I want to be as clear as I can on our current position of the Infestor in Wings of Liberty.
- We are not going to make any changes before BWC. - We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC. - We may try some changes in Swarm Beta, using that as a test-bed for stuff we could bring back into Wings of Liberty.
At this time I could see these as possible outcomes: - We nerf Infested Terrans, Fungal Growth or both. - We make a change to the Infestor (hit points, movement speed, etc.). - We do a change to how the unit is designed (add a projectile back to Fungal Growth, increase the visibility of burrowed units while they are moving, etc.). - We buff some of the potential counters (EMP, Feedback). - We do a combination of any of the above. - We see something that makes us decide that doing nothing is the right answer. Obviously if this occurs we would share this data or reasoning.
For those of you who believe that this is too slow a response, I am sorry.
EDIT: "Rock" is Dustin Browder himself. BWC (aka WCS) is scheduled to start on November 17.
On November 12 2012 02:29 SarcasmMonster wrote: A video of what Fungal looked like when they tested it as a projectile before it got revoked:
What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Yeah, but it would I think even be worse if a week before the tournament there would be a huge nerf for the Infestor. It would screw over Zerg players so badly. It isn't a pretty situation but waiting until after the tournament is the right decision.
Personally I'm no longer interested or invested into what happens to infestors (or balance in general). What I do know is Blizzard has dug themselves into a hole.
They have not been consistent in the way they balance and their comments on infestors in particular have caused a lot of consternation. This reminds me of situation in WoW where for almost a year they refused to touch mage damage despite a lot of community action. When they finally conceded and made the change, it didn't matter. They were ridiculed and had lost respect.
I see the same situation happening here. When they do finally make a change, and rest assured they will, the uproar will be louder than the welcome.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
the projectile definitely seems to be the right response. i always get annoyed when casters yell SICK FUNGEL because you really honestly only have to hit one fungle and its gg alot of the time. making the spell harder to cast will make the risk reward of the spell fit more in line because right now there is no reason not to build 30 infesters that counter everything
I remember way back that they toyed around with making fungal growth a projectile, why didn't the keep it? Anything that limits micro to begin with is a gimmick in my book. When practically every Zerg tries to make 20 infestors a part of there army, when the infestor is supposed to be a support unit, that should tell you something about its strength(kinda like when Protoss would just warp in HT to instant storm with KA). But Blizzard will be Blizzard and like always we just have to do a lot of waiting.
make it a projectile please. Increase the speed of the projectile if it is too hard to hit. finally finally some justice! you can even make them cheaper for pre sentry immortal all in if the spells are nerf!
If they nerf the infestor so hard they need to nerf protoss all-ins aswel imo, because without the infestor in it's current state 3 base timings would be much harder to hold (and they are already pretty hard) due to forcefields and immortal combo
On November 12 2012 02:23 wangstra wrote: They have not been consistent in the way they balance and their comments on infestors in particular have caused a lot of consternation. This reminds me of situation in WoW where for almost a year they refused to touch mage damage despite a lot of community action. When they finally conceded and made the change, it didn't matter. They were ridiculed and had lost respect.
I see the same situation happening here. When they do finally make a change, and rest assured they will, the uproar will be louder than the welcome.
With this attitude and if Blizzard has to consider this as well, we all lose in the end.
On November 12 2012 02:30 PassiveAce wrote: I fucking love how dustin browders account icon is a pile of rocks being destroyed. I actually really like him now xD
Suppose you have a fungal sized clump of marines and you see the fungal coming, I think you should be able to stim and save maybe half of your rines. Phoenix would no longer be hard countered by infestors and stalkers would have a chance to blink away.
I feel this can be balanced in by adjusting the energy cost, speed of projectile, and possibly damage/duration, but I'm just an armchair expert not a pro.
Oh yeah but make it so that point defense drone can't stop it IMHO EDIT: or maybe not I'm not sure on that last thing.
They are just going to opt for the least volatile change that will bring win percents closer together. They aren't gonna change the game or the way it's played, which is my real problem with Blizzard and HotS. They are so concerned with balancing the game they don't realize how boring the game itself has become
What I also perhaps would like to see is that the Infestor kind of has to 'prepare/charge up' for it to shoot the projectile. However, everything it hits in a line get's fungaled.
On November 12 2012 02:38 floor exercise wrote: They are just going to opt for the least volatile change that will bring win percents closer together. They aren't gonna change the game or the way it's played, which is my real problem with Blizzard and HotS. They are so concerned with balancing the game they don't realize how boring the game itself has become
Ya basically the biggest issue is if they change it too much Zerg will lose every fucking game all of a sudden its back to roach hydra every PvZ so we can get rofl stomped by ffs
Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
On November 12 2012 02:38 floor exercise wrote: They are just going to opt for the least volatile change that will bring win percents closer together. They aren't gonna change the game or the way it's played, which is my real problem with Blizzard and HotS. They are so concerned with balancing the game they don't realize how boring the game itself has become
Ya basically the biggest issue is if they change it too much Zerg will lose every fucking game all of a sudden its back to roach hydra every PvZ so we can get rofl stomped by ffs
Yea because Zerg never wins against Protoss outside of BL Infestor.
The thing with the fungal projectile is that when it was introduced last time, it was universally hated by everyone because it was so hard to hit while in a game. Of course this was during the height of zerg qq, so maybe public opinion will change this time.
This is going to be so tricky for blizz to fix because it's true that if it gets nerfed so hard, zerg is going to lose to a lot of all-ins because they count on it as a survival unit early on. However, because they can survive due to them, it makes zerg too strong late game. It's such a delicate balance and I will wait to see what blizzard comes up with.
I hope they understand the fungal initself is very boring, adding a projectile is even so in the right direction but i dont think its enough. The spell will be there, still chaining units which cant do anything about it. Unless he dode the projectile but while it lands it will get chained.
Tho, if they change other things like range on it and ghost emp range etc etc.
It is not zergy enough the zerg race, it lacks cuz of the infestor. I want to see the infestor redesigned and buff zerg in another way or something. As it is now infestor is really boring unit
Edit: What i mean is it is not about balanced #1, its about it is a boring unit thats the problem to me
Sigh, what more do people want? Rock already basically mentioned most of all of this in previous posts, but yet he has to post this because of all the ignorant people that can't read or refuse to actually look up his posts before criticizing him/david.
Be thankful that they're so patient with you guys, this is sort of disappointing but respectful how Rock stoops low for guys.
This is literally like the best answer they could give though, but yet I bet people will still criticize him for "being blind, thinking the infestor is fine, saying the infestor is fine due to 50/50 winrate in TvZ, ignoring the community" and on and on. It's getting tiring and i get quite ashamed of being a SC2 fan.
(I'm expressing my disgust with SC2 fans, namely Bnet, but it even happens here especially recently on TL... come on guys we can do better!)
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
Thank you so much for describing the current thoughts on the matter. It puts the mind at ease for those at doubt, especially after recent interviews.
As for suggestions, one I hoped to see on that list was:
-Decrease the size of the infestor (EMP/AOE hits more infestors, punishes clumping and bad positioning)
As the infestor is extremely large for being a ground-based spellcaster, this would be a good place to make a change as well as all the options mentioned in the original post.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
On November 12 2012 02:43 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Sigh, what more do people want? Rock already basically mentioned most of all of this in previous posts, but yet he has to post this because of all the ignorant people that can't read or refuse to actually look up his posts before criticizing him/david.
Be thankful that they're so patient with you guys, this is sort of disappointing but respectful how Rock stoops low for guys.
This is literally like the best answer they could give though, but yet I bet people (esp on bnet) will still criticize him for "being blind, thinking the infestor is fine, saying the infestor is fine due to 50/50 winrate in TvZ, ignoring the community" and on and on. It's getting tiring and i get quite ashamed of being a SC2 fan.
You're getting ashamed for being an SCII fan because of people who ride a bandwagon and don't think for themselves? It's almost like how I get ashamed whenever I see all the people riding the joyride bandwagon, refusing to admit that there are ways this game can change, there ARE ways it can be improved, and that these things SHOULD happen.
At the end of the day, the source of mine and many others complaints is a dissatisfaction that stems from a deep PASSION for the game and community that we want to see made even better.
It's hard to be satisfied with this game, especially given the amount of time I've invested in it...seeing the amount of community backlash that has occurred in the past month or so (especially all the bandwagoning) makes it even harder...
This feels like a paltry concession that things need to change. How many people need to bitch and whine for them to fucking conceed these changes? Apparently we need these sort of things to make progress.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
How was it over the years? lol. And its been only nerfed once cuz it auto raped protoss units. Its been becuz of infestors for a long long time and alot of pro gamers agree infsetor bl is too strong. Why u in denial?
I hope they won't try to add projectile without increasing the range of fungal.
The best way to change it if you're not going to redesign it would probably be to nerf the size a bit of it and increase the energy cost of IT by 5-10.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
because there was a massive queen patch that allowed you to get 70 drones and 3 bases while hardly making any units -.-, this allows you to make mass amounts of infestors midgame and transition into a super fast hive. Ghosts were also hugely nerfed after being "too viable against anything zerg" in tvz while infestors are good vs any unit in the game, and IS made vs every single unit composition in the game. I'm sure you weren't complaining that people were crying for balance patches when snipe was strong, and i'm sure you weren't complaining when blizzard decided to buff queens and overlords EVEN though the tvz matchup had been 50% and perfect at the time.
I'd like to see them try something like change infested terran spell to cost 100 energy and launch four eggs. I think it would be a lot better for the game if you had to save up for it and be more careful when you used it.
Fungal as a projectile seems like a no brainer to me, was never sure why they went away from that. Same with emp.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
It's a little late for that anyway.
Well, Blizzard will be watching the WCS very closely, so if we see nothing but Infestor and a ZvZ final, that'll light a fire under their ass. I'm hoping I'm wrong and these unexplored counters to Infestor are right around the corner. =P
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
How was it over the years? lol. And its been only nerfed once cuz it auto raped protoss units. Its been becuz of infestors for a long long time and alot of pro gamers agree infsetor bl is too strong. Why u in denial?
The stats are in front of your face, This is the only Season out of the entire time Starcraft 2 has been out, that zergs are doing well @ the highest lvl of play.........and this does not even effect people who are below GM, as they lose to having poor skills in general, not because a unit is "op" sigh. "Waits for the next QQ about something else being OP"
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
It's a little late for that anyway.
Well, Blizzard will be watching the WCS very closely, so if we see nothing but Infestor and a ZvZ final, that'll light a fire under their ass. I'm hoping I'm wrong and these unexplored counters to Infestor are right around the corner. =P
There aren't enough Korean Zergs at WCS to really make much of a conclusion, if you ask me. We should be looking more at the GSL.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
How was it over the years? lol. And its been only nerfed once cuz it auto raped protoss units. Its been becuz of infestors for a long long time and alot of pro gamers agree infsetor bl is too strong. Why u in denial?
May it be that Infestor/Broodlord is too strong. I see that by myself as a zerg player but the thing he points out is that the reason why Infestors are so strong is that people started to utilize the Infestor more than before. It was the same with Marines. First few seasons Marines would be crushed by Banelings then there came the incredible split. It is skill.
On November 12 2012 02:23 wangstra wrote: Personally I'm no longer interested or invested into what happens to infestors (or balance in general). What I do know is Blizzard has dug themselves into a hole.
They have not been consistent in the way they balance and their comments on infestors in particular have caused a lot of consternation. This reminds me of situation in WoW where for almost a year they refused to touch mage damage despite a lot of community action. When they finally conceded and made the change, it didn't matter. They were ridiculed and had lost respect.
I see the same situation happening here. When they do finally make a change, and rest assured they will, the uproar will be louder than the welcome.
My god, they're finally transparent to the community and approaching balance SLOWLY with a methodical CAUTION, rather than knee-jerk nerfing anything within a fucking week. This is what we needed for years out of Blizzard. They announced almost 6 months ago they were going to start balancing more slowly and carefully, specifically allowing the metagame to develop and give players a chance to solve it themselves. They've been entirely consistent in this regard thus far. You really want to go back to 100% random balance patches every month because you're now disadvantaged by it?
Some people will just cry about anything, now.
edit: I should start an appreciation thread for Blizzard, so that they at least hear praise from the community and don't cave into ridiculous entitled posters such as this one.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
If you think Blink Stalkers are ''borderline op'' then there's no point debating with you. Fungal will still be in the game so zerg won't be without it. If you think actually being able to micro against a fungal is a bad thing then you're an idiot.
I see a big problem with the fungal projectile in ZvZ. Mutas are already common and effective, but they'll be impossible to catch when Fungal is dodgeable. Infestors are already relatively slow and squishy, I don't think changing their hp/armor/speed would be fun. Buffing EMP/Feedback might screw over PvT balance, which produces very fun games (at least to watch) at the moment. In my opinion, a nerf to Infested Terrans and/or Fungal (other than making it a projectile) would be best.
We buff some of the potential counters (EMP, Feedback).
out of all the suggestions this is the one that doesnt make me instant puke. nerfing infestors is not the way to go as it is very vital to the zerg army.
buffing infestor counters however is the best course of action. not only will it make ghosts and templar more popular in the match up but it will also be very rewarding to get off huge emps on clumps of infestor and force zerg to be more careful..
just think about defilers in BW. a HUGELY powerful unit. how were they dealt with? anti spellcasting units like science vessel. bring irradiate back to the raven if need be.
Werent most of the Koreans who qualified for WCS protoss? I only say that because when MVP won an event against lesser competition it got them to stop a balance change so this could do the same.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
We buff some of the potential counters (EMP, Feedback).
out of all the suggestions this is the one that doesnt make me instant puke. nerfing infestors is not the way to go as it is very vital to the zerg army.
buffing infestor counters however is the best course of action. not only will it make ghosts and templar more popular in the match up but it will also be very rewarding to get off huge emps on clumps of infestor and force zerg to be more careful..
The problem with buffing 2 races when 1 race is a problem is another order of complication to the balance issue. Best to nerf the 1 problem race than to cause 2 new problems. For example, I can't see too many ways to buff Feedback since it almost always 1 shot kills Infestors anyway. The energy cost isn't an issue either, since the HT is doomed once it confronts the Zerg ball. The HT itself or the range could be buffed, but imagine the consequences of that, where anything with an energy bar will now be even easier to kill.
On November 12 2012 02:23 wangstra wrote: Personally I'm no longer interested or invested into what happens to infestors (or balance in general). What I do know is Blizzard has dug themselves into a hole.
They have not been consistent in the way they balance and their comments on infestors in particular have caused a lot of consternation. This reminds me of situation in WoW where for almost a year they refused to touch mage damage despite a lot of community action. When they finally conceded and made the change, it didn't matter. They were ridiculed and had lost respect.
I see the same situation happening here. When they do finally make a change, and rest assured they will, the uproar will be louder than the welcome.
I feel the exact same way, I (a terran player) have stopped playing weeks ago, the only reason I am still somewhat interested in any type of change for the infestor is becauase I am still somewhat interested in watching, although I do see myslef watching less and less SC and more dota/LoL
On November 12 2012 02:43 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Sigh, what more do people want? Rock already basically mentioned most of all of this in previous posts, but yet he has to post this because of all the ignorant people that can't read or refuse to actually look up his posts before criticizing him/david.
Be thankful that they're so patient with you guys, this is sort of disappointing but respectful how Rock stoops low for guys.
This is literally like the best answer they could give though, but yet I bet people (esp on bnet) will still criticize him for "being blind, thinking the infestor is fine, saying the infestor is fine due to 50/50 winrate in TvZ, ignoring the community" and on and on. It's getting tiring and i get quite ashamed of being a SC2 fan.
You're getting ashamed for being an SCII fan because of people who ride a bandwagon and don't think for themselves? It's almost like how I get ashamed whenever I see all the people riding the joyride bandwagon, refusing to admit that there are ways this game can change, there ARE ways it can be improved, and that these things SHOULD happen.
At the end of the day, the source of mine and many others complaints is a dissatisfaction that stems from a deep PASSION for the game and community that we want to see made even better.
It's hard to be satisfied with this game, especially given the amount of time I've invested in it...seeing the amount of community backlash that has occurred in the past month or so (especially all the bandwagoning) makes it even harder...
This feels like a paltry concession that things need to change. How many people need to bitch and whine for them to fucking conceed these changes? Apparently we need these sort of things to make progress.
I understand that one main reason why there's so much backlash is because of passion for esports, but I'm just criticizing how people post so much BS so often, or post in arrogant tones when they haven't even read a good amount of interviews/posts lately and/or are just out of touch with the dev team recently.
About needing to QQ to change things: You don't think they're already working on this as their normal jobs? Look at the overlord change, that wasn't bitched about much, but yet they did that, and when it happened the majority response was "oh wow, didn't quite think of that" or "wow, they finally did something to allow zerg to scout better especially because the maps are bigger now!" There was no significant bitching (at least not as much as other things people have been QQing about), yet they changed it.
So because of that and other examples, I don't think you need to QQ at all for them to do their jobs. Bringing up concern is good because it helps the devs know if they're on track or not, but you don't need to bitch/QQ, simply posting about concerns would be a more respectful way to do things and I think would have similar or better affect (because one side effect would probably include people making posts that are easier to read and have less insults but more on the actual concern).
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Zergs were not losing often last year either, they still had winning representation. GSL has generally always had more Terrans than Zerg/Protoss for a long time. Come on now.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
People currently overrate how good infestor is, it's mostly a defensive unit, recently Z just started to play more defensive and people feel they have to rush into it, it's like this all the time, people did it as well about the queen change, after short time no one cared about it, same happened when T was OP, etc. and every single time nothing changed, and suddenly it didn't matter at all.
People are just too keen on looking on the presence, rather than trying to develop new ways to approach the game, not just like P are doing constantly, making new goals to do the same thing as different timings. Z started to play differently, so P and T should as well
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
because there was a massive queen patch that allowed you to get 70 drones and 3 bases while hardly making any units -.-, this allows you to make mass amounts of infestors midgame and transition into a super fast hive. Ghosts were also hugely nerfed after being "too viable against anything zerg" in tvz while infestors are good vs any unit in the game, and IS made vs every single unit composition in the game. I'm sure you weren't complaining that people were crying for balance patches when snipe was strong, and i'm sure you weren't complaining when blizzard decided to buff queens and overlords EVEN though the tvz matchup had been 50% and perfect at the time.
Picture of perfect balance for the majority of TL posters:
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
The old fungal back in the day, did more dmg, and people use to NP everything with its long range, Blizzard did the correct thing, nerfed fungal dmg and pretty much removed NP from the game.......now all the sudden people cry about something just because they see Korean Zergs doing well all the sudden??? please.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
without fungal? the suggestion is turning it into a projectile not removal of it. The problem with fungal is that it is NOT dodgeable and once it lands you cant micro afterward either....emp is virtually undodgeable but you can do splits, blink, micro in some form afterwards, storm is a little slower...much stronger, and you can still micro after its cast. Fungal you cant micro before OR after. This change would allow some form of counter micro which is good. right now its fungal range lock down chain death...very boring
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
The old fungal back in the day, did more dmg, and people use to NP everything with its long range, Blizzard did the correct thing, nerfed fungal dmg and pretty much removed NP from the game.......now all the sudden people cry about something just because they see Korean Zergs doing well all the sudden??? please.
Did you just start playing SC2? There was a huge Buff to fungal damage sometime last year
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
The old fungal back in the day, did more dmg, and people use to NP everything with its long range, Blizzard did the correct thing, nerfed fungal dmg and pretty much removed NP from the game.......now all the sudden people cry about something just because they see Korean Zergs doing well all the sudden??? please.
Sorry but when did YOU start playing SC2? Fungal was buffed way way back then to help with blink stalkers + void rays. Not to mention they got the ability to cast IT while burrowed.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
It's a good thing, but if the speed of the projectile is what it is in that youtube video posted, I think it would be a bit too easy to micro against it for pros. Especially with blink stalker all-ins, when all of the concentration is on the army. There's no need to try to twist what I'm saying.
So I guess they have to balance it according to the speed of the animation of the projection?
Any change that leaves the ability to micro after being fungalled is good in my eyes it doesn't just have to be a projectile just making it a slow or allowing spells to be used whilst being fungalled ( these are just random ideas). But having it a projectile might mean that it's a good thing to flank with infestors and stuff like that making burrowed infestors flanking armies a lot more fun to watch than 1-a- f click- f click- f click.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
The old fungal back in the day, did more dmg, and people use to NP everything with its long range, Blizzard did the correct thing, nerfed fungal dmg and pretty much removed NP from the game.......now all the sudden people cry about something just because they see Korean Zergs doing well all the sudden??? please.
Did you just start playing SC2? There was a huge Buff to fungal damage sometime last year
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
But the real kicker, the change that wasn't reverted on patch 1.4 was the reduction in Fungal Growth's duration. effectively increasing it's DPS by applying it's damage twice as fast.
1.0 fungal, 36 dmg over 8s: 4.5 dps 1.4 fungal, 30 dmg over 4s: 7.5 dps
Nah, the infestor was never touched, and the account made 10 days ago with 22 posts calls me a troll.
Great to see Blizzard finally making some positive changes to SC2 the past few weeks. Hopefully we will see some major nerfs to the Infestor after BWC and this game might be going somewhere.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
People currently overrate how good infestor is, it's mostly a defensive unit, recently Z just started to play more defensive and people feel they have to rush into it, it's like this all the time, people did it as well about the queen change, after short time no one cared about it, same happened when T was OP, etc. and every single time nothing changed, and suddenly it didn't matter at all.
People are just too keen on looking on the presence, rather than trying to develop new ways to approach the game, not just like P are doing constantly, making new goals to do the same thing as different timings. Z started to play differently, so P and T should as well
no there is actually just no response for protoss to beat infestor broodlord other then praying for a nice vortex. vs terran infestor broodlord is also very hard to stop but i do admit ravens with seeker missle can be strong if you can get to that point. I think the main issue is that you build infestors in order to counter everything in the game and that is not good game design.
