favoring +1 armor on the thors instead. If the real problem was the lock down, they could just have shortened the duration and made it a mini-stun or something, or just removed the upgrade entirely. They wanted to remove the thor as a core, lategame unit for tvp specifically, and they did.
But you do bring up a point with the Immortal range buff - and it goes for queens in relation to reapers as well. With longer ranged immortals and queens, maybe it's time for Blizzard to start thinking about rolling back some of the earlier changes
|
Mobile mothership core sounds fun
|
On August 21 2012 19:13 Herect wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 14:58 avilo wrote:Just food for thought. Tanks nerfed because of 1 map (steppes of war). Thors nerfed immediately after 1 bo5 (thorzain vs MC). Ghost snipe nerfed after a few series of MVP and others (course of 3-4 weeks only after people started to use ghosts). Blue flame nerfed after one tournament weekend of use.Now, fast forward to over the last 5-6 months of Zerg/Protoss dominance and Terran struggling... They say they acknowledge finally there may be an issue TvZ and will work on it. After 1 tournament weekend of IEM, David Kim believes that Zergs are struggling (3/4 finalists were Zerg), majority of previous tournies also Z/P heavy with the exception of taeja). Something is very wrong. Tweaks on the game at that time doesn't have the same impact as today. And they pretty much nerfed some specifics builds (or the fact that one unit counter all T3 of Zerg). The Queen change was good because o two things: - Terran was claiming complete map control too easy with just one opening, denying creep spread, killing drones sometimes. It was strangely balanced, but it was so boring and counter-intutitive. Where's is the risk of this opening? It is so rewarding, but you can sitll tech, still expand, there were no hold back. - Fixed ZvZ increasing defenders advantage. Now, a more defensive oriented Zerg can fight to reach midgame, instead of just dying to baneling all-ins. Now you finally have to learn to play late game TvZ instead fo just relying on one unit or heavy advantage gained by a easier midgame.
Mind explaining to me what risks there is to the 6 queen opener? It seems kinda counter-intuitive to have an opener that makes you safe vs 99% of early game rushes, gets you a retarded econ and allows you to tech?
And there was a hold and quite easy counter to helion expand, its called roaches. Quite alot of zergs actually used them, but sadly its the views of most zergs that you're completely all in if you cant get 3 bases and 70 drones by 8 mins without taking risks
|
My opinion on the Tempest will improve DRASTICALLY if the orb damage is increased, but becomes dodgeable. Imagine having to lead Tempest shots and all the dodging that could happen. It would make for some amazing intense situations.
|
On August 21 2012 19:56 Solarist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2012 19:13 Herect wrote:On August 21 2012 14:58 avilo wrote:Just food for thought. Tanks nerfed because of 1 map (steppes of war). Thors nerfed immediately after 1 bo5 (thorzain vs MC). Ghost snipe nerfed after a few series of MVP and others (course of 3-4 weeks only after people started to use ghosts). Blue flame nerfed after one tournament weekend of use.Now, fast forward to over the last 5-6 months of Zerg/Protoss dominance and Terran struggling... They say they acknowledge finally there may be an issue TvZ and will work on it. After 1 tournament weekend of IEM, David Kim believes that Zergs are struggling (3/4 finalists were Zerg), majority of previous tournies also Z/P heavy with the exception of taeja). Something is very wrong. Tweaks on the game at that time doesn't have the same impact as today. And they pretty much nerfed some specifics builds (or the fact that one unit counter all T3 of Zerg). The Queen change was good because o two things: - Terran was claiming complete map control too easy with just one opening, denying creep spread, killing drones sometimes. It was strangely balanced, but it was so boring and counter-intutitive. Where's is the risk of this opening? It is so rewarding, but you can sitll tech, still expand, there were no hold back. - Fixed ZvZ increasing defenders advantage. Now, a more defensive oriented Zerg can fight to reach midgame, instead of just dying to baneling all-ins. Now you finally have to learn to play late game TvZ instead fo just relying on one unit or heavy advantage gained by a easier midgame. Mind explaining to me what risks there is to the 6 queen opener? It seems kinda counter-intuitive to have an opener that makes you safe vs 99% of early game rushes, gets you a retarded econ and allows you to tech? And there was a hold and quite easy counter to helion expand, its called roaches. Quite alot of zergs actually used them, but sadly its the views of most zergs that you're completely all in if you cant get 3 bases and 70 drones by 8 mins without taking risks
What was the risk of the reactor hellion build pre-queen buff, if any? That build seemed beyond awesome, with little or no risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