I'm really beginning to hope Infestors get nerfed into the ground like the whiners want, and GSL ro16 becomes a Zerg free zone again, just so this incessant whining stops.
On November 12 2012 03:30 sitromit wrote: I'm really beginning to hope Infestors get nerfed into the ground like the whiners want, and GSL ro16 becomes a Zerg free zone again, just so this incessant whining stops.
On November 12 2012 03:30 sitromit wrote: I'm really beginning to hope Infestors get nerfed into the ground like the whiners want, and GSL ro16 becomes a Zerg free zone again, just so this incessant whining stops.
They waited 6 months so they could nerf it into the ground and undo all the patience they put into approaching this as sensitively as possible? Get over it.
On November 12 2012 03:30 sitromit wrote: I'm really beginning to hope Infestors get nerfed into the ground like the whiners want, and GSL ro16 becomes a Zerg free zone again, just so this incessant whining stops.
The only people I see whining are zergs.
Yeah, it's Zergs making a new thread everyday whining about Infestors. You got me there.
On November 12 2012 03:30 sitromit wrote: I'm really beginning to hope Infestors get nerfed into the ground like the whiners want, and GSL ro16 becomes a Zerg free zone again, just so this incessant whining stops.
The only people I see whining are zergs.
Yeah, it's Zergs making a new thread everyday whining about Infestors. You got me there.
I run in to a lot of Zergs on ladder, when asked will say that they think ZvT is way too easy atm. I also personally have a friend who doesnt play anymore because infestor ---> BL is so ungodly boring. It's gotten to the point where all but the most desperate of Zerg players knows that the Infestor is way too strong.
On November 12 2012 03:27 SupLilSon wrote: Great to see Blizzard finally making some positive changes to SC2 the past few weeks. Hopefully we will see some major nerfs to the Infestor after BWC and this game might be going somewhere.
Sort of agree, there are changes/optimizations necessary as the game became rather stale. And fungal too universally applicable for that matter.
On November 12 2012 03:30 sitromit wrote: I'm really beginning to hope Infestors get nerfed into the ground like the whiners want, and GSL ro16 becomes a Zerg free zone again, just so this incessant whining stops.
The only people I see whining are zergs.
You're both wrong. As long as there exists an active and passionate community there will always be some complaining. You can't please everybody and you can't stop them from voicing their opinions. The only thing you can do is try to see through the QQ and enjoy starcraft for what is really is, a game.
Can't believe it's taken them this long to consider that the infestor needs to be changed. I would make infested terrans cost more energy and make fungal slow but not stun units.
On November 12 2012 03:30 sitromit wrote: I'm really beginning to hope Infestors get nerfed into the ground like the whiners want, and GSL ro16 becomes a Zerg free zone again, just so this incessant whining stops.
The only people I see whining are zergs.
Yeah, it's Zergs making a new thread everyday whining about Infestors. You got me there.
On November 12 2012 03:37 Renfield wrote: Can't believe it's taken them this long to consider that the infestor needs to be changed. I would make infested terrans cost more energy and make fungal slow but not stun units.
They considered that the infestor might need to be changed. They just allowed the community to try and solve it themselves first, and then debated an appropriate fix without rushing to patch it and potentially affect the game adversely.
hmm id really like to see fungal being projectile + heavy slow. If it were projectile + root, its still too easy to chainfungal once the opponent has been caught. With a heavy slow you can atleast keep spreading your units to some extent. As for the IT, I kind of like the swarmy feel of it in the midgame, so I am definatly against making it cost more energy. If anything, id make it slightly cheaper but a lot weaker, so its good as harass during midgame, but totally sucks as dmg soaker or anti air in the lategame.
Anyhow, I am glad that the problem is atleast being recognised.
I am sad that they aren't contemplating a buff to other zerg units to go along a possible infestor nerf. Nerfing infestor alone may fix balance, but won't make zerg play more diverse.
I guess they will do a final WOL patch, hope it goes well, and move on to HOTS.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
without fungal? the suggestion is turning it into a projectile not removal of it. The problem with fungal is that it is NOT dodgeable and once it lands you cant micro afterward either....emp is virtually undodgeable but you can do splits, blink, micro in some form afterwards, storm is a little slower...much stronger, and you can still micro after its cast. Fungal you cant micro before OR after. This change would allow some form of counter micro which is good. right now its fungal range lock down chain death...very boring
By your logic othing is dodgeable except nukes. You can micro beforehand, splits, emps, snipe, feedbacks running away etc. You can micro after, micro isn't locked to just moving five units that got fungaled. Fungal encourages micro since it will force people not to put their entire army in one hotkey, it'll force players to use their casters instead of just the colossus doom army. Or it'll force people to complain even though the number show a even number of wins among the races.
lol i think you need to stop trolling, the more i read your posts the more i am seriously doubting your understanding of the game. i play terran and when ghost was OP i realized it and was fine with the nerf, when warhound came out I LOL so hard after i played 1 game with them, then i never made them again because i realized how ridiculously strong they were, and guess what they were removed, for being OP.
you are failing to understand that the infestor was not buffed to being OP, it is the fact that people figured out how strong it actually was and then decided it is much easier for them to win if they just made a bunch of them. name one unit that infestors are not good against, i dare, you, or one situation where having infestors is not good. if you can answer both of these questions then you clearly do not understand what is going on.
lol did you watch MLG dallas, leenock vs life? it was like 40 infestors vs like 38 infestors, if you think that is okay then i feel bad for you and your understanding of RTS games. LOL i can not wait for gsl ro16 and WCS ZvZ so you can see how bad this is actually getting.
if it was not an actual problem then nobody would say anything, but since it is actually a very big problem that needs to be fixed, EVERYBODY, including blizz, is being very vocal about it. bad troll is bad.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
without fungal? the suggestion is turning it into a projectile not removal of it. The problem with fungal is that it is NOT dodgeable and once it lands you cant micro afterward either....emp is virtually undodgeable but you can do splits, blink, micro in some form afterwards, storm is a little slower...much stronger, and you can still micro after its cast. Fungal you cant micro before OR after. This change would allow some form of counter micro which is good. right now its fungal range lock down chain death...very boring
By your logic othing is dodgeable except nukes. You can micro beforehand, splits, emps, snipe, feedbacks running away etc. You can micro after, micro isn't locked to just moving five units that got fungaled. Fungal encourages micro since it will force people not to put their entire army in one hotkey, it'll force players to use their casters instead of just the colossus doom army. Or it'll force people to complain even though the number show a even number of wins among the races.
The way this is different though is if you make a mistake and get a HT sniped or EMP'd that's one or 2 less storms which is bad. IF you make a mistake and get some units fungalled you've lost those units because they can just be chain fungalled and everything die. Same mistakes more drastic outcomes.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
The old fungal back in the day, did more dmg, and people use to NP everything with its long range, Blizzard did the correct thing, nerfed fungal dmg and pretty much removed NP from the game.......now all the sudden people cry about something just because they see Korean Zergs doing well all the sudden??? please.
Did you just start playing SC2? There was a huge Buff to fungal damage sometime last year
Lol Melaine get your facts right.
Patch 9 (version 0.11.0.15097) Fungal Growth projectile removed; Units in the target area are now instantly hit. Patch 1.1.2 Fungal Growth now prevents Blink. Patch 1.3.0 Stun duration decreased from 8 to 4 seconds. Damage increased by +30% vs. armored units. Patch 1.4.0 Fungal Growth damage changed from 36 (+30% armored) to 30 (40 vs Armored).
Quoted from Liquipedia.
DPS was buffed in Patch 1.3.0 as part of an overall nerf to the ability (8 sec duration to 4 sec). Damage was buffed against armored units, which really doesn't affect marines at all.
While what you said was correct about fungal DPS being increased, the spirit of what you said (that fungal was buffed) isn't really true. It received a further damage nerf soon after.
Unless I'm mistaken, Blizzard is mainly concerned with the Infestor-heavy BL/Infestor late game style that Leenock and Symbol have been showing and not BL/Infestor in general. If I'm correct, then I really wish they had stuck to their guns on this and given players time to develop counter strategies. The unit counters are there, but it takes a lot of time to develop strong counter timings to a new style.
If they are considering a nerf, I wish they would also consider reducing the max energy by 25-50. This way it doesn't make Infestors worse in the mid game or against styles of frequent aggression, but makes max energy Infestors easier to deal with in the late game.
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
without fungal? the suggestion is turning it into a projectile not removal of it. The problem with fungal is that it is NOT dodgeable and once it lands you cant micro afterward either....emp is virtually undodgeable but you can do splits, blink, micro in some form afterwards, storm is a little slower...much stronger, and you can still micro after its cast. Fungal you cant micro before OR after. This change would allow some form of counter micro which is good. right now its fungal range lock down chain death...very boring
By your logic othing is dodgeable except nukes. You can micro beforehand, splits, emps, snipe, feedbacks running away etc. You can micro after, micro isn't locked to just moving five units that got fungaled. Fungal encourages micro since it will force people not to put their entire army in one hotkey, it'll force players to use their casters instead of just the colossus doom army. Or it'll force people to complain even though the number show a even number of wins among the races.
The way this is different though is if you make a mistake and get a HT sniped or EMP'd that's one or 2 less storms which is bad. IF you make a mistake and get some units fungalled you've lost those units because they can just be chain fungalled and everything die. Same mistakes more drastic outcomes.
1 or 2 less storms can be veeeeery drastic in PvT, especially if it means you got none.
They could always do a projectile and slow, as long as the travel speed is not too slow and the slow% not too low.
Edit : The only thing I'm concerned about with the projectile is +2 blink allins, but it could still give for some cool micro from protoss and make them burn their blink.
On November 12 2012 03:27 SupLilSon wrote: Great to see Blizzard finally making some positive changes to SC2 the past few weeks. Hopefully we will see some major nerfs to the Infestor after BWC and this game might be going somewhere.
To advance game, you need to fix all unused units too. Why are they there, being barely used? Buff Raven big, give reaper utility, buff Carrier big, give hydra speed upgrade. Then nerf infestor, if the game stays the same. Pretty lame when blizz dont want to incorporate every unit out there.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
What do you want to hear now? Do you want something like: "Zergs are stupid because it took them over 2years to realize, that they only need to mass the same one unit in every matchup to play well."? Of course this is bullshit. The metagame evolves and imbalances can just come out when it changes to a certain point were the imbalanced unit/mechanic becomes abused more and more. The problem is, that it's nearly never a bad choice to build an infestor. There is simply no situation in the game, where you don't want to have more infestors. You got 40 infestors on the field? Build more of them and start more harassment with them, while the 40 you already got, form your main army. And the unit we're talking about here is supposed to be a support caster. And for TvZ, it was the queen buff, that helped Zerg to get to the midgame so comfortably, that they could get the very strong infestors way earlier and in larger numbers!
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
without fungal? the suggestion is turning it into a projectile not removal of it. The problem with fungal is that it is NOT dodgeable and once it lands you cant micro afterward either....emp is virtually undodgeable but you can do splits, blink, micro in some form afterwards, storm is a little slower...much stronger, and you can still micro after its cast. Fungal you cant micro before OR after. This change would allow some form of counter micro which is good. right now its fungal range lock down chain death...very boring
By your logic othing is dodgeable except nukes. You can micro beforehand, splits, emps, snipe, feedbacks running away etc. You can micro after, micro isn't locked to just moving five units that got fungaled. Fungal encourages micro since it will force people not to put their entire army in one hotkey, it'll force players to use their casters instead of just the colossus doom army. Or it'll force people to complain even though the number show a even number of wins among the races.
The way this is different though is if you make a mistake and get a HT sniped or EMP'd that's one or 2 less storms which is bad. IF you make a mistake and get some units fungalled you've lost those units because they can just be chain fungalled and everything die. Same mistakes more drastic outcomes.
1 or 2 less storms can be veeeeery drastic in PvT, especially if it means you got none.
If you only have 1 or 2 storms when terran has ghosts I think something else is up ^^
On November 12 2012 02:39 bobdabillda wrote: Fungal projectiles might be too weak against blink stalkers, no? I mean, pros with good blink micro should be able to dodge some if not all of the projectiles when they see the animation. They can repeat to burn infestor energy. Or would the animation be too fast? From the video posted in the thread, it seems slower than EMP.
so reward good micro? don't you think that's a good thing?
that would be easy micro for pros and blink stalkers as they are right now are borderline op. Without fungal they are pretty much unstoppable.
without fungal? the suggestion is turning it into a projectile not removal of it. The problem with fungal is that it is NOT dodgeable and once it lands you cant micro afterward either....emp is virtually undodgeable but you can do splits, blink, micro in some form afterwards, storm is a little slower...much stronger, and you can still micro after its cast. Fungal you cant micro before OR after. This change would allow some form of counter micro which is good. right now its fungal range lock down chain death...very boring
By your logic othing is dodgeable except nukes. You can micro beforehand, splits, emps, snipe, feedbacks running away etc. You can micro after, micro isn't locked to just moving five units that got fungaled. Fungal encourages micro since it will force people not to put their entire army in one hotkey, it'll force players to use their casters instead of just the colossus doom army. Or it'll force people to complain even though the number show a even number of wins among the races.
The way this is different though is if you make a mistake and get a HT sniped or EMP'd that's one or 2 less storms which is bad. IF you make a mistake and get some units fungalled you've lost those units because they can just be chain fungalled and everything die. Same mistakes more drastic outcomes.
thanks....thats was my point but you expressed it better. Fungal the way it works now is soooo good....The root aspect is why it is so good. I would personally like the root part of it to be gone....to like a slow or something
I would love to see fungal turned into a projectile with back loaded damage. Hold lasts 2 seconds damage lasts 4 seconds. During the time where the unit is taking damage but not being held in place, it's immune to fungal. Damage over time would be something like, 4-6-7-13. All values subject to balancing.
You would still have your DPS and more importantly the hold however there would be a microable time where you can spread units to prevent a chain fungal. Therefore more skilled players would benefit greater.
what kind of sucks now, is that if and when infestor is changed, all the zergs that are average are probably going to stop seeing some success. patch zergs would be re-excluded from pro play and i feel like the tearZ would be more numerous and extreme than the Tears we've been seeing lately
just saying hypothetically, when all these "up and coming zergs" get their bread and butter nerf, there is gonna be massive massive butthurt in the Z community..
Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
On November 12 2012 03:27 SupLilSon wrote: Great to see Blizzard finally making some positive changes to SC2 the past few weeks. Hopefully we will see some major nerfs to the Infestor after BWC and this game might be going somewhere.
To advance game, you need to fix all unused units too. Why are they there, being barely used? Buff Raven big, give reaper utility, buff Carrier big, give hydra speed upgrade. Then nerf infestor, if the game stays the same. Pretty lame when blizz dont want to incorporate every unit out there.
So nerf anything of protoss terran and nerf infestor...you want zergs to vanish don't you? nowhere a line about one of the hydra or any other zerg units to compensate.
On November 12 2012 03:27 SupLilSon wrote: Great to see Blizzard finally making some positive changes to SC2 the past few weeks. Hopefully we will see some major nerfs to the Infestor after BWC and this game might be going somewhere.
To advance game, you need to fix all unused units too. Why are they there, being barely used? Buff Raven big, give reaper utility, buff Carrier big, give hydra speed upgrade. Then nerf infestor, if the game stays the same. Pretty lame when blizz dont want to incorporate every unit out there.
So nerf anything of protoss terran and nerf infestor...you want zergs to vanish don't you? nowhere a line about one of the hydra or any other zerg units to compensate.
But a line about being open to other solutions should they arrive.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake red curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
Everytime I see you post, all you write about is negative stuff. You need to chill out broski. Changing the infestor before BWC would require a massive tactical change from all the players in a short time frame, which seems like a bad idea. It's good enough that they recognize a problem and are dealing with it logically without affecting the main ppl affected by balance i.e. progamers.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
Wait, and you are one of the deserving ones? When it comes to mediocre forever whining SC 2 pros, you'd probably be the perpetual president. What a nothing you are, as a player and as a contributer to the SC2 scene and this community.
If you can't locate the find match button, maybe it's time you un-installed the game and gtfo already.
Thanks for the LOL though, bud. I had a good chuckle reading your post. Nice one.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
Its been that way for terrans for a long time (not recently, but most of the sc2 lifetime).
On November 12 2012 03:27 SupLilSon wrote: Great to see Blizzard finally making some positive changes to SC2 the past few weeks. Hopefully we will see some major nerfs to the Infestor after BWC and this game might be going somewhere.
To advance game, you need to fix all unused units too. Why are they there, being barely used? Buff Raven big, give reaper utility, buff Carrier big, give hydra speed upgrade. Then nerf infestor, if the game stays the same. Pretty lame when blizz dont want to incorporate every unit out there.
So nerf anything of protoss terran and nerf infestor...you want zergs to vanish don't you? nowhere a line about one of the hydra or any other zerg units to compensate.
Sorry i do not follow you. I said buff other units instead of nerfing infestor. That includes hydra too. Then nerf infestor if need be.
I don't understand Cloud's mindset. has been overpowered for a much longer time than 's current era but he would never say that are getting underserved money and fame back then.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
taminator i think cloud is free to feel the way he does, you dont need to police his opinions haha. i'm sure that if you were a terran player you would be frustrated by the really high mechanical demands and decision making the race takes at a high level.. especially if your race is suffering in winrates and all that. understand dont reprimand :p
and yea i think changing inestor would be a large issue right now. it would be difficult to change it without hurting zerg alot.. however, if they were 3 supply, or broodlord were 6, i think it would look and feel a lot more balance to spectators and players
I think infestors only need to have their model size decreased and maybe a slight nerf on movement speed(like .3 or .4).
Letting EMP and splash damage hit more infestors would seem to be a viable proposition, and reducing their offcreep speed would make it harder to escape and.
I'm glad they aren't changing shit before their world tourny. I think this is a smart decision esp considering back when patches were more frequent people had no notice prior to mlgs etc and in some situations it possibly ended up screwing players to a degree who had practice specific things for a matchup.
I'm even more glad however that Rock and the Blizzard developers are actually making posts and keeping in closer contact via b.net forums about both wol and hots and aren't simply throwing WoL off to the side until hots is out. Also, I def feel more at ease knowing their general time frame for possible changes. so yea kudos to blizz <3
Good decision to wait till after WCS. I think in the past they released a patch right before a major tournament that completely screwed up the balance if I remember correctly. Glad to see they learned their lesson
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
I'm very happy they are recognizing the problem and already have ideas on how they will fix it. ( funnily enough, most of the things he listed came from our thread here on TL about " how would you change infestors? "
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
People currently overrate how good infestor is, it's mostly a defensive unit, recently Z just started to play more defensive and people feel they have to rush into it, it's like this all the time, people did it as well about the queen change, after short time no one cared about it, same happened when T was OP, etc. and every single time nothing changed, and suddenly it didn't matter at all.
People are just too keen on looking on the presence, rather than trying to develop new ways to approach the game, not just like P are doing constantly, making new goals to do the same thing as different timings. Z started to play differently, so P and T should as well
Plenty of people still care about the Queen change and think it was ridiculous, they just realise that it isn't going to change.
On November 12 2012 03:27 SupLilSon wrote: Great to see Blizzard finally making some positive changes to SC2 the past few weeks. Hopefully we will see some major nerfs to the Infestor after BWC and this game might be going somewhere.
To advance game, you need to fix all unused units too. Why are they there, being barely used? Buff Raven big, give reaper utility, buff Carrier big, give hydra speed upgrade. Then nerf infestor, if the game stays the same. Pretty lame when blizz dont want to incorporate every unit out there.
So nerf anything of protoss terran and nerf infestor...you want zergs to vanish don't you? nowhere a line about one of the hydra or any other zerg units to compensate.
Sorry i do not follow you. I said buff other units instead of nerfing infestor. That includes hydra too. Then nerf infestor if need be.
ok sorry, my mistake then. I am just so tired of seeing all the nerf threads without any compensation. Yea infestor are broken but like it or not, zerg needs them in their current state to survive unless other things get changed around as well.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
Why would you want a big balance patch to come right before a major tournament? That can only mean one thing, that the quality of play will be lowered as people look for the new meta game.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
People currently overrate how good infestor is, it's mostly a defensive unit, recently Z just started to play more defensive and people feel they have to rush into it, it's like this all the time, people did it as well about the queen change, after short time no one cared about it, same happened when T was OP, etc. and every single time nothing changed, and suddenly it didn't matter at all.
People are just too keen on looking on the presence, rather than trying to develop new ways to approach the game, not just like P are doing constantly, making new goals to do the same thing as different timings. Z started to play differently, so P and T should as well
Plenty of people still care about the Queen change and think it was ridiculous, they just realise that it isn't going to change.
This. Queen buff + ovie buff were a joke, uncalled for and the main reason we got to this situation. But reverting that would take blizzard to say they made a mistake, so I'll take whatever attempt at balance they'll throw at us.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
Maybe come back when you can beat Goody in TvT. Unless T is overpowered.
As far as Browder's response, it makes complete sense, and I don't see what else they could do. Considering it's only been very recently when Zerg has been super "OP" (as in >55% winrates on major competitions), and before that they were still about 50% in those same competitions, a knee jerk reaction would be dumb.
Changing something before WCS would also screw most people over, because zergs wouldn't be able to adapt, anything which impacts non-zerg (e.g. buff to counters) would potentially screw up the other two matchups, and it would make it even worse than playing with current metagame balance.
Maybe instead of bitching, people should experiment. And I don't just mean players, I mean competitions. If zerg is winning too much, look at the map pools being used and consider making some changes, or making new maps. Put in some maps which were biased against zerg to even it up. In many years of unpatched Broodwar, the racial balance was changed regularly through maps, maybe people should start thinking about doing that now, rather than just complaining.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
Don't worry ClouD, it's always far easier to just attack the person that makes the argument than the argument itself. Sad to see there's still an abudance of whiny zergs lusting for some childish form of revenge, along the lines of "OMG YOUR RACE WAS OP SO LONG WHY CANT WE HAVE THE SAME ASDFASDFASDF" ... Because that's going to be better for the game than a change in design to make it more interesting and fair. Right.
I can see why DBro wants to wait until after WCS though. As long as a signifcant change in the right direction is made, I don't think it's a huge deal if it's now or in a few weeks' time. We're gonna have to wait and see now.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
All you seem to do is whine in these shitty threads. Didn't you say you were going to quit if you didn't achieve anything in the near future? Get off the forums and go play some SC, dude.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
On November 12 2012 02:45 c0sm0naut wrote: "The majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports."
Nooooo ! BROFESTERS ARE KILLING ESPORTS ahah ! ... Yeah quake suffered a lot from the infestor ... Well i mean yeah i think it makes for a "meh" game, but there's soooo many other things that should be changed / fixed that would make sc2 a much much better game than nerfing the infestor ... ... bad for "esports" seriously ahah
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
Because your statements have been extremely volatile and biased, lol.
Blizzard HAS been looking at solutions, the entire time! They're just giving the community TIME to come up with their own, as they made it clear several months ago and as they reaffirm to be clear now. The winrates never took any gigantic dips, so there was no urgency to patch it sooner. This is how balance patches SHOULD be happening: They give time to X to playout and see if it's really imbalanced or just a metagame that lasts for a month. X can't be solved over time, so they patch it. If you're confident it's broken then it WILL be fixed.
I don't know how you can be so upset when Blizzard has finally begun to approach balance with a much more appropriately slow caution, rather, no more instanerfs weeks after something appears OP -- JUST because your race is on the receiving end of it. No more kneejerk thor nerfs, which conversely comes at the cost of no more other instanerfs on other races in response to community/professional outcry.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
How do you know they don't have an answer yet? There's probably a fix already implemented but will not put it on until after the tournament.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
It's true that they took too long. They always take too long. Terran was OP for the longest time, now Zerg is OP and we all know it and they still take too long. But you whine too much and I suggest you stop before you completely destroy your fanbase.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
Maybe come back when you can beat Goody in TvT. Unless T is overpowered.
As far as Browder's response, it makes complete sense, and I don't see what else they could do. Considering it's only been very recently when Zerg has been super "OP" (as in >55% winrates on major competitions), and before that they were still about 50% in those same competitions, a knee jerk reaction would be dumb.
Changing something before WCS would also screw most people over, because zergs wouldn't be able to adapt, anything which impacts non-zerg (e.g. buff to counters) would potentially screw up the other two matchups, and it would make it even worse than playing with current metagame balance.
Maybe instead of bitching, people should experiment. And I don't just mean players, I mean competitions. If zerg is winning too much, look at the map pools being used and consider making some changes, or making new maps. Put in some maps which were biased against zerg to even it up. In many years of unpatched Broodwar, the racial balance was changed regularly through maps, maybe people should start thinking about doing that now, rather than just complaining.
Why should we not bitch? I mean before that ridiculous queen+ovie buff, TvZ was very doable for koreans terrans. Foreigners pros got trashed by zergs at that time too (except LucifroN but he is korean level) but top terrans were able to win against mid-tier koreans zergs, and it was around 50% vs top tier zergs (DRG vs MKP series at MLG were cool as well as Stephano vs aLive, MMA, MKP, etc...).
Changing the mappool won't really help, the patch made no sense whatsoever so the correct response would be reverting it but I guess blizzard won't do it because they would not admit they failed that hard.
Lol at the GoOdy comment, I would take losing almost every TvT vs GoOdy if I could 3-2 ForGG and only lose 2-3 against LucifroN ).
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
It's true that they took too long. They always take too long. Terran was OP for the longest time, now Zerg is OP and we all know it and they still take too long. But you whine too much and I suggest you stop before you completely destroy your fanbase.
I wish I cared enough about pr to not express my opinion. Too bad it's still what I think.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
It's true that they took too long. They always take too long. Terran was OP for the longest time, now Zerg is OP and we all know it and they still take too long. But you whine too much and I suggest you stop before you completely destroy your fanbase.
Lol, they always take too long. Unless it's a nerf to the thor. Then they're too fast, right? Balance patches should be taking this long. It's the only way to thoroughly examine the merits of a possible imbalance by letting the best players argue for or against it the best way they can: results, which have no bias. If there was a genius that had the foresight to see the imbalance coming, then hire him immediately, but even with the best minds this is often unrealistic.
On November 12 2012 02:38 floor exercise wrote: They are just going to opt for the least volatile change that will bring win percents closer together. They aren't gonna change the game or the way it's played, which is my real problem with Blizzard and HotS. They are so concerned with balancing the game they don't realize how boring the game itself has become
Ya basically the biggest issue is if they change it too much Zerg will lose every fucking game all of a sudden its back to roach hydra every PvZ so we can get rofl stomped by ffs
Yea because Zerg never wins against Protoss outside of BL Infestor.
No but how many compositions mid game include infestor? All expect Muta ling and toss are getting rly good against that. Roach ling without infestor is terrible past 10 min, roach hydra past 2 collossus gets demolished.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
Don't worry ClouD, it's always far easier to just attack the person that makes the argument than the argument itself. Sad to see there's still an abudance of whiny zergs lusting for some childish form of revenge, along the lines of "OMG YOUR RACE WAS OP SO LONG WHY CANT WE HAVE THE SAME ASDFASDFASDF" ... Because that's going to be better for the game than a change in design to make it more interesting and fair. Right.
I can see why DBro wants to wait until after WCS though. As long as a signifcant change in the right direction is made, I don't think it's a huge deal if it's now or in a few weeks' time. We're gonna have to wait and see now.
BWC won't be too much affected. In PvZ skilled Protoss still have a lot to work with, to dismantle inferior Zerg players. And we have the undoubted best 3 Protoss Players in the world (Rain, Parting, Creator) @ BWC while we only got Curious at the zerg front here(sorry EU Zergs, you just don't play in that league!). I don't expect these 4 players to get eliminated if not by each other. So there will be some decent protoss representation in the top ranks of that tournament.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
Probably going to revert any changes if a Terran wins, like during IEM Cologne.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Cloud has a point, they should have come up with a result already and implement it after their tournament. Looking at the participant list, the NA and SEA Zergs are not really the best of the best, whereas half of the tosses are top Koreans. The tournament might see quite a few zergs drop out and getting dominated, but that is because their opponents were much, much better. That says nothing about balance per se.
tl;dr Stop looking at data. The nerfs should be ready to be implemented ASAP after the tourney and not based on the tourney.
Turning Fungal Growth back into a projectile is one of the better ideas IMO. It raises the skill cap of using Infestors which is badly needed IMO and gives players a way of actually microing against Infestors which is something that's also badly needed.
Other than that, I think they should at least TRY adjusting the supply cost of Infestors from 2 supply to 3. This will cut back on a lot of the mass infestor builds we've been seeing lately, and force Zergs into using them more strategically. not as a blanket catch all unit that counters everything.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
Of course they are not completely altruistic. But being not good enough to be winning, and then seeing that even if you practiced hard and became good you still wouldnt be winning is highly demotivational.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
It's true that they took too long. They always take too long. Terran was OP for the longest time, now Zerg is OP and we all know it and they still take too long. But you whine too much and I suggest you stop before you completely destroy your fanbase.
Lol, they always take too long. Unless it's a nerf to the thor. Then they're too fast, right? Balance patches should be taking this long. It's the only way to thoroughly examine the merits of a possible imbalance by letting the best players argue for or against it the best way they can: results, which have no bias.
Then they could use results from the ladder, where the races are more equally represented than in tournaments. Plus tournaments are fewer and therefore more prone to shot noise. Also, results are biased in favor of koreans regardless of race. In any case, the infestor is poorly designed on a theoretical basis and that doesn't even need testing. It works versus literally EVERYTHING. The other guy is making lings? You make infestors. Going air? Make infestors. Is he making infestors? No problem, make infestors!
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
Probably going to revert any changes if a Terran wins, like during IEM Cologne.
Yeah a 4 times korean GSL champion beating a polish zerg sure was proof that the game is fine lol. This was hilarious to see :D.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
It's true that they took too long. They always take too long. Terran was OP for the longest time, now Zerg is OP and we all know it and they still take too long. But you whine too much and I suggest you stop before you completely destroy your fanbase.
Lol, they always take too long. Unless it's a nerf to the thor. Then they're too fast, right? Balance patches should be taking this long. It's the only way to thoroughly examine the merits of a possible imbalance by letting the best players argue for or against it the best way they can: results, which have no bias.
Then they could use results from the ladder, where the races are more equally represented than in tournaments. Plus tournaments are fewer and therefore more prone to shot noise. Also, results are biased in favor of koreans regardless of race. In any case, the infestor is poorly designed on a theoretical basis and that doesn't even need testing. It works versus literally EVERYTHING. The other guy is making lings? You make infestors. Going air? Make infestors. Is he making infestors? No problem, make infestors!
Results was a poor word. I didn't strictly mean winrates, as much as I meant analyzing the games and winrates. Either way, the central point was implying that the games have to be played out to reveal nothing can be done through innovation of what's currently available, reaffirming my point balance patches should take much longer than they normally do.
On November 12 2012 04:29 Vindicare605 wrote: Turning Fungal Growth back into a projectile is one of the better ideas IMO. It raises the skill cap of using Infestors which is badly needed IMO and gives players a way of actually microing against Infestors which is something that's also badly needed.
Other than that, I think they should at least TRY adjusting the supply cost of Infestors from 2 supply to 3. This will cut back on a lot of the mass infestor builds we've been seeing lately, and force Zergs into using them more strategically. not as a blanket catch all unit that counters everything.
Nerfing mass infestor with supply also nerfs the unit in every other composition it'd normally support in smaller numbers though. I'd rather see the Infestor become more manageable to dissuade massing it, or a solution to the metagame that allows them to mass them so freely via turtle zerg style, if any solution should be required at all.
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
When terran was absurdly OP you never won anything either.
Why do you assume I'm talking about myself. I always loathed how SC2 was designed and I never had enough passion to win stuff back then when it was all about who had the newest all in. This just adds up to the frustration I get when I realize how slow and incompetent SC2 designers are. Zerg has been a joke for months now and all they say is that they will wait until their own world tournament is screwed up just to start looking for solutions. This is RIDICOLOUS.
What would be RIDICOLOUS is change the units 2 weeks before a major tournament. With all strategies getting screwed like that who knows what will happen. And besides don't tell me you're angry cause your fellow hard working terrans aren't winning and you're completely altruistic.
This is what makes me upset: "- We are going to continue to watch games and gather data. - We will discuss changes. - We may try a balance map sometime after BWC." So basically what they say is that they are waiting for WCS World Finals results to take a move. It's fine and it makes sense not to patch a game before a tournament but at least have the fucking answer ready when it's over.
Probably going to revert any changes if a Terran wins, like during IEM Cologne.
Yeah a 4 times korean GSL champion beating a polish zerg sure was proof that the game is fine lol. This was hilarious to see :D.
Its funny how blizzard only seemed to focus on the MVP games and not Bomber, Supernova, Forgg, and Puma getting destroyed by zergs. Everything is fine though who cares if theres next to no terrans in their own tournament.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because it is not fair to switch u the game with less than 5 days to go. It wasn't fair when they did it during GSL and it wouldn't be fair now. We asked Blizzard to pay attention and not patch in the middle of tournaments. Now they are and the side effect is that if a balance patch is necessary, it will happen at the end of a major tournament.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because it is not fair to switch u the game with less than 5 days to go. It wasn't fair when they did it during GSL and it wouldn't be fair now. We asked Blizzard to pay attention and not patch in the middle of tournaments. Now they are and the side effect is that if a balance patch is necessary, it will happen at the end of a major tournament.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because it is not fair to switch u the game with less than 5 days to go. It wasn't fair when they did it during GSL and it wouldn't be fair now. We asked Blizzard to pay attention and not patch in the middle of tournaments. Now they are and the side effect is that if a balance patch is necessary, it will happen at the end of a major tournament.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
It is weird how they would consider the dates of their own tournament when making balance changes. I wonder if Riot does the same thing. Wait, yes they do.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
You have no way of knowing that
They never cared about tournaments to release patches.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
You have no way of knowing that
Except history... There was a time when I thought they always wait 1 week before gsl finals to roll out patches
Funnily enough, they wait before patching but... Koreans terrans got rolled off of TSL / WCS and whatever qualifiers because of the balance patch, they didn't wait the qualifiers to happen :o. (even though it was longer than a live event).
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
You have no way of knowing that
Except history... There was a time when I thought they always wait 1 week before gsl finals to roll out patches
Like two years ago when they were patching far more often and a lot has changed since this. People complained and got what they wanted, a more involved Blizzard who is scheduling balance patches around major tournaments. No surprise, there are members of the community who are grumpy about that.
On November 12 2012 04:29 Vindicare605 wrote: Turning Fungal Growth back into a projectile is one of the better ideas IMO. It raises the skill cap of using Infestors which is badly needed IMO and gives players a way of actually microing against Infestors which is something that's also badly needed.
Other than that, I think they should at least TRY adjusting the supply cost of Infestors from 2 supply to 3. This will cut back on a lot of the mass infestor builds we've been seeing lately, and force Zergs into using them more strategically. not as a blanket catch all unit that counters everything.
the fungal still too fast to dodge, if it was a bit slower then it might be cool. However a nerf to ITs, FG is still a must.
On November 12 2012 04:52 Poopi wrote: Funnily enough, they wait before patching but... Koreans terrans got rolled off of TSL / WCS and whatever qualifiers because of the balance patch, they didn't wait the qualifiers to happen :o. (even though it was longer than a live event).
It's very likely the very reason they're changing how they do the balancing is because they recognize their previous mistake and why it had such a bad impact on WCS.
Either way, I'm happy they're finally taking this approach to balancing as it is in my opinion the correct one. I just wish they would have taken similar approaches before they gutted snipe.
just make infestors 3 supply. Nothing aggravates me more than a hard fought long battle in a tvz but all the gas saved up for the zerg allows him to make 30 infestors and instantly win the game
must be hard to receive all this qqing, after you received qqing about being to fast. But a projectile would be interesting, seeing how good some people already dodge fungal with blink. I am curious if Zergs will use some of the abilities that make the Infestor Broodlord even stronger or if they abandon it (some should be know at least), like most strategies after a nerf.
Personal it comes to soon (some allin builds scream own me with neural and I want to see that) and its a big mistake to announce a nerf if you really want to gather data, because now people won't bother perfecting broodlord infestor or working on things that counter it. And saying we might not nerf it doesn't fix the peoples mind set afterwards.
On November 12 2012 04:52 Poopi wrote: Funnily enough, they wait before patching but... Koreans terrans got rolled off of TSL / WCS and whatever qualifiers because of the balance patch, they didn't wait the qualifiers to happen :o. (even though it was longer than a live event).
It's very likely the very reason they're changing how they do the balancing is because they recognize their previous mistake and why it had such a bad impact on WCS.
Either way, I'm happy they're finally taking this approach to balancing as it is in my opinion the correct one. I just wish they would have taken similar approaches before they gutted snipe.
This is how I feel as well. Taking a slow approach is absolutely the right way to balance the game. It's just unfortunate that they didn't realize it until they had already messed up a lot of stuff.
Projectile change would be good, gives a chance to micro away from it at least, I'm not sure about changing it to a slow spell instead of root as many people have said. The IT egg armor change would be good as well.
Just because they are considered OP now doesn't mean they need to be nerffed to extinction.
On November 12 2012 04:52 Poopi wrote: Funnily enough, they wait before patching but... Koreans terrans got rolled off of TSL / WCS and whatever qualifiers because of the balance patch, they didn't wait the qualifiers to happen :o. (even though it was longer than a live event).
It's very likely the very reason they're changing how they do the balancing is because they recognize their previous mistake and why it had such a bad impact on WCS.
Either way, I'm happy they're finally taking this approach to balancing as it is in my opinion the correct one. I just wish they would have taken similar approaches before they gutted snipe.
that would depend on how the do the patching in the future as well
if they take action during a major tournament later, then... r____r
On November 12 2012 04:52 Poopi wrote: Funnily enough, they wait before patching but... Koreans terrans got rolled off of TSL / WCS and whatever qualifiers because of the balance patch, they didn't wait the qualifiers to happen :o. (even though it was longer than a live event).
other zerg matchups maybe? /shrug
maybe at least they should um... try to do a beta/custom map to test it out during WCS' duration as well
If fungal is a projectile that does more damage that would certainly be interesting but I wonder what that would force in ZvZ. It seems it would make only unit that could deal with mutas hydras.
It's the Infested Terrans that really tick me off and really screams imbalance:
1. More HP than Marines (no shields) 2. More DPS than Marines (no stimpack) 3. Eggs have double HP with 2 armor (more tanking) 4. When the eggs don't die, the units spawn with full HP anyway.
BTW, if the projectile will be the same as the video posted, it is still way too fast to dodge by most units. I can only think of Blink-stalkers dodging that, or the Zerg player missing inherently fast units like speedlings, mutas, or phoenixes only.
On November 12 2012 05:04 trinxified wrote: It's the Infested Terrans that really tick me off and really screams imbalance:
1. More HP than Marines (no shields) 2. More DPS than Marines (no stimpack) 3. Eggs have double HP with 2 armor (more tanking) 4. When the eggs don't die, the units spawn with full HP anyway.
That's a general mechanic across all zerg units. Banelings, Overseers, etc.
1 week of intense whining, and they decide that the infestor might not be balanced, really? Don't get me wrong, I think there are problems with the infestor, and I'm glad they're doing something about it, but the infestor's been like this for a long time. I wish they'd do their job at balancing the game, instead of relying on the community to be vocal.
On November 12 2012 05:10 Zoku wrote: 1 week of intense whining, and they decide that the infestor might not be balanced, really? Don't get me wrong, I think there are problems with the infestor, and I'm glad they're doing something about it, but the infestor's been like this for a long time. I wish they'd do their job at balancing the game, instead of relying on the community to be vocal.
They release statements about the infestor pretty frequently actually...people choose to ignore them.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because it is not fair to switch u the game with less than 5 days to go. It wasn't fair when they did it during GSL and it wouldn't be fair now. We asked Blizzard to pay attention and not patch in the middle of tournaments. Now they are and the side effect is that if a balance patch is necessary, it will happen at the end of a major tournament.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
It is weird how they would consider the dates of their own tournament when making balance changes. I wonder if Riot does the same thing. Wait, yes they do.
Not really ... LoL tournaments are played on "patch X" and this is known beforehand, but they can add a patch 5 minutes before a tournament without changing anything in the tournament. Sadly SC2 has to be connected to the Battlenet at all times and thus you can only play on the most recent patch implemented.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because it is not fair to switch u the game with less than 5 days to go. It wasn't fair when they did it during GSL and it wouldn't be fair now. We asked Blizzard to pay attention and not patch in the middle of tournaments. Now they are and the side effect is that if a balance patch is necessary, it will happen at the end of a major tournament.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
It is weird how they would consider the dates of their own tournament when making balance changes. I wonder if Riot does the same thing. Wait, yes they do.
Not really ... LoL tournaments are played on "patch X" and this is known beforehand, but they can add a patch 5 minutes before a tournament without changing anything in the tournament. Sadly SC2 has to be connected to the Battlenet at all times and thus you can only play on the most recent patch implemented.
Although you could in theory create maps with units that function differently from the ladder and play on them in tournaments, to achieve the same result.
Think of the test maps they put out for queen range/overlord speed and the raven change.
On November 12 2012 05:20 felisconcolori wrote: Phew. I was starting to seriously consider maybe seeing if I could retrain myself to play Zerg after all these seasons of learning how to Terran.
-_-'
The grass always seems greener on the other side .
Better late than never. Looking forward to see which nerf they will try first, fungal nerf or infested terran nerf ( somehow I think they're gonna try different things ).
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
But the real kicker, the change that wasn't reverted on patch 1.4 was the reduction in Fungal Growth's duration. effectively increasing it's DPS by applying it's damage twice as fast.
1.0 fungal, 36 dmg over 8s: 4.5 dps 1.4 fungal, 30 dmg over 4s: 7.5 dps
Nah, the infestor was never touched, and the account made 10 days ago with 22 posts calls me a troll.
That is wrong, in patch 1.40 it was nerfed, in 1.3, the duration was halved, then it was 36 dmg normally and +30% vs armored,which is total of 46 dmg, not it's 40 vs armored and 30 normal, so it was nerfed in 1.4) So last change to infestor nerfed it's dmg, the one that buffed the dmg was 1.3 which is one and a half year ago......
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
People currently overrate how good infestor is, it's mostly a defensive unit, recently Z just started to play more defensive and people feel they have to rush into it, it's like this all the time, people did it as well about the queen change, after short time no one cared about it, same happened when T was OP, etc. and every single time nothing changed, and suddenly it didn't matter at all.
People are just too keen on looking on the presence, rather than trying to develop new ways to approach the game, not just like P are doing constantly, making new goals to do the same thing as different timings. Z started to play differently, so P and T should as well
no there is actually just no response for protoss to beat infestor broodlord other then praying for a nice vortex. vs terran infestor broodlord is also very hard to stop but i do admit ravens with seeker missle can be strong if you can get to that point. I think the main issue is that you build infestors in order to counter everything in the game and that is not good game design.
Say that to Babyknight who just now beat sheth with fully maxed out army, only getting 4 blords in vortex
On November 12 2012 05:02 FlaminGinjaNinja wrote: Projectile change would be good, gives a chance to micro away from it at least, I'm not sure about changing it to a slow spell instead of root as many people have said. The IT egg armor change would be good as well.
Just because they are considered OP now doesn't mean they need to be nerffed to extinction.
Fungal is a terrible concept, because you basically force one player to "take his hands off his mouse and keyboard" due to the lockdown. The same is true for Forcefield. Thus the lockdown MUST GO regardless of the spell being OP or not. A comparable lockdown in BW was the Arbiter's Stasis Field, BUT that spell made the affected unit(s) invulnerable instead of killing it outright. Fungal is the "all-in-one package" with lockdown, damage and no damage immunity.
Unit micro *should be* forced onto the attacker and not the defender, because the attacker usually chooses the time and place for the engagement and has the initial advantage already. Putting all the micro on the defenders side - like the oh so awesome Marine split which "SC2-must-stay-as-it-is-fetishists" usually bring - is a terrible decision, because reacting to an engagement puts them behind already.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because it is not fair to switch u the game with less than 5 days to go. It wasn't fair when they did it during GSL and it wouldn't be fair now. We asked Blizzard to pay attention and not patch in the middle of tournaments. Now they are and the side effect is that if a balance patch is necessary, it will happen at the end of a major tournament.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
It is weird how they would consider the dates of their own tournament when making balance changes. I wonder if Riot does the same thing. Wait, yes they do.
Not really ... LoL tournaments are played on "patch X" and this is known beforehand, but they can add a patch 5 minutes before a tournament without changing anything in the tournament. Sadly SC2 has to be connected to the Battlenet at all times and thus you can only play on the most recent patch implemented.
Although you could in theory create maps with units that function differently from the ladder and play on them in tournaments, to achieve the same result.
Think of the test maps they put out for queen range/overlord speed and the raven change.
Highly impractical when you think about the way in which custom maps are published. You basically need one account for every tournament and can you imagine the shitstorm when you make one tiny mistake with the numbers for one unit?
On November 12 2012 05:02 FlaminGinjaNinja wrote: Projectile change would be good, gives a chance to micro away from it at least, I'm not sure about changing it to a slow spell instead of root as many people have said. The IT egg armor change would be good as well.
Just because they are considered OP now doesn't mean they need to be nerffed to extinction.
Fungal is a terrible concept, because you basically force one player to "take his hands off his mouse and keyboard" due to the lockdown. The same is true for Forcefield. Thus the lockdown MUST GO regardless of the spell being OP or not. A comparable lockdown in BW was the Arbiter's Stasis Field, BUT that spell made the affected unit(s) invulnerable instead of killing it outright. Fungal is the "all-in-one package" with lockdown, damage and no damage immunity.
Unit micro *should be* forced onto the attacker and not the defender, because the attacker usually chooses the time and place for the engagement and has the initial advantage already. Putting all the micro on the defenders side - like the oh so awesome Marine split which "SC2-must-stay-as-it-is-fetishists" usually bring - is a terrible decision, because reacting to an engagement puts them behind already.
It's more comparable to Maelstrom or Lockdown IMO.
Hmm took them several months to realize that infestors are ridiculous. My suggestion on nerfing fungal growth is to make it affect maximum up to 4 targets so it is not so strong against air or completely remove the root affect. I don't think making it a snare or projectile will fix infestor/broodlord combo as protoss still need to rely on blinking into the army to kill the broodlords or make voidrays and making it a snare or projectile won't solve it in my opinion.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
People currently overrate how good infestor is, it's mostly a defensive unit, recently Z just started to play more defensive and people feel they have to rush into it, it's like this all the time, people did it as well about the queen change, after short time no one cared about it, same happened when T was OP, etc. and every single time nothing changed, and suddenly it didn't matter at all.
People are just too keen on looking on the presence, rather than trying to develop new ways to approach the game, not just like P are doing constantly, making new goals to do the same thing as different timings. Z started to play differently, so P and T should as well
no there is actually just no response for protoss to beat infestor broodlord other then praying for a nice vortex. vs terran infestor broodlord is also very hard to stop but i do admit ravens with seeker missle can be strong if you can get to that point. I think the main issue is that you build infestors in order to counter everything in the game and that is not good game design.
Say that to Babyknight who just now beat sheth with fully maxed out army, only getting 4 blords in vortex
Is this the same engagement where it was 200 supply vs 140 supply? At that point, BK had 55 probes to Sheth's 75 drones. He had an enormous army and sheth had... well... nothing.
On November 12 2012 05:32 Trumpstyle wrote: Hmm took them several months to realize that infestors are ridiculous. My suggestion on nerfing fungal growth is to make it affect maximum up to 4 targets so it is not so strong against air or completely remove the root affect. I don't think making it a snare or projectile will fix infestor/broodlord combo as protoss still need to rely on blinking into the army to kill the broodlords or make voidrays and making it a snare or projectile won't solve it in my opinion.
On November 12 2012 05:02 FlaminGinjaNinja wrote: Projectile change would be good, gives a chance to micro away from it at least, I'm not sure about changing it to a slow spell instead of root as many people have said. The IT egg armor change would be good as well.
Just because they are considered OP now doesn't mean they need to be nerffed to extinction.
Fungal is a terrible concept, because you basically force one player to "take his hands off his mouse and keyboard" due to the lockdown. The same is true for Forcefield. Thus the lockdown MUST GO regardless of the spell being OP or not. A comparable lockdown in BW was the Arbiter's Stasis Field, BUT that spell made the affected unit(s) invulnerable instead of killing it outright. Fungal is the "all-in-one package" with lockdown, damage and no damage immunity.
Unit micro *should be* forced onto the attacker and not the defender, because the attacker usually chooses the time and place for the engagement and has the initial advantage already. Putting all the micro on the defenders side - like the oh so awesome Marine split which "SC2-must-stay-as-it-is-fetishists" usually bring - is a terrible decision, because reacting to an engagement puts them behind already.
It's more comparable to Maelstrom or Lockdown IMO.
You are right, BUT neither of those spells deals damage in addition to the stun AND both of them are limited to a certain group of targets (bio / mech). So Fungal Growth is the "eierlegende Wollmilchsau" [egg-laying, wooly, milk-giving pig ... german term created in the 50s or so in the Bundeswehr for weapon systems which could "do it all"] of stun spells.
You also couldnt really stack your whole army in BW so much as to "lose half of it" to 3-4 spells ... so that brings us back to one of the things I have been complaining about for some time now.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
People currently overrate how good infestor is, it's mostly a defensive unit, recently Z just started to play more defensive and people feel they have to rush into it, it's like this all the time, people did it as well about the queen change, after short time no one cared about it, same happened when T was OP, etc. and every single time nothing changed, and suddenly it didn't matter at all.
People are just too keen on looking on the presence, rather than trying to develop new ways to approach the game, not just like P are doing constantly, making new goals to do the same thing as different timings. Z started to play differently, so P and T should as well
no there is actually just no response for protoss to beat infestor broodlord other then praying for a nice vortex. vs terran infestor broodlord is also very hard to stop but i do admit ravens with seeker missle can be strong if you can get to that point. I think the main issue is that you build infestors in order to counter everything in the game and that is not good game design.
Say that to Babyknight who just now beat sheth with fully maxed out army, only getting 4 blords in vortex
Is this the same engagement where it was 200 supply vs 140 supply? At that point, BK had 55 probes to Sheth's 75 drones. He had an enormous army and sheth had... well... nothing.
No, they started with them being 200 vs 200 after that Sheth had no economy, and then the 200 vs 140 fight came.
On November 12 2012 05:32 Trumpstyle wrote: Hmm took them several months to realize that infestors are ridiculous. My suggestion on nerfing fungal growth is to make it affect maximum up to 4 targets so it is not so strong against air or completely remove the root affect. I don't think making it a snare or projectile will fix infestor/broodlord combo as protoss still need to rely on blinking into the army to kill the broodlords or make voidrays and making it a snare or projectile won't solve it in my opinion.
One fungal on 4 marines? wow best idea ever.
Zerg has banelings. Don't need fungal to counter marines.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because this is just not any tournament. This is Blizzards own tournament so ofc they don't want to ruin it.
There's just no downside to having too many infestors.
It reminds me of the ghosts before they were nerfed. Essentially, every other unit you can't have too many of one, otherwise you become susceptible to a well rounded composition.
But if you have 31 infestors, there's literally nothing wrong with that.
On November 12 2012 05:43 Gamegene wrote: There's just no downside to having too many infestors.
Essentially, every other unit you can't have too many of one, otherwise you become susceptible to a well rounded composition.
But if you have 31 infestors, there's literally nothing wrong with that.
just like mass ghosts in TvZ prenerf.
huh.
On November 12 2012 05:43 Crushgroove wrote: We may try some changes in Swarm Beta, using that as a test-bed for stuff we could bring back into Wings of Liberty.
On November 12 2012 05:40 Blisse wrote: Blinding Cloud instead of Fungal would be cool to see if that could work?
Great ... exchange one overpowered and broken spell for another?
On November 12 2012 05:43 Gamegene wrote: There's just no downside to having too many infestors.
It reminds me of the ghosts before they were nerfed. Essentially, every other unit you can't have too many of one, otherwise you become susceptible to a well rounded composition.
But if you have 31 infestors, there's literally nothing wrong with that.
Yep ... both of the "too strong" Infestor spells stack really well and that is the problem.
On November 12 2012 05:02 FlaminGinjaNinja wrote: Projectile change would be good, gives a chance to micro away from it at least, I'm not sure about changing it to a slow spell instead of root as many people have said. The IT egg armor change would be good as well.
Just because they are considered OP now doesn't mean they need to be nerffed to extinction.
Fungal is a terrible concept, because you basically force one player to "take his hands off his mouse and keyboard" due to the lockdown. The same is true for Forcefield. Thus the lockdown MUST GO regardless of the spell being OP or not. A comparable lockdown in BW was the Arbiter's Stasis Field, BUT that spell made the affected unit(s) invulnerable instead of killing it outright. Fungal is the "all-in-one package" with lockdown, damage and no damage immunity.
So is kiting. Kiting forces the opponent to take his hands of the keyboard and hope he has enough units around. Or siege tanks, which force you to overrun them, simply because you can't stay in their range for an extended periode of time, or it will lead to a bad trade. Or blink, because after outmicroing your opponent (surround, flanking, superior positioning, fast enough turnaround), the stalkers just overcome this disadvantage. etc, etc, etc
the thing, is all of those things are in the game and it's vital that there are such things in a game. The question is always to which degree those things work out. Chainfungal is definatly a problem designwise and should be smoothed out (for example by weakening chainfungals through slow instead of root... High percentage slow dose something very similar, but weaker), others (superfast zerglings and hellions, extremly fast+high dps stimmed bio - compared to a lot of similar units etc) could also need some smoothing. But generally it's not wrong, that one unit denies another ones usefulness.
Makes total sense to wait until after the WCS otherwise all the Zergs there would have to re learn &/or re adjust when I'm sure they have been practicing and preparing a lot.
Great to see developers talking to the community. Thanks very much.
To the haters, get a grip, relax, be patient. Infestors haven't been changed for a long time. If you are such geniuses & Blizzard are such "morrons" why wasn't everyone complaining about this a year ago? Because the metagame changes and no one can foresee every problem. The game will evolve. Remember "broken" mutas in PvZ? Nothing ever patched to fix that. Players just learned how to counter/defend it. 2xCannon + 1-2xHT's. Mothership in PvZ? That took a year before people stopped laughing when a pro built a mothership.
I was wondering lately why they never tried some middle ground with the ghost. It screwed zergs pretty bad before it got nerfed, and afterwards wasn't used at all any more, which is sad because emp is such a nice counter in theory. Money fungals kill bio, money emps kill (= make useless) infestors. Why not make snipe a little stronger, but not quite as strong as it was?
Generally speaking, I agree with TLO on the matter: "I really hope Zerg gets nerfed soon, I don't have any opinion about balance, but all the whining annoys me more than anything."
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because this is just not any tournament. This is Blizzards own tournament so ofc they don't want to ruin it.
they already ruined it since the qualification lol, why not just save the final days.
On November 12 2012 05:47 xShoeicide wrote: Good decision Rock aka Dustin.
Makes total sense to wait until after the WCS otherwise all the Zergs there would have to re learn &/or re adjust when I'm sure they have been practicing and preparing a lot.
Great to see developers talking to the community. Thanks very much.
To the haters, get a grip, relax, be patient. Infestors haven't been changed for a long time. If you are such geniuses & Blizzard are such "morrons" why wasn't everyone complaining about this a year ago? Because the metagame changes and no one can foresee every problem. The game will evolve. Remember "broken" mutas in PvZ? Nothing ever patched to fix that. Players just learned how to counter/defend it. 2xCannon + 1-2xHT's. Mothership in PvZ? That took a year before people stopped laughing when a pro built a mothership.
Yea because the Phoenix range change never happened.
Aside from some kind of adjustment to FG, they need to completely drop ITs or rethink it altogether. Being able to spawn an entire army of upgraded high dps units, be it for nexus sniping or a defensive wall for the main deathball, is too absurd. And boring. I wish at the very least that they cost more energy and didn't get attack upgrades
On November 12 2012 05:47 xShoeicide wrote: Good decision Rock aka Dustin.
Makes total sense to wait until after the WCS otherwise all the Zergs there would have to re learn &/or re adjust when I'm sure they have been practicing and preparing a lot.
Great to see developers talking to the community. Thanks very much.
To the haters, get a grip, relax, be patient. Infestors haven't been changed for a long time. If you are such geniuses & Blizzard are such "morrons" why wasn't everyone complaining about this a year ago? Because the metagame changes and no one can foresee every problem. The game will evolve. Remember "broken" mutas in PvZ? Nothing ever patched to fix that. Players just learned how to counter/defend it. 2xCannon + 1-2xHT's. Mothership in PvZ? That took a year before people stopped laughing when a pro built a mothership.
mutas are still completely overpowered on alot of the older maps. The only reason it went out of style was because people figured out how much more broken inf/ BL is. Why play a unit comp that takes unit control when u can just go inf BL which is the safest and strongest 200/200 max in the game?
On November 12 2012 05:32 Trumpstyle wrote: Hmm took them several months to realize that infestors are ridiculous. My suggestion on nerfing fungal growth is to make it affect maximum up to 4 targets so it is not so strong against air or completely remove the root affect. I don't think making it a snare or projectile will fix infestor/broodlord combo as protoss still need to rely on blinking into the army to kill the broodlords or make voidrays and making it a snare or projectile won't solve it in my opinion.
One fungal on 4 marines? wow best idea ever.
Zerg has banelings. Don't need fungal to counter marines.
Except that fungal had to be buffed in the first place because banelings were so ineffective.
On November 12 2012 05:47 xShoeicide wrote: Good decision Rock aka Dustin.
Makes total sense to wait until after the WCS otherwise all the Zergs there would have to re learn &/or re adjust when I'm sure they have been practicing and preparing a lot.
Great to see developers talking to the community. Thanks very much.
To the haters, get a grip, relax, be patient. Infestors haven't been changed for a long time. If you are such geniuses & Blizzard are such "morrons" why wasn't everyone complaining about this a year ago? Because the metagame changes and no one can foresee every problem. The game will evolve. Remember "broken" mutas in PvZ? Nothing ever patched to fix that. Players just learned how to counter/defend it. 2xCannon + 1-2xHT's. Mothership in PvZ? That took a year before people stopped laughing when a pro built a mothership.
Mutas are still just silly in that matchup and underappreciated because (1) All maps now feature an easy to take third for protoss because 2 base toss can't deal with them, (2) Infestor/BL is a far more successful long term strategy that's inherently very passive.
On November 12 2012 05:58 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Aside from some kind of adjustment to FG, they need to completely drop ITs or rethink it altogether. Being able to spawn an entire army of upgraded high dps units, be it for nexus sniping or a defensive wall for the main deathball, is too absurd. And boring. I wish at the very least that they cost more energy and didn't get attack upgrades
They got more HP and do more DPS than their "counter-parts", the marines too.
On November 12 2012 05:32 Trumpstyle wrote: Hmm took them several months to realize that infestors are ridiculous. My suggestion on nerfing fungal growth is to make it affect maximum up to 4 targets so it is not so strong against air or completely remove the root affect. I don't think making it a snare or projectile will fix infestor/broodlord combo as protoss still need to rely on blinking into the army to kill the broodlords or make voidrays and making it a snare or projectile won't solve it in my opinion.
One fungal on 4 marines? wow best idea ever.
Zerg has banelings. Don't need fungal to counter marines.
Except that fungal had to be buffed in the first place because banelings were so ineffective.
On a lot of the older maps.
Keep in mind the map pool that existed when the Infestor change happened. We were still rocking Xel'Naga Caverns for crying out loud.
You put the old infestors on the new maps, and the balance is much better than what existed on the old craptastic season 1-3 ladder map pool.
On November 12 2012 05:58 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Aside from some kind of adjustment to FG, they need to completely drop ITs or rethink it altogether. Being able to spawn an entire army of upgraded high dps units, be it for nexus sniping or a defensive wall for the main deathball, is too absurd. And boring. I wish at the very least that they cost more energy and didn't get attack upgrades
They got more HP and do more DPS than their "counter-parts", the marines too.
Marines, however, don't shoot themselves in the head.
(Random pointless out-of-context unit comparisons ftw.)
I really liked some of their proposed changes that they would look at, which will force the infestor to be controlled better. I think that is the type of nerfs that should be done, where units are weakened by requiring more skill to control or gives the opponent a chance to punish sloppy control. For example, a slower movement speed will allow terran/protoss to punish over commitment from infestors. It is always painful seeing a huge blunder from the zerg to not be able to be punished because of the high speed of infestors. Lower HP will require better infestor control during engagements because that one tank blast or collosi swipe will do so much more damage.
On November 12 2012 05:32 Trumpstyle wrote: Hmm took them several months to realize that infestors are ridiculous. My suggestion on nerfing fungal growth is to make it affect maximum up to 4 targets so it is not so strong against air or completely remove the root affect. I don't think making it a snare or projectile will fix infestor/broodlord combo as protoss still need to rely on blinking into the army to kill the broodlords or make voidrays and making it a snare or projectile won't solve it in my opinion.
One fungal on 4 marines? wow best idea ever.
Zerg has banelings. Don't need fungal to counter marines.
Except that fungal had to be buffed in the first place because banelings were so ineffective.
On a lot of the older maps.
Keep in mind the map pool that existed when the Infestor change happened. We were still rocking Xel'Naga Caverns for crying out loud.
You put the old infestors on the new maps, and the balance is much better than what existed on the old craptastic season 1-3 ladder map pool.
We had shakuras. There were plenty of games where zerg would move banelings and terran would just split to all hell and zerg would just bleed gas. The TvZ winrates don't lie. There was a problem as there was no way to overcome splitting or no solid guaranteed dps option. Lurkers would provide that guaranteed dps/ hold ground well. This is in the same way that collosi offer a lot more solidity to a toss army than disposable templar. There has to be a means of guaranteed dps against super fast marine balls.
It took me way longer than it should have to realize that the thread title was referring to neither the Michael Bay film nor the Team Fortress Classic map.
On November 12 2012 05:47 xShoeicide wrote: Good decision Rock aka Dustin.
Makes total sense to wait until after the WCS otherwise all the Zergs there would have to re learn &/or re adjust when I'm sure they have been practicing and preparing a lot.
Great to see developers talking to the community. Thanks very much.
To the haters, get a grip, relax, be patient. Infestors haven't been changed for a long time. If you are such geniuses & Blizzard are such "morrons" why wasn't everyone complaining about this a year ago? Because the metagame changes and no one can foresee every problem. The game will evolve. Remember "broken" mutas in PvZ? Nothing ever patched to fix that. Players just learned how to counter/defend it. 2xCannon + 1-2xHT's. Mothership in PvZ? That took a year before people stopped laughing when a pro built a mothership.
Yea because the Phoenix range change never happened.
On November 12 2012 02:18 Glioburd wrote: Oh I thought it was TheRock[3.33] haha.
Agreed totally misleading title, I was like the Rock?! Omg no way. Then disappointment set in.
Lol sorry. Well not really misleading because "Rock" really did post that new thread. Though, at least if you're not a Zerg player, then it's still good news.
On November 12 2012 02:18 Glioburd wrote: Oh I thought it was TheRock[3.33] haha.
Agreed totally misleading title, I was like the Rock?! Omg no way. Then disappointment set in.
Lol sorry. Well not really misleading because "Rock" really did post that new thread. Though, at least if you're not a Zerg player, then it's still good news.
On November 12 2012 05:47 xShoeicide wrote: Good decision Rock aka Dustin.
Makes total sense to wait until after the WCS otherwise all the Zergs there would have to re learn &/or re adjust when I'm sure they have been practicing and preparing a lot.
Great to see developers talking to the community. Thanks very much.
To the haters, get a grip, relax, be patient. Infestors haven't been changed for a long time. If you are such geniuses & Blizzard are such "morrons" why wasn't everyone complaining about this a year ago? Because the metagame changes and no one can foresee every problem. The game will evolve. Remember "broken" mutas in PvZ? Nothing ever patched to fix that. Players just learned how to counter/defend it. 2xCannon + 1-2xHT's. Mothership in PvZ? That took a year before people stopped laughing when a pro built a mothership.
mutas are still completely overpowered on alot of the older maps. The only reason it went out of style was because people figured out how much more broken inf/ BL is. Why play a unit comp that takes unit control when u can just go inf BL which is the safest and strongest 200/200 max in the game?
Actually, part of the muta 'fix' was the threat of phoenix range. it means that if you overinvest into mutas it's possible to get a much smaller number of phoenix with range and tear them apart. Even though most people don't get the range upgrade etc, the fact that they can makes muta play in ZvP feel less safe. It's the same as opening phoenix vs zerg. It's ok until they get infestors, then the whole thing is busted. So 4 or 5 phoenix MAX . Otherwise I'd love to go 9 to 12 phoenix harassing the whole game into colossus stalker. That'd be sick.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them. Why can't people just not cry, and just learn to get better in the game and have fun?? The Korean Pros get better and overcome anything because they do not cry and moan about things that are not even that OP.
..They should let infestor broodlord maintain its current state because another race was imba for a longer time? That's like letting black people enslave white people for a few years to make up for slavery in the US. You should try to reach a balance, not just periodically let one race be imba imba to make up for other balance mistakes.
Also almost every code a interview had the players complaining about balance, even Nestea.
Sometimes I think people like you just want to cry about anything they can. Infestors have not been buffed to all the sudden make them "op" People who are not pros, watch the GSL and see a certain thing win, then crawl back to the forums and state its "oP"....when the real fact is, it has not effect on people below gm, or even people in GM, because they lose due to their own skill lvl not a unit.
Zergs were losing often and least represented in the GSL last year......infestor was the same back then, as it is now.........mmm what can it be??? o ya, Pros get better and the skill cap increases, they learned to use a certain unit combo well, and that makes it op??? come on now.
Yeah. sometimes I think people do like to cry about anything they can. Infestor was buffed, as fungal now has way more dps -- enough to rip apart marines. The old fungal never did that.
And just because players got better, doesn't mean anything can't not be imbalanced. The fact was, it could have been imbalanced the entire time until players learned how to use it correctly. Come on now.
Stop trolling. or if you are srsr, did you just start playing sc2? infestors have never been buffed, I'm not sure what game u are playing.....the last balance of infestor nerfed the fungal dmg and the range of NP....Bad troll is Bad
But the real kicker, the change that wasn't reverted on patch 1.4 was the reduction in Fungal Growth's duration. effectively increasing it's DPS by applying it's damage twice as fast.
1.0 fungal, 36 dmg over 8s: 4.5 dps 1.4 fungal, 30 dmg over 4s: 7.5 dps
Nah, the infestor was never touched, and the account made 10 days ago with 22 posts calls me a troll.
That is wrong, in patch 1.40 it was nerfed, in 1.3, the duration was halved, then it was 36 dmg normally and +30% vs armored,which is total of 46 dmg, not it's 40 vs armored and 30 normal, so it was nerfed in 1.4) So last change to infestor nerfed it's dmg, the one that buffed the dmg was 1.3 which is one and a half year ago......
You've taken my post out of context. The poster I quoted was arguing that fungal wasn't buffed from it's release state (and actually went on record stating it was never buffed at all). They buffed it's dps and gave it the property of dealing damage to armored. Not only does it deal more damage to armored in 1.4 as opposed to 1.3, but they left the reduced snare time intact. It deals almost two times the damage per second now -- regardless of the damage nerf in 1.4. My post is wholly and entirely, factual.
On November 12 2012 02:18 Glioburd wrote: Oh I thought it was TheRock[3.33] haha.
Agreed totally misleading title, I was like the Rock?! Omg no way. Then disappointment set in.
Lol sorry. Well not really misleading because "Rock" really did post that new thread. Though, at least if you're not a Zerg player, then it's still good news.
Protoss is probably going to get screwed over because of WCS. Just look at the Protoss guys coming from Korea:
Creator Hero Hero Rain Parting
Those guys are likely to roll over everyone else regardless of balance and that will make Blizzard revert whatever change they were considering for infestors and decide to nerf wonwonwon instead.
Terran might be more "lucky" due to the absence of mvp "the nerfhammer".
On November 12 2012 06:50 Sein wrote: Protoss is probably going to get screwed over because of WCS. Just look at the Protoss guys coming from Korea:
Creator Hero Hero Rain Parting
Those guys are likely to roll over everyone else regardless of balance and that will make Blizzard revert whatever change they were considering for infestors and decide to nerf wonwonwon instead.
Terran might be more "lucky" due to the absence of mvp "the nerfhammer".
On November 12 2012 06:50 Sein wrote: Protoss is probably going to get screwed over because of WCS. Just look at the Protoss guys coming from Korea:
Creator Hero Hero Rain Parting
Those guys are likely to roll over everyone else regardless of balance and that will make Blizzard revert whatever change they were considering for infestors and decide to nerf wonwonwon instead.
Terran might be more "lucky" due to the absence of mvp "the nerfhammer".
Immortals and/or sentries will be nerfed.
ha now that sounds more like blizzard, nerf one of the few ways to actually beat a zerg or randomly buff a unit which doesnt need it
On November 12 2012 07:03 nam nam wrote: I wouldn't mind if they change it back to projectile, I don't think it got a fair try and it's more exciting than instant lock.
Not to mention it looks cooler and actually makes sense lore-wise.
Imagine watching a game where multiple of those green lines stream across the screen.
Fungal is very strong, overpowered probably with chain fungals, but nerfing the infestor means almost every other zerg unit needs a buff or zerg will be perform very poorly.
On November 12 2012 02:21 FatBat wrote: So this is a more or less a "yes, we will nerf them". And that nerf seems quite drastical. We will see
All this is a "We will discuss it and watch results". Honestly nothing was said that was not implied before.
Overwhelming pessimism. I read this as the reason the infestor has been this way for so long: blizz wanted a static metagame(not dynamic in the sense of balance) for their big wcs or bwc. So yes if pros continue to sux at dealing with infestors, this is nerf time
Can someone tell DB that some other units might require buffs as nerfing the infestor means that its roles within the game are reduced and i.e. require other zerg units to fill into those weakened roles (as it should have been from the start).
Also thank god they replied. Need more of this transparency between us the community and the dev team!
On November 12 2012 05:04 trinxified wrote: It's the Infested Terrans that really tick me off and really screams imbalance:
1. More HP than Marines (no shields) 2. More DPS than Marines (no stimpack) 3. Eggs have double HP with 2 armor (more tanking) 4. When the eggs don't die, the units spawn with full HP anyway.
BTW, if the projectile will be the same as the video posted, it is still way too fast to dodge by most units. I can only think of Blink-stalkers dodging that, or the Zerg player missing inherently fast units like speedlings, mutas, or phoenixes only.
I mean 1 and 2 are one time upgrades that marines WILL have so the comparison and moot, and 3 and 4 are equivalent to banelings morphing, or archons(fact check me anyone? I think im right about them spawning with ful hp, not the armor part)
On November 12 2012 07:19 GreyKnight wrote: They cant do anything before bwc but this guarantees bwc will be horrible to watch
Well the race distribution is already decided so unless they manage to make PvZ as enjoyable to watch as 2011 TvZ and turn PvP into TvT in a single patch, the tournament is doomed anyway.
Actually, I really like the idea of damage taken by the eggs being transferred to the IT when it pops.
That way they are still strong if the player is caught off guard, but not as good for taking damage, and storms / tank fire over infested eggs pretty much deals with it
On November 12 2012 04:00 aTnClouD wrote: Yeah take more time, give more fame and money to undeserving players and take it away from hardworking ones. Perhaps it would be cool to send baldie and 50(per)cent a couple of red noses and fake green curly hair so they can be professional clowns without trying to hide it so hard.
Maybe instead of bitching, people should experiment. And I don't just mean players, I mean competitions. If zerg is winning too much, look at the map pools being used and consider making some changes, or making new maps. Put in some maps which were biased against zerg to even it up. In many years of unpatched Broodwar, the racial balance was changed regularly through maps, maybe people should start thinking about doing that now, rather than just complaining.
That's something I'm missing so much from BW. It doesn't even have anything to do with the game it's just a matter of approach.
if they would make a map that totaly disadvantage zerg and test it out and then add it to ladder and remove option to be banned . i would love to see that .
I feel like infestors are too much of a glass cannon combat unit and not a support spell caster. They should not be able to do so much damage by them selves, but instead synergize with other units.
i.e. imagine fungal that did no damage (maybe had a larger aoe to compensate). it wouldn't do anything by itself but would be great if used correctly with banelings, ultras, and any high range units. It might not address infestor broodlord compositions directly but might nerf the infestor centric mid game that lets zergs get to such high broodlord/infestor numbers in the late game.
On November 12 2012 07:10 Msr wrote: Fungal is very strong, overpowered probably with chain fungals, but nerfing the infestor means almost every other zerg unit needs a buff or zerg will be perform very poorly.
Eactly this... which goes to the next point: Zerg, as P, are badly designed. Infestor was made OP to "cover" the design mistakes blizz made with Zerg. Now it comes back to bite them in the butt.
On November 12 2012 07:57 Shinespark wrote: Speaking of changing the infestor, please change fungal's name to plague, so korean comentators can again go "PLAGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"
best preposed change to the infestor I've read all week,
On November 12 2012 08:09 scudst0rm wrote: I feel like infestors are too much of a glass cannon combat unit and not a support spell caster. They should not be able to do so much damage by them selves, but instead synergize with other units.
i.e. imagine fungal that did no damage (maybe had a larger aoe to compensate). it wouldn't do anything by itself but would be great if used correctly with banelings, ultras, and any high range units. It might not address infestor broodlord compositions directly but might nerf the infestor centric mid game that lets zergs get to such high broodlord/infestor numbers in the late game.
I don't think going from 30 to 0 damage would be an appropriate nerf
On November 12 2012 08:09 scudst0rm wrote: I feel like infestors are too much of a glass cannon combat unit and not a support spell caster. They should not be able to do so much damage by them selves, but instead synergize with other units.
i.e. imagine fungal that did no damage (maybe had a larger aoe to compensate). it wouldn't do anything by itself but would be great if used correctly with banelings, ultras, and any high range units. It might not address infestor broodlord compositions directly but might nerf the infestor centric mid game that lets zergs get to such high broodlord/infestor numbers in the late game.
I don't think going from 30 to 0 damage would be an appropriate nerf
More of a comment on design than a band-aid solution.
On November 12 2012 07:10 Msr wrote: Fungal is very strong, overpowered probably with chain fungals, but nerfing the infestor means almost every other zerg unit needs a buff or zerg will be perform very poorly.
I disagree. Muta ling is still perfectly viable vs terran, as is vs toss, and is skill reliant and is more fun to watch and is good overall. Buffing any other zerg unit is madness, as if zerg is not strong enough already. Blizzard should not buff any unit of zerg, they already unnecessarily buffed queen range and overlord speed, which is a huge mistake queens serve as a macro mechanic, scouting tool, healing aid, anti air, they should not be able to fend off heavy harass. Overlords should be slow so misplacement can be punished more easily. Now the entire map is covered by overlords on ledges and highgrounds so zerg, which is the race with the biggest map presence and vision cause of creep, overlords and overseers, can see the whole map and see your unit composition and when you move out or flank.
So no, buffing anything of zerg in place of a nerf of infestor would be a huge mistake, same as the one that buffed the queen in a month where DRG won GSL and same as nerfing ghost snipe cause of a single game used by a single player, in a single matchup. Infestors, that are used by every zerg in every matchup, are not nerfed for 6 months. The only possible course of action is to nerf them severely and let zerg explore their other options. Then we will have interesting games, and zergs will actually start improving and not only being carried by the blatant imbalance that is infestor.
Adding a projectile to fungal would be the best possible change to infestors. Coupled with an infested terran damage nerf, it'd make the entire thing so much more interesting.
On November 12 2012 07:10 Msr wrote: Fungal is very strong, overpowered probably with chain fungals, but nerfing the infestor means almost every other zerg unit needs a buff or zerg will be perform very poorly.
On November 12 2012 07:57 Shinespark wrote: Speaking of changing the infestor, please change fungal's name to plague, so korean comentators can again go "PLAGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"
This is too much of a buff. Remember when the Blue Flame icon was buffed? MLG Anaheim happened.
Now Zergs will be encouraged to go mass Infestor so that they can get the casters to scream mass PLAGUUUU.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
Maybe the Zergs finally figured it out?
No, the man is correct about infestors.
Infestors were never the problem, the new 5 range queens are.
Making FG a projectile would definately be spectator-friendly, can sometimes be hard to see where fungals get placed at say an MLG non-premium stream or a 480p stream.
if they nerf the core spells of the infestor zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
Maybe the Zergs finally figured it out?
No, the man is correct about infestors.
Infestors were never the problem, the new 5 range queens are.
5 range Queens barely affect PvZ. What actually happened was Zergs figured stuff out and realised that Infestors are broken as hell.
Just buff back Ghost snipe, make Fungal a projectile with snare in the center and decreasing slow for splash and the game will be fine. Terrans can use Ghosts again late game, and Protoss can blink stalker now without getting instant fungalled.
Either that or add energy cost for infested terran to 50 and make fungal cost 100.
On November 12 2012 08:50 ROOTT1 wrote: if they nerf the core spells of the infestors zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
why don't we just make infestors cost more supply ~_~
On November 12 2012 08:50 ROOTT1 wrote: if they nerf the core spells of the infestor zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
why don't we just make infestors cost more supply ~_~
i think the safest route to fixing pvz would be to implement the 2 changes that i suggested, they would also need to nerf creep in order to help out terran in tvz. the main issue in tvz is that once they go onto creep it becomes almost impossible to micro effeciently against zerg. they cant control a battle like protoss can(due to not having forcefields) so they end up feeling the full brunt of the zerg army
but yea changing the infestor to 3 supply would be the most logical nerf if a more drastic change is required
On November 12 2012 08:50 ROOTT1 wrote: if they nerf the core spells of the infestors zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
why don't we just make infestors cost more supply ~_~
+1, not gamebreaking but easy to do balance. Just need this.
I also think we need to think about HOW the games are being played. That is one of the key things that we need to get across to the dev team. I mean if making 30 infestors made for a very exciting game, Im all for it but it aint. The games especially against zerg tend to be something different in early/mid to mass infestor+broodlords every game, every matchup outside ZvZ.
On November 12 2012 08:50 ROOTT1 wrote: if they nerf the core spells of the infestor zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
no one wants to play that game. you want to make sc2 more sc2 and less bw
Am I the only one very scared that they over-nerf the infestor just like they did to the reaper ? There where 3 possible nerfs that could have balanced TvZ : - Added range on roach - Nitro pack tech delayed until factory - Added range on queen
One of those nerf would have changed the match up and made reaper still an option but not an overpowered one. They ended up applying all the nerfs instead of picking one, and nerfed the reaper to the state we know now. Please Blizzard, don't repeat past mistakes
Edit ; true about the queen range, but they didn't change the reaper in response, sometime they seem to forget about some unit
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Nerfing infestor would screw up zerg vs zerg balance.
On a more serious note though, I think that the projectile-fungal is the key solution as it rewards good micro from the opposing player but still allows for chain fungalling when the opposing player mismiscro'd his units.
The difference between now and back then, was zergs didnt know how stupidly good IT were. Now that that understand, they mass 20 infestors. There's a reason you didnt see that last year, infestors were mostly used for fungals, and fights dont last long enough to use 3000 worth of energy on fungals
Blizzard needs to learn how to grow a spine when it comes to fans crying over their decision, especially the ones in which are an obvious fallacy as dictated by the history of Infestors and this game.
First off, the Infestor was already nerfed.
Second, why is the year of 2011 just a ghost when it came to balance issues with the Infestor? Why weren't people crying over Infestors that year when Zerg seemed "weaker" and not winning as much? They were near the same as they are now. Stating, "Zerg didn't know how too ..." is an evasion of stats, abilities may defer, and thus the argument faulters in both directions.
Thirdly, this is honestly the most embarrassing whining I've heard yet on balance. I thought Zerg were whiney, ... this takes the cake and its really humiliating for all of you how much you can defend a position in which stats were the same in 2011, and yet the act of a race "Doing well" triggers such a response to a unit that remained the same. Extremely hypocritical.
I will admit Infestor is a very difficult unit to deal with. More difficult than probably any other unit in the game, and I actually support if Blizz wants to reduce the size of the Infestor. But to look outward for help from others instead of having the courage and creativity to deal with a problem with which you are fully capable of is shameful. Looking to others to solve something for you is weak. You have the strength to overcome a difficult situation.
Can't split your marines? Crrrryyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!! Got your Ghost killed cause you couldn't micro and didnt have enough supporting units? Crrrryyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!
On November 12 2012 08:50 ROOTT1 wrote: if they nerf the core spells of the infestor zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
Really good suggestion, doubt they'll listen though... :/
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
ah ok, the last thing i want to see are these changes
On November 12 2012 02:14 trinxified wrote: - We buff some of the potential counters (EMP, Feedback).
On November 09 2012 03:46 MrBitter wrote: Posted this in the Blizz pro forums just yesterday:
So the infestor has become the target of many people's whines recently. I'm not sure that this is the place to rant about it, but I wanted to get my opinions out there for people to see, and hopefully for Blizzard to comment on.
While I can recognize that tournament results at the highest level have remained varied, I can't help but feel like late game Zerg play has become very face-roll and skill-less. This isn't to say that top level Zerg play isn't impressive - it is, but in certain matchups, on certain maps, and in certain cases, we see the game devolve to Zerg turtling behind spine crawlers and infestors, defending drops and harass, and slowly accumulating a critical mass of brood lord / infestor before pushing out to win the game.
Yes, we were all very impressed when Rain dismantled DRG in the OSL finals, and I can recognize that it is possible for Protoss to win in the super late game against Zerg, but I can't help but to feel that Protoss has to work a lot harder at a certain point in the game to get those impressive wins.
Like... a loooot harder.
When we step back and look at the game, we see a lot of things that are, perhaps, too strong.
Infestors. Brood lords. Spine crawlers. These things are all super powerful.
As are Colossi, blink stalkers, mother ship, and tons of other Protoss stuff.
The problem isn't overpowered stuff. The problem comes when you no longer have an answer to overpowered stuff.
And I do feel that, at a point, infestor broodlord just snowballs out of control.
I don't blame this on it being a far superior fighting army... We've seen Protoss players kill this composition in the past even without vortex.
And I don't blame it on the fungal mechanic shutting down micro.
I think it just boils down to points in the game where Protoss is disallowed from engaging certain aspects of the Zerg army.
A zerg player has to make a mistake for Protoss to kill his infestors. A zerg player has to expose his broodlords for that army to be threatened.
Incidentally, all of this also applies to Terran in some ways.
Fundamentally, I think you can solve this problem with one small change to Protoss, and one small change to Terran... By buffing their anti-infestor casters. The high templar and the ghosts respectively.
I think increasing the range on feedback and snipe would do wonders to bring stability, and MOBILITY back to the matchups, and I also think it would silence the masses that love to cry about the overpoweredness of certain Zerg army compositions.
It's almost impossible for Protoss and Terran players to successfully feedback or snipe infestors without losing the units they commit to doing so. Often, we see Protoss players send 2-3 high templar forward to feedback, successfully kill 1-2 infestors, and lose their units, resulting in a cost-ineffective trade.
I honestly feel like this happens purely because you can never reach infestors.
I would like to see feedback range tested at something like range 12. Give them broodlord range, so that infestors have to be positioned underneath broods, and can be punished if left overly exposed.
This will still preserve the strength of broodlord infestor, while giving Protoss a way to combat the strength of fungal.
Obviously, if you're going to buff feedback, you have to buff snipe, but in this case, I think an equivalent range buff to ghosts would do wonders to ease Terran woes as well. (And for all the same reasons listed above)
For me, as a player, I get very bored of the turtley games that we are continuing to see day in and day out. As a caster, I can put on a blindfold and talk an audience through a PvZ on Daybreak. And as a fan of the game, I long for mechanics that push players away from being static and immobile, and toward being aggressive and active.
I would love to hear what other top players think of this change, and also to see what Blizz has to say on the matter.
<3s and kudos. Thanks for reading.
TLDR: Don't nerf infestor. Instead buff the range of feedback and snipe.
On November 12 2012 08:50 ROOTT1 wrote: if they nerf the core spells of the infestor zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
Really good suggestion, doubt they'll listen though... :/
David Kim: There is no doubt that Carriers need to be buffed. We are still afraid that carriers being used as "a-move" units in pro level play. Therefore we are only considering to add minor buffs to it. We are thinking of making interceptors immune to Infestor's fungal growth.
There is just no question. The best players in the world right now are all zergs, not to mention the infestor situation being a massive booster to that.
In fact if we see any more non zerg champions in any major tournaments before this gets fixed I would be massively surprised.
Taking first a post from a player named "Swarm" on the blizzard forums:
Alright so looking at Liquipedia-
Tournaments in the last 2 months 2012 MvP 1st SoO 2nd Oz 3rd MajOr/Soulkey Not a ZvZ Fest 2012 ESW 1st MaNa 2nd ForGG 3rd Stephano Not a ZvZ Fest 9/12 ZOTAC 1st Fraer 2nd Revival 3rd Hyun Won by Protoss, despite 2 top level Korean Zergs 9/12 GO4SC2 Won by Nerchio Best EU player behind Stephano MLG Dallas 1st Life 2nd Leenock GSL champ vs MLG champ RSL(Ongoing)
Tournaments over 2 months ago *EG Masters Cup (Team League) *WCS NA (August 2012) *WCS Oceania (August 2012) *IPL FC (is currently being dominated by HyuN, but IPL selects who gets to play in FC). *Gigabyte Lan (June 2012) *SCAN Invitation (September 2012)
So overall about 4 tournaments have had Zergs in the Semi Finals/Finals. Despite them being either Korean Zergs, or a Top Foreign Zerg.
I really wish everyone would chill out with the whine for a moment. Shit, I want infestors nerfed just to see what would happen. People claim muta/ling is viable, which in some cases it is against terran. People who say it's viable against toss are silly, because it can be caught pretty early, and thus acted upon accordingly.
On November 12 2012 09:25 malaan wrote: We will 100000000000% see a Zerg champ at BWC.
There is just no question. The best players in the world right now are all zergs, not to mention the infestor situation being a massive booster to that.
In fact if we see any more non zerg champions in any major tournaments before this gets fixed I would be massively surprised.
I'm so tired of people saying infestor spells shouldn't be changed. Rooting units in place shouldn't be in the game, and no unit should be as versatile as infestors are now. The whole unit is completely fucked.
On November 12 2012 09:17 President Dead wrote: Blizzard needs to learn how to grow a spine when it comes to fans crying over their decision, especially the ones in which are an obvious fallacy as dictated by the history of Infestors and this game.
First off, the Infestor was already nerfed.
Second, why is the year of 2011 just a ghost when it came to balance issues with the Infestor? Why weren't people crying over Infestors that year when Zerg seemed "weaker" and not winning as much? They were near the same as they are now. Stating, "Zerg didn't know how too ..." is an evasion of stats, abilities may defer, and thus the argument faulters in both directions.
Thirdly, this is honestly the most embarrassing whining I've heard yet on balance. I thought Zerg were whiney, ... this takes the cake and its really humiliating for all of you how much you can defend a position in which stats were the same in 2011, and yet the act of a race "Doing well" triggers such a response to a unit that remained the same. Extremely hypocritical.
I will admit Infestor is a very difficult unit to deal with. More difficult than probably any other unit in the game, and I actually support if Blizz wants to reduce the size of the Infestor. But to look outward for help from others instead of having the courage and creativity to deal with a problem with which you are fully capable of is shameful. Looking to others to solve something for you is weak. You have the strength to overcome a difficult situation.
Can't split your marines? Crrrryyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!! Got your Ghost killed cause you couldn't micro and didnt have enough supporting units? Crrrryyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!
Crrrryyyyyyyy!!!!!!
the problem already existed then, but P and T were strong early and mid game, and Zerg were not using infestors as the solution. Infestors were nerfed a few times but remained very viable and too versatile. Infestors are clearly too OP for the ease of use. This is exactly what you said, there are too many things you need to do just to avoid being fungaled or IT to death.
I am so glad the nerf will be coming. There are so many viable options for zerg, I just feel so many of them are hanging onto the believe that they will die without using infestors. I absolutely hate playing against aggressive zerg. BUT I typed gg with dignity, losing to BL infestors is just absolutely disgusting and leave me with a bad taste.
I am sure you can adapt, I have learnt much trying to stop infestors BLs, although I still got problem actually beating them. But this made my control in mid game ( immortal all in LOL) stronger, my macro improve greatly in the late game.
infested terrans cost 50. FG and NP don't hit Air. That's a fucking move they should have done decade ago. We will have a terran Air mech (BC) viable. And mothership (as core PvZ late game) wont be affected as well.
To be honest, NP should be removed from the game entirely (or hugely nerfed). It's a spell that can never be balanced.
Personally I want the creep spread nerf they had planned just to see how things played out, but it doesnt help PvZ at all in the late game. Although TT1 has a good idea with no neural on the mothership so could possibly just nullify neural for massive units?
Tournaments in the last 2 months 2012 MvP 1st SoO 2nd Oz 3rd MajOr/Soulkey Not a ZvZ Fest 2012 ESW 1st MaNa 2nd ForGG 3rd Stephano Not a ZvZ Fest 9/12 ZOTAC 1st Fraer 2nd Revival 3rd Hyun Won by Protoss, despite 2 top level Korean Zergs 9/12 GO4SC2 Won by Nerchio Best EU player behind Stephano MLG Dallas 1st Life 2nd Leenock GSL champ vs MLG champ RSL(Ongoing)
Tournaments over 2 months ago *EG Masters Cup (Team League) *WCS NA (August 2012) *WCS Oceania (August 2012) *IPL FC (is currently being dominated by HyuN, but IPL selects who gets to play in FC). *Gigabyte Lan (June 2012) *SCAN Invitation (September 2012)
So overall about 4 tournaments have had Zergs in the Semi Finals/Finals. Despite them being either Korean Zergs, or a Top Foreign Zerg.
I really wish everyone would chill out with the whine for a moment. Shit, I want infestors nerfed just to see what would happen. People claim muta/ling is viable, which in some cases it is against terran. People who say it's viable against toss are silly, because it can be caught pretty early, and thus acted upon accordingly.
Blizz should have just made BW prettier zzz
lol what? of course ling muta is viable against protoss, no one is saying that ur supposed to open w/ ling muta vs a 2base immo allin but if the p goes for an early third its an excellent opener. it allows you to have map control while taking a super early 4th safely while you transition into infestors/hive, you can even go for a mass muta bling style.. drg does this alot
why do protoss has to go collosus all the time vs Z, why not making HT to take the 3rd with cannons? if by any chances the zerg will have just lings and getting infestors as usual, if the zerg go ahead and attacks u have better position to feedback those infestor right?
i think this is a good way to deal with this infestors in the mid game going to lategame and im pretty sure a protoss on 4bases will fight a zerg even with Broodlord infetor combo
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
Nerfing only the Infestor wont fix TvZ but I suppose it will be another 6 months before those....people at Blizzard are ready to admit that. What really sucks is that Blizz have decided to act only after Protoss started to have serious difficulties with the Zerg meta. Terrans complaining? Awwww,QQ more, we ♥ tears bla-bla-bla
Look into fixing the fucking metagame, Blizzard, nobody enjoys the current 15 minute norush bullshit anymore than they enjoy 200 supply worth of shit gettin fungled to death
On November 12 2012 09:27 Shin_Gouki wrote: Taking first a post from a player named "Swarm" on the blizzard forums:
Alright so looking at Liquipedia-
Tournaments in the last 2 months 2012 MvP 1st SoO 2nd Oz 3rd MajOr/Soulkey Not a ZvZ Fest 2012 ESW 1st MaNa 2nd ForGG 3rd Stephano Not a ZvZ Fest 9/12 ZOTAC 1st Fraer 2nd Revival 3rd Hyun Won by Protoss, despite 2 top level Korean Zergs 9/12 GO4SC2 Won by Nerchio Best EU player behind Stephano MLG Dallas 1st Life 2nd Leenock GSL champ vs MLG champ RSL(Ongoing)
Tournaments over 2 months ago *EG Masters Cup (Team League) *WCS NA (August 2012) *WCS Oceania (August 2012) *IPL FC (is currently being dominated by HyuN, but IPL selects who gets to play in FC). *Gigabyte Lan (June 2012) *SCAN Invitation (September 2012)
So overall about 4 tournaments have had Zergs in the Semi Finals/Finals. Despite them being either Korean Zergs, or a Top Foreign Zerg.
I really wish everyone would chill out with the whine for a moment. Shit, I want infestors nerfed just to see what would happen. People claim muta/ling is viable, which in some cases it is against terran. People who say it's viable against toss are silly, because it can be caught pretty early, and thus acted upon accordingly.
Blizz should have just made BW prettier zzz
lol what? of course ling muta is viable against protoss, no one is saying that ur supposed to open w/ ling muta vs a 2base immo allin but if the p goes for an early third its an excellent opener. it allows you to have map control while taking a super early 4th safely while you transition into infestors/hive, you can even go for a mass muta bling style.. drg does this alot
What? Of course you don't open muta/ling against a 2 base build period. But that doesn't mean it's as strong as people make it think. Toss goes robo + 4 gate into third, so they'll grab an observer first to scout the zerg. If they scout the spire, and they will, you can just play passively while getting high templar for archons + storm if the zerg is going to dedicate towards mass muta.
Zergs can get the fast fourth regardless and generally have map control if the toss goes for the third.
I don't see how muta is considered safe as an opener, although players like suppy open muta first, so I guess I can't say it's invalid.
On November 12 2012 08:50 ROOTT1 wrote: if they nerf the core spells of the infestor zerg would get crushed by protoss, all they need to do to fix pvz is make interceptors unfungal-able and the mothership immune to neural.. its so fucking simple
Couple that with a build time reduction for the Carrier, along with a possible armour buff, and you may be right.
I agree about the MS being immune to neural though. It's always irked me that the hero unit of Protoss can get NP-ed. The game already allows for some racial diversity with the units (such as Ultra immune to fungal root, I believe, and massive destruction of FF) and this would be a nice addition. (HT should also be immune, IMO, maybe even Archons.)
Anyway, Browder is right. Leave it be for a little while longer and see how it goes. There is no need for haste.
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
but seeing as how PvT is balanced, why would you want to try to tinker with it?
why do protoss has to go collosus all the time vs Z, why not making HT to take the 3rd with cannons? if by any chances the zerg will have just lings and getting infestors as usual, if the zerg go ahead and attacks u have better position to feedback those infestor right?
i think this is a good way to deal with this infestors in the mid game going to lategame and im pretty sure a protoss on 4bases will fight a zerg even with Broodlord infetor combo
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
The “Ghost = HT” relation is already true, Feedback vs Snipe is around 50/50.
No matter what conclusion they come to, it won't be something like "Remove the infestor and make the zerg race not suck total ass without it". That's too much effort for a small team maintaining a game that not as many people play as they might like.
On November 12 2012 09:45 19Nov1980 wrote: i have a question!!
why do protoss has to go collosus all the time vs Z, why not making HT to take the 3rd with cannons? if by any chances the zerg will have just lings and getting infestors as usual, if the zerg go ahead and attacks u have better position to feedback those infestor right?
i think this is a good way to deal with this infestors in the mid game going to lategame and im pretty sure a protoss on 4bases will fight a zerg even with Broodlord infetor combo
Zerg doesn't need to attack you if you turtle behind high templar at a third -- or any strategy involving turtling behind a fast third. They'll happily start their 12 minute hive and proceed to roll you over in 4 minutes when broodlords pop. Difficult to take your fourth with a broodlord/infestor ball bearing down upon it.
On November 12 2012 10:02 trinxified wrote: PvZ is also a problem with those Fungals... Though without the root-function of Fungal, then blink stalkers will own all PvZ again.
fungal could still disable blink like before without root...just with slow instead :D
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
That's not a complete rock paper scissors then... What's the counter to HT?
On November 12 2012 10:19 Tsuki.eu wrote: Fungal projectile is a useless nerf, we dont need fungal to be harder to use. We need fungal to be less good vs everything (and IT also)...
The idea is that would be less good vs everything, because you could actually micro against it.
On November 12 2012 10:19 Tsuki.eu wrote: Fungal projectile is a useless nerf, we dont need fungal to be harder to use. We need fungal to be less good vs everything (and IT also)...
The idea is that would be less good vs everything, because you could actually micro against it.
People keep saying you can micro against it... You can't still. It's too fast to micro from. Impossible to dodge unless you see it coming, baiting for it, or using inherently fast units like speedlings, muta, phoenix, or blink-stalkers away.
On November 12 2012 02:19 SiguR wrote: What a succinct and honest statement. I'm sad that the world championships might get fucked over because of the balance, but as long as we're constantly moving towards a better game, I'm happy.
Changing the Infestor this close to World Championships would be a big mistake too though. I just hope they're not afraid to redesign the infestor more than nerfing dmg/supply. Fungal is toooo boring.
Why?
There are ALWAYS some championships or tournaments going on and someone will get screwed over by changes eventually. Thats the nature of changes that you have to adapt to them and that it takes time. Is "halfway through a GSL" a better time? Not really.
Because it is not fair to switch u the game with less than 5 days to go. It wasn't fair when they did it during GSL and it wouldn't be fair now. We asked Blizzard to pay attention and not patch in the middle of tournaments. Now they are and the side effect is that if a balance patch is necessary, it will happen at the end of a major tournament.
Blizzard is only waiting after WCS because that is THEIR tournament. If it was GSL/IPL/MLG/DH, etc. they wouldn't have waited to post what their plans are or quite possibly even the actual change.
It is weird how they would consider the dates of their own tournament when making balance changes. I wonder if Riot does the same thing. Wait, yes they do.
Not really ... LoL tournaments are played on "patch X" and this is known beforehand, but they can add a patch 5 minutes before a tournament without changing anything in the tournament. Sadly SC2 has to be connected to the Battlenet at all times and thus you can only play on the most recent patch implemented.
Yeah, Dota has the same thing too. There are two versions, the stable (tournament version) and the latest version (which is just the latest version).
The tournament version is usually updated only after testing with the latest version shows everything is okay.
Sadly, SC2 doesn't really have that. You can have maps with the old values in but it's not practical to do and sometimes mistakes happen (like the map maker could forget to edit one or two important values that were changed in a patch).
On November 12 2012 10:19 Tsuki.eu wrote: Fungal projectile is a useless nerf, we dont need fungal to be harder to use. We need fungal to be less good vs everything (and IT also)...
The idea is that would be less good vs everything, because you could actually micro against it.
For a pro player, projectile change wont matter much, after being used to it. (its not enough)
On November 12 2012 10:19 Tsuki.eu wrote: Fungal projectile is a useless nerf, we dont need fungal to be harder to use. We need fungal to be less good vs everything (and IT also)...
I think we absolutely need to make fungal harder to use. Zerg units in general aren't micro intensive enough.
On November 12 2012 02:30 PassiveAce wrote: I fucking love how dustin browders account icon is a pile of rocks being destroyed. I actually really like him now xD
Yeah, he REALLY loves destructible rocks man....
When he was a kid he used to blow up piles of rocks with TNT for fun. One Christmas he got a video camera as a gift and he used it to record his rock destruction, then he'd watch the tape while eating his dinner. Sometimes he'd play it back in slow motion.
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
That's not a complete rock paper scissors then... What's the counter to HT?
Ghosts, the player that better controls his ghosts/High templar will win the micro war, clump all your ghosts/Ht and they get beaten by storm and Colossi/ emp. However spread out like any pro will do will result in the better controlled caster beating the other caster unit.
It's honestly amazing how the infestor is suddenly Overpowered when zergs start winning and the infestor spell has been this way for months. But now all of a sudden it is a problem.
On November 12 2012 10:37 Sc2Null wrote: It's honestly amazing how the infestor is suddenly Overpowered when zergs start winning and the infestor spell has been this way for months. But now all of a sudden it is a problem.
Why is it amazing, the spell before was never used except by destiny and a few other players, people complained they were bad etc etc, then people realise how fking good infestors really are, and zergs start turning infestors into 90% of their army supply
Infestors like HT's and Ghosts are support/casters, and should not make up the bulk of an army like they currently do, if a protoss or terran made casters in the ratios zergs do, they wouldn't be winning very much
just incase ,this is not me balance whining this is just stating my view on how they should be balanced compared to other casters
On November 12 2012 10:37 Sc2Null wrote: It's honestly amazing how the infestor is suddenly Overpowered when zergs start winning and the infestor spell has been this way for months. But now all of a sudden it is a problem.
There's nothing amazing about it, the queen buff gave way for a much stable early game which allowed zergs to get better economies and more infestors. You just have to realize that the infestor doesn't exist in a vacuum and changes to other units affect it as well.
Not to mention that the metagame is always changing and revealing overpowered stuff that might have gone unnoticed. Blueflame hellions for example were considered completely balanced for over a year, until Slayers terrans completely dominated an MLG with them.
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
That's not a complete rock paper scissors then... What's the counter to HT?
Ghosts, the player that better controls his ghosts/High templar will win the micro war, clump all your ghosts/Ht and they get beaten by storm and Colossi/ emp. However spread out like any pro will do will result in the better controlled caster beating the other caster unit.
that didn't address my post o.o you still don't have a complete rock paper scissors, instead HT/Colossus > Viking/Ghost, because HT > Viking, Viking > Colossi, and Colossi > Ghost
or rather it would just be HT/Colossus > Viking, AKA you have nothing to deal with colossus
To me, the key issue with infestors is just that they are no FUN to play against, nor are they FUN to watch. It isn't too much of a balance issue, I hope blizzard addresses this.
On November 12 2012 10:44 btd978 wrote: YES! this makes me really happy. Maybe muta ling will be buffed which is much more fun to play and play against.
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
That's not a complete rock paper scissors then... What's the counter to HT?
Ghosts, the player that better controls his ghosts/High templar will win the micro war, clump all your ghosts/Ht and they get beaten by storm and Colossi/ emp. However spread out like any pro will do will result in the better controlled caster beating the other caster unit.
that didn't address my post o.o you still don't have a complete rock paper scissors, instead HT/Colossus > Viking/Ghost, because HT > Viking, Viking > Colossi, and Colossi > Ghost
or rather it would just be HT/Colossus > Viking, AKA you have nothing to deal with colossus
On November 12 2012 09:45 19Nov1980 wrote: i have a question!!
why do protoss has to go collosus all the time vs Z, why not making HT to take the 3rd with cannons? if by any chances the zerg will have just lings and getting infestors as usual, if the zerg go ahead and attacks u have better position to feedback those infestor right?
i think this is a good way to deal with this infestors in the mid game going to lategame and im pretty sure a protoss on 4bases will fight a zerg even with Broodlord infetor combo
Zerg doesn't need to attack you if you turtle behind high templar at a third -- or any strategy involving turtling behind a fast third. They'll happily start their 12 minute hive and proceed to roll you over in 4 minutes when broodlords pop. Difficult to take your fourth with a broodlord/infestor ball bearing down upon it.
like i said, why not go even more ahead? since protoss know zerg will make a billion roaches why not make just the right amount of HT and the go straight into robo for inmortals? i think it will be a very tight timming but i guess, it can work
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
That's not a complete rock paper scissors then... What's the counter to HT?
Ghosts, the player that better controls his ghosts/High templar will win the micro war, clump all your ghosts/Ht and they get beaten by storm and Colossi/ emp. However spread out like any pro will do will result in the better controlled caster beating the other caster unit.
that didn't address my post o.o you still don't have a complete rock paper scissors, instead HT/Colossus > Viking/Ghost, because HT > Viking, Viking > Colossi, and Colossi > Ghost
or rather it would just be HT/Colossus > Viking, AKA you have nothing to deal with colossus
The only way HT come into play against vikings is if they are clumped, we have learned to split against fungal and should do the same against storm, if the vikings are split then as a terran storm away I'll just emp and snipe away and then use my bio to power through.
So if a terran engages badly with his vikings but everything is on par then of course the vikings will die to storms and HT>vikings, but engage well and Ht won't be efficient against vikings and vikings are clearly>Colossi.
Side note when you say HT/Colossi> viking, what do you have the Colossi in there for? Or did you mean to have viking/ghosts?
On November 12 2012 10:59 ErAsc2 wrote: Ok, for once in my life I'm going to root for all zergs I have a feeling that if WCS has a ZvZ finals, changes are coming!!
If only life and leenock was in it
I wish fungal just didn't affect air unless its a bio unit But ofc I wouldn't know hard of a nerd that would be
I was thinking that making a fungal a projectile would be good and with short range. Making its range shorter than the range of marines would make it so that players would really have to burrow and sneak in and catch an opponent off-guard. Thus, it'd be more rewarding on the Zerg player and still force the opponent to always be on his toes with his army.
On November 12 2012 11:31 silent_owl wrote: THANK YOU, DUSTIN BROWDER!
I was thinking that making a fungal a projectile would be good and with short range. Making its range shorter than the range of marines would make it so that players would really have to burrow and sneak in and catch an opponent off-guard. Thus, it'd be more rewarding on the Zerg player and still force the opponent to always be on his toes with his army.
Just my thoughts.
His name Rock. He doesn't like it when people call him Dustin.
On November 12 2012 09:45 19Nov1980 wrote: i have a question!!
why do protoss has to go collosus all the time vs Z, why not making HT to take the 3rd with cannons? if by any chances the zerg will have just lings and getting infestors as usual, if the zerg go ahead and attacks u have better position to feedback those infestor right?
i think this is a good way to deal with this infestors in the mid game going to lategame and im pretty sure a protoss on 4bases will fight a zerg even with Broodlord infetor combo
Zerg doesn't need to attack you if you turtle behind high templar at a third -- or any strategy involving turtling behind a fast third. They'll happily start their 12 minute hive and proceed to roll you over in 4 minutes when broodlords pop. Difficult to take your fourth with a broodlord/infestor ball bearing down upon it.
like i said, why not go even more ahead? since protoss know zerg will make a billion roaches why not make just the right amount of HT and the go straight into robo for inmortals? i think it will be a very tight timming but i guess, it can work
Tell me how you're going to get ht's past the zerglings/roaches/broodlords in order to feedback the infestors that are behind his entire army.
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
I guess its becoz the zerg's main strategy last year was lings banes mutas and they finally realise infestors broods corruptors ARE THE TITS. (inspired by Stephano yo!)
However stop saying Zerg was so poor before this. Nestea had 3 GSL titles (2 X ZvZ finals), Leenock had 2 MLG titles and one GSL runner up, DRG had 1 GSL title before the Queen buff, Stephano sweeping foreign tournaments.... the list goes on. Now who is being ignorant now
On November 12 2012 09:45 19Nov1980 wrote: i have a question!!
why do protoss has to go collosus all the time vs Z, why not making HT to take the 3rd with cannons? if by any chances the zerg will have just lings and getting infestors as usual, if the zerg go ahead and attacks u have better position to feedback those infestor right?
i think this is a good way to deal with this infestors in the mid game going to lategame and im pretty sure a protoss on 4bases will fight a zerg even with Broodlord infetor combo
Zerg doesn't need to attack you if you turtle behind high templar at a third -- or any strategy involving turtling behind a fast third. They'll happily start their 12 minute hive and proceed to roll you over in 4 minutes when broodlords pop. Difficult to take your fourth with a broodlord/infestor ball bearing down upon it.
like i said, why not go even more ahead? since protoss know zerg will make a billion roaches why not make just the right amount of HT and the go straight into robo for inmortals? i think it will be a very tight timming but i guess, it can work
Zerg isn't going to make a billion roaches unless your third is late and they anticipate a timing. You're talking about a metagame from months ago. Go into GM level PvZ's and try your theorycrafting for yourself.
You know it's bad when people are giving up their real names to become a nickname online! Where do I sign up to sell off Blizzard stock. As for the press release - the information is they are rethinking fungal growth. Along with every sc2 player. Way to be on top of things
Its unlikely they will remove the root and replace it with a slow. That's too big of a design change, they will probably start of with something small for WOL.
Any major design changes will probably occur in the HOTS beta instead.
I wouldn't get my hopes up too high for a change next week, for what it's worth. The way I interpreted it is they'll use BWC as a way to collect more data, and then start testing. This would also fit very well with a schedule that involved changing the Infestor if necessary after the GSL Code S ends. And that makes logical sense, too. I mean, changing the Infestor mid Code-S...seems pretty bad, given Code S's status as the premier tournament in the world.
Speaking as a Zerg player, I'd be really excited to see it become a projectile. When I watch lategame Infestor play, it just feels stupidly broken, and projectile feels like a good way to make it dodgeable while still incorporating a micro requirement for the player facing off against it.
That said, I also think that people are starting to find interesting ways to counter the somewhat immobile BL/Infestor combination - most notably the many Protoss that have been starting to really incorporate heavy Warp Prism harass into their play.
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
Wait what? You want HTs to deal with Ghosts...? That would screw up viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost > HT, Colossi > Ghost
If they do it right it would be viking > colossi, HT > viking, ghost = HT, Colossi > Ghost, in theory at least. Changing feedback would have a bigger impact on mech/sky terran, I feel its definitely worth changing in a PTR or even hots.
That's not a complete rock paper scissors then... What's the counter to HT?
Ghosts, the player that better controls his ghosts/High templar will win the micro war, clump all your ghosts/Ht and they get beaten by storm and Colossi/ emp. However spread out like any pro will do will result in the better controlled caster beating the other caster unit.
that didn't address my post o.o you still don't have a complete rock paper scissors, instead HT/Colossus > Viking/Ghost, because HT > Viking, Viking > Colossi, and Colossi > Ghost
or rather it would just be HT/Colossus > Viking, AKA you have nothing to deal with colossus
The only way HT come into play against vikings is if they are clumped, we have learned to split against fungal and should do the same against storm, if the vikings are split then as a terran storm away I'll just emp and snipe away and then use my bio to power through.
So if a terran engages badly with his vikings but everything is on par then of course the vikings will die to storms and HT>vikings, but engage well and Ht won't be efficient against vikings and vikings are clearly>Colossi.
Side note when you say HT/Colossi> viking, what do you have the Colossi in there for? Or did you mean to have viking/ghosts?
It's not that the HT needs to kill vikings to "counter" it. It's simply that you can't clump them up that HTs are useful against Vikings. Because if you are able to clump them up, you can chip off his Colossus HP before a fight starts -- if you're in a huge battle and have ~20 vikings, there's no way you're going to split them up and still be able to chip off HP like that without getting in stalker range or being way to close to be able to escape without significant losses to blink stalkers.
I mean that if you want Ghost to be equal to HT, then that means there is really no incentive to get Ghosts to stop his HTs -- rather it would just be him getting Colossi to kill you and maybe HTs if you still try to go Vikings. So what I'm saying is that if you want HT=Ghost, you're expecting the Terran player to outplay the Protoss so that his Ghosts beat his HTs. You may argue that if HT=Ghost, then Colossi and Viking are left over, and the terran has the advantage, but that's not true because the vikings will be fighting over your bio army which will be getting stormed anyways.
Unless if terran gets to the late late game where he is able to sac lots of SCVs and keep up income via MULEs and therefore have an army supply advantage over toss, terran lategame is already slightly weaker than protoss. Ghosts are supposed to counter HT but they only have a very slight advantage right now... making the Ghosts even weaker would just make things even worse.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
Vortex should never work... if you split brood lords and Neural Parasite the mothership the Vortex can be completely negated. It's fucking stupid that the one counter to BL/Infestor army relies on the Zerg screwing up like an idiot and not microing. It hilarious that this is still a counter at high levels of play. Zergs should be ashamed that this works.
I like fungal becoming a projectile, do not like the possibility that blink all-ins will be even harder to defend. Honestly I think the main problem with the infestor lately, is that pros have been using energy on IT's instead of fungal, and that seems to work better. I think a IT nerf over a fungal nerf is the way to go.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
Vortex should never work... if you split brood lords and Neural Parasite the mothership the Vortex can be completely negated. It's fucking stupid that the one counter to BL/Infestor army relies on the Zerg screwing up like an idiot and not microing. It hilarious that this is still a counter at high levels of play. Zergs should be ashamed that this works.
Splitting is an easy way to negate it, but a neural is pretty hard to land. I think if you land a neural, then the P and not microed correctly.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
bold part, care to provide proof will you? There's a thread about korean pros whining about Zerg and even Nestea had to admit that Zerg is OP.
On November 12 2012 13:23 Venomsflame wrote: Does that mean getting rid of pathogen glands is off the table?
Pathogen glands isn't a problem, because w/o it, Z would be fucked in mid game. Late game with 30 infestors, pathogen glands doesn't make any difference.
My first time seeing the fungal projectile and it looks really cool on paper. However, it might not solve the problem. In a large army battle, you're not exactly going to be able to react, but it also takes away the infestor ability to deal with small harass packs. I'm not 100% sure that's the interaction that needs to change with Fungal - i think the way infestor works into/against large late game armies is what needs to change, and I don't think making fungal into a projectile would change that? (I reserve the right to be wrong.)
On November 12 2012 14:12 DidYuhim wrote: So, nothing to do in StarCraft 2 until BWC finishes.
Thanks, DB.
Agree with this. Hate to be a whiner but the quality of games have really dropped for me. Blizzard reacted too quickly to nerf the tools that other races had but somehow taking their time on this.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
...so you're telling DB to ignore the data from the last 50 tournaments and comments?
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
...so you're telling DB to ignore the data from the last 50 tournaments and comments?
No...they look at overall tournament/ladder data for all the races.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2. atm infestors are to zerg as sentires are to protoss. force fields have needed a nerf for ages yet they cant do anything about it because of how flawed this fucking game is. having 1 single unit be the back bone of an entire race, as is the case with sentry and infestor, was a stupid idea from day 1.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Okay, I've beaten protoss/Terrans as Zerg without infestors a number of times. What is your point? It's not impossible, although it may be more difficult depending on the scenario.
Don't even try using marine/tank in a comparison vs infestors. Marine/tank is far more interesting to watch because there is a higher degree of skill involved in positioning and control vs infestors.
On November 12 2012 14:12 DidYuhim wrote: So, nothing to do in StarCraft 2 until BWC finishes.
Thanks, DB.
Agree with this. Hate to be a whiner but the quality of games have really dropped for me. Blizzard reacted too quickly to nerf the tools that other races had but somehow taking their time on this.
Therefore every patch then onwards must be nerfed with the same disregard for balance, out of spite, and simply because the community has been exceptionally vocal in their whine? How about the previous overreaction nerfs were mistakes which should stop, starting here. People will whine over anything now.
I think people need to stop whining. They've already stated that changes are coming. You don't make a game changing patch before the World Finals. Look at what Riot did with League of Legends - the tournament was ran on a previous patch so what the players had been practicing is what they'll be playing the tournament for. However, in StarCraft 2 practice is much more relevant to competition than solo queueing, so you can't patch the game when so many pros depend on the standard ladder for practice.
Props to Blizzard for finally acknowledging and being so transparent with their thinking regarding the Infestor. I'm eager to see the change happen, but I don't want to see the pro players who put so much time into the game get screwed over.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
You may not be addressing me, but I like seeing what players DO with their tanks, marines, colossi, and whatever else. Also, you're not addressing the core of the argument which is that fungal growth, as it stands, is not fun to watch. A player selects an infestor, clicks fungal, the fungal lands, things turn green, another fungal lands, things turn green, another fungal lands, more things turn green, another fungal lands, everything dies.
That being said, I find it hilarious when casters use a positive adjective with fungal. Yeah, yeah, they're trying to hype up the games, but man... no matter who the player is, I can never get up and cheer like I can for a well-placed storm or emp.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Okay, I've beaten protoss/Terrans as Zerg without infestors a number of times. What is your point? It's not impossible, although it may be more difficult depending on the scenario.
Don't even try using marine/tank in a comparison vs infestors. Marine/tank is far more interesting to watch because there is a higher degree of skill involved in positioning and control vs infestors.
positioning siege tanks behind ur army and then leaving them there to siege takes skill? once u position siege tanks u pretty much dont have to worry about them as long as u have an army to support them. infestors however u have to constantly worry about.
and marines are just not interesting to watch sorry. sure they may have there burst of good moments like splitting against banelings, but u can say the same thing about infestors. neither unit is interesting to watch unless a pro player utilizes them in a good way.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Okay, I've beaten protoss/Terrans as Zerg without infestors a number of times. What is your point? It's not impossible, although it may be more difficult depending on the scenario.
Don't even try using marine/tank in a comparison vs infestors. Marine/tank is far more interesting to watch because there is a higher degree of skill involved in positioning and control vs infestors.
positioning siege tanks behind ur army and then leaving them there to siege takes skill? once u position siege tanks u pretty much dont have to worry about them as long as u have an army to support them. infestors however u have to constantly worry about.
and marines are just not interesting to watch sorry. sure they may have there burst of good moments like splitting against banelings, but u can say the same thing about infestors. neither unit is interesting to watch unless a pro player utilizes them in a good way.
ROFL you have no idea how Terran works if you think Terran players leave siege tanks after they are positioned ROFL get out bro.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Nobody is saying you should play completely infestorless, just that they shouldn't be as overpowered as they are. Sheesh, the amount of over-reacting in this thread is ridiculous. A unit being nerfed doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore or that you can never build it again. It's like if blizzard released a unit that does 1,000 dps at range 30 with full map vision, then decided to nerf it to 50 dps at range 10 with a normal vision range. That's a massive nerf, but that unit is still very strong.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
what a stupid this db is. Give a hydra speed upgrade at a hive and nerf infestor to death. Million problems solved - playability, balance, fun-to-watch, creativity (you will have to start to think what unit to build, not just mass one that serves to everything!!!) db is a simple noob.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
1. The Protoss deathball dies to fungals+broods 100% of the time if there isn't a lucky vortex 2. Ye, nerf infestors and buff hydras 3. Except, infestors are better at harassing than basically all of those 4. Yes, 2 infestors is good enough to stop any harass because creep spread+overlords show everything, and infested terran+fungal stops everything. 5. This is the thing that is probably confusing Blizzard right now. Players like DRG and Leenock can still rape with muta ling bling, but other zergs are too busy loling their way to victory with infestors.
Muta ling bane does work against terran. Period. There is no way to beat a protoss without infestors though, so any change to infestors will require a delicate rebalancing of other zerg units.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Nobody is saying you should play completely infestorless, just that they shouldn't be as overpowered as they are. Sheesh, the amount of over-reacting in this thread is ridiculous. A unit being nerfed doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore or that you can never build it again. It's like if blizzard released a unit that does 1,000 dps at range 30 with full map vision, then decided to nerf it to 50 dps at range 10 with a normal vision range. That's a massive nerf, but that unit is still very strong.
i dont think you understand the history of infestor nor how blizzard handles things. infestor is a unit that has been buffed and nerfed countless times already and each time the buff was either to huge that they had to nerf it or the nerf was to huge that they had to buff it again. if they nerf fungals again the unit will have no place. we already seen what happened to NP once it got its range nerfed. there is a reason to overreact, and that reason is in the numerous patch notes of the infestor.
On November 12 2012 14:40 Jimbo77 wrote: what a stupid this db is. Give a hydra speed upgrade at a hive and nerf infestor to death. Million problems solved - playability, balance, fun-to-watch, creativity (you will have to start to think what unit to build, not just mass one that serves to everything!!!) db is a simple noob.
chill bro.
This post isn't only coming from DB. I'm sure the development team all have the same idea, and things to say, but just chose to relay that information using DB's "Rock" account so people appreciate it more.
Nonetheless, whether the said statement is positive or negative to the community, it's definitely not only his opinions that we're seeing here..
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
can u post something other than mindless one sentence babbling? you havent posted anything useful since u came into this thread other than "fungals are ruining SC2" you give no reason nor evidence to ur claims other than "LOL go watch tournaments bro"
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
Lol read my posts in this thread broseph. I edited and posted other things.
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
can u post something other than mindless one sentence babbling? you havent posted anything useful since u came into this thread other than "fungals are ruining SC2" you give no reason nor evidence to ur claims other than "LOL go watch tournaments bro"
I did, reread my posts and look at the edits. You are just too closeminded to realize that fungals are clearly ruining SC2. I think other parts of Zerg needs to be looked at after the infestors are nerfed.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Asks for an alternative to infestors that is viable *NOW* Misses the point completely.
I have no words to spare for this. No, actually I am of the opinion not only the infestor but the entire zerg race should be removed for heart of the swarm.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
You're so amazing man. 1/Protoss deathball doesn't get screw by infestors. rofl, then why are we seeing Protoss whining about infestor but not making deathball? Did you even watch Seed vs some Zerg last season where he made 15 carriers and the best Protoss deathball possible and still get fucked by 40 infestors? Why did we even have infestor this good? b/c Blizz previously buffed them so they can counter Deathball in PvZ. 2/ all types of harassment that you stated are just wrong on so many level man. They're incredibly easy to defend. I mean nydus? really dude? how often do u see terran or protoss get nydus in their main base after 10 mins mark?
3/tell that to Korean pros... with FG's range, it can easily see and catch medivac even before medivac can see and run away.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Nobody is saying you should play completely infestorless, just that they shouldn't be as overpowered as they are. Sheesh, the amount of over-reacting in this thread is ridiculous. A unit being nerfed doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore or that you can never build it again. It's like if blizzard released a unit that does 1,000 dps at range 30 with full map vision, then decided to nerf it to 50 dps at range 10 with a normal vision range. That's a massive nerf, but that unit is still very strong.
i dont think you understand the history of infestor nor how blizzard handles things. infestor is a unit that has been buffed and nerfed countless times already and each time the buff was either to huge that they had to nerf it or the nerf was to huge that they had to buff it again. if they nerf fungals again the unit will have no place. we already seen what happened to NP once it got its range nerfed. there is a reason to overreact, and that reason is in the numerous patch notes of the infestor.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
1. The Protoss deathball dies to fungals+broods 100% of the time if there isn't a lucky vortex 2. Ye, nerf infestors and buff hydras 3. Except, infestors are better at harassing than basically all of those 4. Yes, 2 infestors is good enough to stop any harass because creep spread+overlords show everything, and infested terran+fungal stops everything. 5. This is the thing that is probably confusing Blizzard right now. Players like DRG and Leenock can still rape with muta ling bling, but other zergs are too busy loling their way to victory with infestors.
seems like u took my advice and edited your post, wise move even though your still completly wrong.
1 protoss doesnt die to fungals alone..... they die to vortex. do you understand? fungals dont do anything to a protoss death ball once it has Mship. the main reason u make infestors in the late game against toss is to try and get a NP off on the Mship. once that happens u use the mship to waste all of the vortex energy on the Mship while ur broodlords do the rest of the work. fungals alone wont do that. if the Mship still has energy to vortex even once u really dont have a chance of winning unless the toss messes up some how.
2. hydras are buffed in HoTs. nothing has changed, there still useless.
3. lol. no there not. mutas are probally the best form of harassment zerg has. baneling drops with +2 atk has the potential to wipe an entire workerline from just 1 overlords worth. hell ive done it with just 2 banelings before.
4. that statement was just stupid. it doesnt stop everything because u can drop at multiple bases. overlord spread can be stoped with just 1 or 2 vikings. also the more infestors u have defending ur bases the less of them u have out on the field. the point of harassing is to keep doing it. 1 -2 infestors will NOT stop multiple drop harrase attempts.
5. what makes winning with infestors any different from winning with mutas? that makes no sense.
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Nobody is saying you should play completely infestorless, just that they shouldn't be as overpowered as they are. Sheesh, the amount of over-reacting in this thread is ridiculous. A unit being nerfed doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore or that you can never build it again. It's like if blizzard released a unit that does 1,000 dps at range 30 with full map vision, then decided to nerf it to 50 dps at range 10 with a normal vision range. That's a massive nerf, but that unit is still very strong.
i dont think you understand the history of infestor nor how blizzard handles things. infestor is a unit that has been buffed and nerfed countless times already and each time the buff was either to huge that they had to nerf it or the nerf was to huge that they had to buff it again. if they nerf fungals again the unit will have no place. we already seen what happened to NP once it got its range nerfed. there is a reason to overreact, and that reason is in the numerous patch notes of the infestor.
the ammount of biase in this thread is amazing. you are just going to ignore all of the beta patches as well? they do matter to the overall existance of the infestor.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
1. The Protoss deathball dies to fungals+broods 100% of the time if there isn't a lucky vortex 2. Ye, nerf infestors and buff hydras 3. Except, infestors are better at harassing than basically all of those 4. Yes, 2 infestors is good enough to stop any harass because creep spread+overlords show everything, and infested terran+fungal stops everything. 5. This is the thing that is probably confusing Blizzard right now. Players like DRG and Leenock can still rape with muta ling bling, but other zergs are too busy loling their way to victory with infestors.
seems like u took my advice and edited your post, wise move even though your still completly wrong.
1 protoss doesnt die to fungals alone..... they die to vortex. do you understand? fungals dont do anything to a protoss death ball once it has Mship. the main reason u make infestors in the late game against toss is to try and get a NP off on the Mship. once that happens u use the mship to waste all of the vortex energy on the Mship while ur broodlords do the rest of the work. fungals alone wont do that. if the Mship still has energy to vortex even once u really dont have a chance of winning unless the toss messes up some how.
If Protoss would always win against zerg without the mothership, why do they even build it? If it is the only thing enabling Zerg to win against Protoss, why would Protoss ever build the tool to their own destruction?
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Nobody is saying you should play completely infestorless, just that they shouldn't be as overpowered as they are. Sheesh, the amount of over-reacting in this thread is ridiculous. A unit being nerfed doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore or that you can never build it again. It's like if blizzard released a unit that does 1,000 dps at range 30 with full map vision, then decided to nerf it to 50 dps at range 10 with a normal vision range. That's a massive nerf, but that unit is still very strong.
i dont think you understand the history of infestor nor how blizzard handles things. infestor is a unit that has been buffed and nerfed countless times already and each time the buff was either to huge that they had to nerf it or the nerf was to huge that they had to buff it again. if they nerf fungals again the unit will have no place. we already seen what happened to NP once it got its range nerfed. there is a reason to overreact, and that reason is in the numerous patch notes of the infestor.
the ammount of biase in this thread is amazing. you are just going to ignore all of the beta patches as well? they do matter to the overall existance of the infestor.
Yes I am. Because the SC2 Beta had like 3 tournaments. Also because the game has been out for 2.5 years. The beta has lasted for 4 months. Nobody studies the history of the infestor during the beta when trying to use them in the game.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
1. The Protoss deathball dies to fungals+broods 100% of the time if there isn't a lucky vortex 2. Ye, nerf infestors and buff hydras 3. Except, infestors are better at harassing than basically all of those 4. Yes, 2 infestors is good enough to stop any harass because creep spread+overlords show everything, and infested terran+fungal stops everything. 5. This is the thing that is probably confusing Blizzard right now. Players like DRG and Leenock can still rape with muta ling bling, but other zergs are too busy loling their way to victory with infestors.
seems like u took my advice and edited your post, wise move even though your still completly wrong.
1 protoss doesnt die to fungals alone..... they die to vortex. do you understand? fungals dont do anything to a protoss death ball once it has Mship. the main reason u make infestors in the late game against toss is to try and get a NP off on the Mship. once that happens u use the mship to waste all of the vortex energy on the Mship while ur broodlords do the rest of the work. fungals alone wont do that. if the Mship still has energy to vortex even once u really dont have a chance of winning unless the toss messes up some how.
If Protoss would always win against zerg without the mothership, why do they even build it? If it is the only thing enabling Zerg to win against Protoss, why would Protoss ever build the tool to their own destruction?
the side of that story goes both ways you know. the entire pvz match up is messed up. they need vortex in order to counter act the broodlords where as zerg needs infestors to try and control vortex. if u subtract infestors from the zergs late game unit comp they cant do much of anything. the broods will EASILY get sniped off by void rays and other AA units.
and yes the same thing can be said for toss. if u subtract Mship then infestor brood will easily pick apart protoss. but do you know what the interesting part about all of this is? what happens with BOTH units are subtracted? thats why i said earlier that this game is flawed on so many levels.
On November 12 2012 14:19 Ballistixz wrote: let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
That can be reversed at Zerg easily.
Let me put it like this to all of you infestor lovers so you can understand how playing against Zerg works. Play a few games as Terran or Protoss against a serious Zerg who makes mass infestors/broodlords. Once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly disgusting ways you have lost because purely because you couldn't fight back.
1 protoss doesnt die to fungals alone..... they die to vortex. do you understand? fungals dont do anything to a protoss death ball once it has Mship. the main reason u make infestors in the late game against toss is to try and get a NP off on the Mship. once that happens u use the mship to waste all of the vortex energy on the Mship while ur broodlords do the rest of the work. fungals alone wont do that. if the Mship still has energy to vortex even once u really dont have a chance of winning unless the toss messes up some how.
This is just patently wrong. Many games are lost after a vortex is cast by the Protoss. I must question exactly what level you are because even Diamond Zergs are starting to spread their broodlords in preparation for vortex now and that substantially weakens vortex.
the ammount of biase in this thread is amazing.
Did you ever think it might be you and not everyone else in the thread?
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
1. The Protoss deathball dies to fungals+broods 100% of the time if there isn't a lucky vortex 2. Ye, nerf infestors and buff hydras 3. Except, infestors are better at harassing than basically all of those 4. Yes, 2 infestors is good enough to stop any harass because creep spread+overlords show everything, and infested terran+fungal stops everything. 5. This is the thing that is probably confusing Blizzard right now. Players like DRG and Leenock can still rape with muta ling bling, but other zergs are too busy loling their way to victory with infestors.
seems like u took my advice and edited your post, wise move even though your still completly wrong.
1 protoss doesnt die to fungals alone..... they die to vortex. do you understand? fungals dont do anything to a protoss death ball once it has Mship. the main reason u make infestors in the late game against toss is to try and get a NP off on the Mship. once that happens u use the mship to waste all of the vortex energy on the Mship while ur broodlords do the rest of the work. fungals alone wont do that. if the Mship still has energy to vortex even once u really dont have a chance of winning unless the toss messes up some how.
2. hydras are buffed in HoTs. nothing has changed, there still useless.
3. lol. no there not. mutas are probally the best form of harassment zerg has. baneling drops with +2 atk has the potential to wipe an entire workerline from just 1 overlords worth. hell ive done it with just 2 banelings before.
4. that statement was just stupid. it doesnt stop everything because u can drop at multiple bases. overlord spread can be stoped with just 1 or 2 vikings. also the more infestors u have defending ur bases the less of them u have out on the field. the point of harassing is to keep doing it. 1 -2 infestors will NOT stop multiple drop harrase attempts.
5. what makes winning with infestors any different from winning with mutas? that makes no sense.
I can't believe anyone is still dense/biased enough to not see the problem here. 1. Infestors serve every conceivable role against protoss: anti-air, dps, defence, and broodlord support. Not just neuralling mothership. Also, I find it funny that a zerg is saying "unless the toss messes up somehow". Pros and normal players alike have all expressed their frustration at how a single missed moment against zerg results in your loss. Do you have some trouble using chain fungals or anything? Last I checked it roots everything to the ground, can stack, and is supported by broodlords which fire a wall of living units that also deal dps.
2. We are saying hydras can be buffed to compensate for anti air. Just to make it so that the infestor does not fill every single niche.
3. So what? So you prove that the rest of the zerg units are not, in fact, "garbage without infestors"? Thanks.
4. Do you have some problem making static D?
5. Muta-ling-bling takes skill to use. It is impressive to watch. It may be more fun to play (not sure, I don't play zerg, but how is a spell that roots nonstop make it more fun for the player?)
If you really insist on being like that, so be it. Just make sure to get ready your nerf-helmet for the inevitable nerf-bat.
I will end off with a question for you: You find fungal fun to watch? Seriously?
On November 12 2012 12:09 xAdra wrote: To the zergs still defending infestors:
I really want to know. Do you actually find them fun to watch? Do you find some sick pleasure in seeing P/T units unable to move, taking heavy damage, and being raped by broodlords? Do you actually feel proud for your pros, marvelling at the skill they needed to cast that simple spell (taking up no more than 2, maybe 3 actions)? Do you find it cool when the zergs are completely outplayed for the whole game, yet can have a ball to move across the map and kill the opponent, without so much as repeatedly using an aoe stunning spell on already stunned units?
Honestly, I couldn't care less about racial distributions in tournaments, or ladder distributions (which actually matter even less). If Zerg games were fun to watch, I'd be okay. As it stands now, only Leenock is remotely "fun" to watch, and that's because his early game aggression is innovative and skill-full, as opposed to the other zergs who just turtle to infestor broodlord, then win with minimal micro while the other player is forced to have perfect play, or else die. Terran at least has a composition that can go head to head with infestor/bl, even if it takes MUCH more micro to use than the simple amove+fungal composition. Protoss has to rely on the coin flippy vortex, which relies on the zerg being dumb enough to not neural or fungal the slow as crap mothership, or the zerg messing up significantly by clumping all the units together.
Right now, infestors are neither cool, balanced, fair, interesting, fun to watch, or require skill to use. I would fully support nerfing them to the ground and buffing less powerful zerg units, such as hydralisks and ultralisks.
do u find watching someone massing tanks and marines fun? do u find watching toss players massing a bunch of colos and A moving to win fun? do u find watching archon toilet fun?
exactly
let me put it like this to all of u infestor haters so u can understand how the zerg race works. play a few games as zerg against a serious protoss or terran player WITHOUT making a single infestor. once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly digusting ways u have lost the game purely because u didnt make infestors.
Nobody is saying you should play completely infestorless, just that they shouldn't be as overpowered as they are. Sheesh, the amount of over-reacting in this thread is ridiculous. A unit being nerfed doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore or that you can never build it again. It's like if blizzard released a unit that does 1,000 dps at range 30 with full map vision, then decided to nerf it to 50 dps at range 10 with a normal vision range. That's a massive nerf, but that unit is still very strong.
i dont think you understand the history of infestor nor how blizzard handles things. infestor is a unit that has been buffed and nerfed countless times already and each time the buff was either to huge that they had to nerf it or the nerf was to huge that they had to buff it again. if they nerf fungals again the unit will have no place. we already seen what happened to NP once it got its range nerfed. there is a reason to overreact, and that reason is in the numerous patch notes of the infestor.
the ammount of biase in this thread is amazing. you are just going to ignore all of the beta patches as well? they do matter to the overall existance of the infestor.
Beta was a different game than what we have now. It's completely pointless to talk about beta patches.
Let me put it like this to all of you infestor lovers so you can understand how playing against Zerg works. Play a few games as Terran or Protoss against a serious Zerg who makes mass infestors/broodlords. Once you do that come back and tell me all of the stupid and utterly disgusting ways you have lost because purely because you couldn't fight back.
i have. as terran ive won games by massing ravens and vikings. pretty good combination with Hunter seekers. ive also done it with toss. won games by tech switching to mass air.
This is just patently wrong. Many games are lost after a vortex is cast by the Protoss. I must question exactly what level you are because even Diamond Zergs are starting to spread their broodlords in preparation for vortex now and that substantially weakens vortex.
what about it is wrong? even if you split the broodlors u will still hit a good clump and u can pick apart the rest. especially if u have 2 vortexes available. the AoE radius of vortex is so huge that u will need to split ur broods pretty far apart from each other. and i also dont see ur point about zergs winning even after vortex is cast. ive seen toss win numerous games despite infestors+broodlords being this god tier unit composition.
1. Infestors serve every conceivable role against protoss: anti-air, dps, defence, and broodlord support. Not just neuralling mothership. Also, I find it funny that a zerg is saying "unless the toss messes up somehow". Pros and normal players alike have all expressed their frustration at how a single missed moment against zerg results in your loss. Do you have some trouble using chain fungals or anything? Last I checked it roots everything to the ground, can stack, and is supported by broodlords which fire a wall of living units that also deal dps.
2. We are saying hydras can be buffed to compensate for anti air. Just to make it so that the infestor does not fill every single niche.
3. So what? So you prove that the rest of the zerg units are not, in fact, "garbage without infestors"? Thanks.
4. Do you have some problem making static D?
5. Muta-ling-bling takes skill to use. It is impressive to watch. It may be more fun to play (not sure, I don't play zerg, but how is a spell that roots nonstop make it more fun for the player?)
If you really insist on being like that, so be it. Just make sure to get ready your nerf-helmet for the inevitable nerf-bat.
I will end off with a question for you: You find fungal fun to watch? Seriously?
1. the fact that they do serve as all of those things means something went wrong somewhere in the races design. our only other form of ground to air unit is hydras and queens. and ur not going to see queens take down a fleet of voids/carriers anytime soon.
2. like i said, they are buffed in HoTs. u will have to buff hydras significantly more to make up for it. a simple speed buff is not enough. id be completly happy if they removed infested terrans entirely and buffed hydras by a significant ammount to make up for it, but i dont see it happening. if it does then great. all i am saying is that there is a reason infestors have that roll right now. read above if u still need to know why.
3. um no. im saying that infestors are not the absolute best form of harassment we have. its simply one of the few forms of harassment we have.
4. depends on the situation. static defense can also be avoided by just micring ur damn medivacs instead of blindly shift clicking into a base...
5. idk, ask protoss users that use force fields, colo, and vortex. both are equally uninteresting.
as for your final question, no i dont find fungals fun to watch. but i dont find force fields fun to watch either. nor do i find colo fun to watch.
Beta was a different game than what we have now. It's completely pointless to talk about beta patches
beta is what made the game we have now. i dont understand how you can completly ignore it as irelevant. the patches in beta were very significant patches. like the roach supply nerf for example that transfered over to release and still exists to this day. you cant just ignore those patches as if they never happened.... srsly...
I will end off with a question for you: You find fungal fun to watch? Seriously?
Yes! that moment when terran player sends an army of clumped marines and they suddenly green and exploding to bloody shreds at the same time...delicious.
anyway, what I'd like to see is increased EMP effect on biological units. It's also reasonable to decrease their hit points, mages are supposed to be softer. I don't see any need to nerf fungal or infested terran though. Zerg still requires a decent mage to control the battle but if they go with the EMP buff and hit point decrease, players won't like to mass too many of them.
On November 12 2012 02:38 floor exercise wrote: They are just going to opt for the least volatile change that will bring win percents closer together. They aren't gonna change the game or the way it's played, which is my real problem with Blizzard and HotS. They are so concerned with balancing the game they don't realize how boring the game itself has become
Ya basically the biggest issue is if they change it too much Zerg will lose every fucking game all of a sudden its back to roach hydra every PvZ so we can get rofl stomped by ffs
Why does patches like this get the unit out of the metagame and soon it appears again? Making fungal projectile is not unbalanced it's micro and decision oriented spell then, like storm and EMP you can't just go and cast it X place as knowing you will hit them. Now you have to be precise with the spell like with storm and EMP, so why should fungal be much easier to use than the others when it clearly has more spells in one that the others.
Storm:4 -AoE damage spell -insta, but avoidable. -Can hit burrowed and cloacking units -You can cast it to the same area but most likely it wont hit any units unless its an all out battle
EMP:5 -AoE energy disabler -AoE protoss shield disabler -Reveals cloacking and burrowed units (unit can move freely) -You can cast it to the same area but most likely it wont hit any units unless its an all out battle -projectile and avoidable.
Fungal Growth:5 -AoE damage spell -AoE entangling roots -Reveals cloacking and burrowed units (locks them also) -Can be casted multiple times to the same area and this just makes it even more powerful -insta, but not avoidable.
So I ask the community why should one spell be more efficient than the others? Answer is: There shouldn't be spell like that.
FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
On November 12 2012 14:14 TimENT wrote: DB, whatever "data" you get, please ignore it. Watch the last 50 tournaments AND read the comments. Fungals are ruining SC2.
please stop posting BS. fungals are not ruining SC2.
Just to chime in: What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals? For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor. For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base. For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home. For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
It is evident that something else needs to be buffed when the infestor isn´t the "one size fits all" unit anymore. You wouldn´t say the marine are awesome and balanced because right now terran rely on its strength, would you?
What composition doesn´t get totally screwed over by fungals?
thats a easy one. the protoss death ball.
For anti air, you don´t make hydras, you make infestor.
no shit, hydras are the worse unit in the entire game right now. and it just so happens that it is our only form of ground to air AA unit aside from infestors.
For harass, you burrow infestors into the enemy base.
zergs are capable of many types of harassment. drops, mutas, nydus, baneling run bys, ling run bys, etc. why do u just solo out infestor as the only form of harassment?
For base defense, keep 1-2 infestors at home.
1-2 infestors is not going to defend an entire base unless u are stupid with ur medivacs and dont pay attention when u are dropping. that means not shift clicking + forget medivacs into a base. -_-
For defense against midgame armies, infestor.
lets pretend infestors dont exist. what are zergs suppose to make against to combat death ball armies or marine+marauder+tank armies?
Do you play/watch SC2?
1. The Protoss deathball dies to fungals+broods 100% of the time if there isn't a lucky vortex 2. Ye, nerf infestors and buff hydras 3. Except, infestors are better at harassing than basically all of those 4. Yes, 2 infestors is good enough to stop any harass because creep spread+overlords show everything, and infested terran+fungal stops everything. 5. This is the thing that is probably confusing Blizzard right now. Players like DRG and Leenock can still rape with muta ling bling, but other zergs are too busy loling their way to victory with infestors.
seems like u took my advice and edited your post, wise move even though your still completly wrong.
1 protoss doesnt die to fungals alone..... they die to vortex. do you understand? fungals dont do anything to a protoss death ball once it has Mship. the main reason u make infestors in the late game against toss is to try and get a NP off on the Mship. once that happens u use the mship to waste all of the vortex energy on the Mship while ur broodlords do the rest of the work. fungals alone wont do that. if the Mship still has energy to vortex even once u really dont have a chance of winning unless the toss messes up some how.
2. hydras are buffed in HoTs. nothing has changed, there still useless.
3. lol. no there not. mutas are probally the best form of harassment zerg has. baneling drops with +2 atk has the potential to wipe an entire workerline from just 1 overlords worth. hell ive done it with just 2 banelings before.
4. that statement was just stupid. it doesnt stop everything because u can drop at multiple bases. overlord spread can be stoped with just 1 or 2 vikings. also the more infestors u have defending ur bases the less of them u have out on the field. the point of harassing is to keep doing it. 1 -2 infestors will NOT stop multiple drop harrase attempts.
5. what makes winning with infestors any different from winning with mutas? that makes no sense.
I can't believe anyone is still dense/biased enough to not see the problem here. 1. Infestors serve every conceivable role against protoss: anti-air, dps, defence, and broodlord support. Not just neuralling mothership. Also, I find it funny that a zerg is saying "unless the toss messes up somehow". Pros and normal players alike have all expressed their frustration at how a single missed moment against zerg results in your loss. Do you have some trouble using chain fungals or anything? Last I checked it roots everything to the ground, can stack, and is supported by broodlords which fire a wall of living units that also deal dps.
2. We are saying hydras can be buffed to compensate for anti air. Just to make it so that the infestor does not fill every single niche.
3. So what? So you prove that the rest of the zerg units are not, in fact, "garbage without infestors"? Thanks.
4. Do you have some problem making static D?
5. Muta-ling-bling takes skill to use. It is impressive to watch. It may be more fun to play (not sure, I don't play zerg, but how is a spell that roots nonstop make it more fun for the player?)
If you really insist on being like that, so be it. Just make sure to get ready your nerf-helmet for the inevitable nerf-bat.
I will end off with a question for you: You find fungal fun to watch? Seriously?
1. Protoss of cause would complain about the slow death of fungal and broodlords but zerg complains about the one archon toilet = instant gg moment as well. In terms of Late game, both zerg and protoss complain about how one mistake can cost the game, lucky vortex or lucky neural It's frustrating for both sides.
2. If anything, infestors is not the reason why Toss stopped going for mid game air. Hydra doesn't work except for double stargates due to colossus switch. Unless that is like a huge upgrade like speed upgrade in Lair tech.
33. The rest of the zerg units are not "garbage" in terms of their role, they are garbage in terms of winning against a deathball. Without infestors, we would go back to zerg going all in low econ roach hydra corruptor against P deathball and we have seen enough games of how Zerg just loses despite 5 bases vs bases.
4. You can't go heavy statistics D until you have good econ running, you have to rely on infestors lings until your econ is at a relatively good level.
5. Infestors ling broodlords also take skill to use, just a different kind of skill and mindset. Muta certainly feels more fun to play and watch. But many toss would tell you how annoying and frustrating it was to play against a muta Zerg and then we had the phenoix buff which wasn't needed because Toss had figured out how to deal with it.
I will also ask you if Protoss deathball is even fun to watch? Or Forcefields and lazers and mass warp ins? Not saying that fungal is good but Protoss isn't all that impressive either. At least in terms of deathball, I reckon both are extremely equal. And in terms of overall strategies, nothing feels more abusive than warpgate tech and FFs
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
u cant see infestors coming? hmm i wonder why that is.
can i ask something to all the terrans out there. if detection is seriously THAT much of a problem to you why not make at the very least ONE raven? just one. why? im not going to even mention scans because i know alot of terrans are going to say "IT WASTES A MULE OMG!" despite most terrans having massive ammounts of orbitals anyway. anyway it makes no sense to me. hunter seekers are actually pretty good against broods since they cant run away from them that easily.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
u cant see infestors coming? hmm i wonder why that is.
can i ask something to all the terrans out there. if detection is seriously THAT much of a problem to you why not make at the very least ONE raven? just one. why? makes no sense to me. hunter seekers are actually pretty good against broods since they cant run away from them that easily.
Yeah and terrans will totally tech raven energy and seeker missiles just for that ONE raven (which sets your army strength back immensely.) Suck on your big fat nerfstick, ohhh yeah ohh.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
u cant see infestors coming? hmm i wonder why that is.
can i ask something to all the terrans out there. if detection is seriously THAT much of a problem to you why not make at the very least ONE raven? just one. why? makes no sense to me. hunter seekers are actually pretty good against broods since they cant run away from them that easily.
Yeah and terrans will totally tech raven energy and seeker missiles just for that ONE raven (which sets your army strength back immensely.) Suck on your big fat nerfstick, ohhh yeah ohh.
LOL why would u tech raven energy and missles for one raven? bro im talking about for detection only u can make 1 raven. and if u want to MASS multiple ammounts of ravens (in other words fully dedicate to them) then im saying that hunter seekers are pretty good. 1 raven is not going to hurt u bro sense u claim to not see infestors coming at you ffs -_-
if u cant see infestors coming then use scan or ravens, if u cant then well sucks hard to be you. have fun with ur marines annihilated simply because "we cant see infestors"
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
u cant see infestors coming? hmm i wonder why that is.
can i ask something to all the terrans out there. if detection is seriously THAT much of a problem to you why not make at the very least ONE raven? just one. why? makes no sense to me. hunter seekers are actually pretty good against broods since they cant run away from them that easily.
Yeah and terrans will totally tech raven energy and seeker missiles just for that ONE raven (which sets your army strength back immensely.) Suck on your big fat nerfstick, ohhh yeah ohh.
LOL why would u tech raven energy and missles for one raven? bro im talking about for detection only u can make 1 raven. and if u want to MASS multiple ammounts of ravens (in other words fully dedicate to them) then im saying that hunter seekers are pretty good.
I have seen a few players get a single raven out with their port before switching into medivac production/viking production...but then it usually gets fungaled and dies, lol.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
u cant see infestors coming? hmm i wonder why that is.
can i ask something to all the terrans out there. if detection is seriously THAT much of a problem to you why not make at the very least ONE raven? just one. why? makes no sense to me. hunter seekers are actually pretty good against broods since they cant run away from them that easily.
Yeah and terrans will totally tech raven energy and seeker missiles just for that ONE raven (which sets your army strength back immensely.) Suck on your big fat nerfstick, ohhh yeah ohh.
LOL why would u tech raven energy and missles for one raven? bro im talking about for detection only u can make 1 raven. and if u want to MASS multiple ammounts of ravens (in other words fully dedicate to them) then im saying that hunter seekers are pretty good.
I have seen a few players get a single raven out with their port before switching into medivac production/viking production...but then it usually gets fungaled and dies, lol.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
Ballistixz, you lost all credibility in this thread when you said that you can split vs fungal. If you are a zerg, you should know yourself how retarded it is to split vs fungal. It utterly, almost impossible to split vs fungal. How can you even compare baneling split and fungal split? The AOE is much bigger, can be cast twice, and instant.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
Ballistixz, you lost all credibility in this thread when you said that you can split vs fungal. If you are a zerg, you should know yourself how retarded it is to split vs fungal. It utterly, almost impossible to split vs fungal. How can you even compare baneling split and fungal split? The AOE is much bigger, can be cast twice, and instant.
Just make fungal a 90% slow -.-
pre splitting ur marines to weaken fungal is retarded? you would rather clump them up? ok then. clearly uve never watched a zvz where players with less infestors split there roaches in order to do more damage to a player that has more infestors.
I will end off with a question for you: You find fungal fun to watch? Seriously?
Yes! that moment when terran player sends an army of clumped marines and they suddenly green and exploding to bloody shreds at the same time...delicious.
anyway, what I'd like to see is increased EMP effect on biological units. It's also reasonable to decrease their hit points, mages are supposed to be softer. I don't see any need to nerf fungal or infested terran though. Zerg still requires a decent mage to control the battle but if they go with the EMP buff and hit point decrease, players won't like to mass too many of them.
I actually feel that they should also be slower too (along with reduced HP). Seeing infestors being caught out of position over and over again, but it is so hard to punish those mistakes because of their high speed, high HP, burrow capability, and fungal capability to escape. I'm fine with there being an escape abilities, but that has to come at the cost of movement speed and HP so that if they can still be punished for being controlled poorly.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
With banelings, you can reactively split. If you see banelings roll at you, you can split your units. With infestors, anytime you so much as move, you have to resplit your marines. Fungal is basically a range 9 baneling, there is zero reactive micro. Either you were split while moving or you just lost the game. With banelings, you can react, and that is exciting to see. If you get hit by banelings, that is your own fault. If you get hit with fungal...well.. there was almost no chance to stop that.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
Ballistixz, you lost all credibility in this thread when you said that you can split vs fungal. If you are a zerg, you should know yourself how retarded it is to split vs fungal. It utterly, almost impossible to split vs fungal. How can you even compare baneling split and fungal split? The AOE is much bigger, can be cast twice, and instant.
Just make fungal a 90% slow -.-
Lol what? I can give you replays of kids on the master ladder presplitting ALL the time before I start to fungal.
With banelings, you can reactively split. If you see banelings roll at you, you can split your units. With infestors, anytime you so much as move, you have to resplit your marines. Fungal is basically a range 9 baneling, there is zero reactive micro. Either you were split while moving or you just lost the game. With banelings, you can react, and that is exciting to see. If you get hit by banelings, that is your own fault. If you get hit with fungal...well.. there was almost no chance to stop that.
its done in zvz with roaches. infact i do it all the time. i dont understand why its so hard for terrans to do it. that makes no sense what so ever. you KNOW he has infestors. why the hell not split?
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
Ballistixz, you lost all credibility in this thread when you said that you can split vs fungal. If you are a zerg, you should know yourself how retarded it is to split vs fungal. It utterly, almost impossible to split vs fungal. How can you even compare baneling split and fungal split? The AOE is much bigger, can be cast twice, and instant.
Just make fungal a 90% slow -.-
pre splitting ur marines to weaken fungal is retarded? you would rather clump them up? ok then. clearly uve never watched a zvz where players with less infestors split there roaches in order to do more damage to a player that has more infestors.
well presplitting different, anyone can do that. I though you were regarding splitting in mid combat. Regarding the roach thing, rarely that makes a major difference. In most ZvZ, when it a roach infestor war, it all about finding the concave and then just fungaling the other person concave to death.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
maybe because you can actually see the banelings come.
one could argue you can see the infestors coming
fungal is instant cast, 9 range for dead center and a little more range if you consider its AOE area
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
Ballistixz, you lost all credibility in this thread when you said that you can split vs fungal. If you are a zerg, you should know yourself how retarded it is to split vs fungal. It utterly, almost impossible to split vs fungal. How can you even compare baneling split and fungal split? The AOE is much bigger, can be cast twice, and instant.
Just make fungal a 90% slow -.-
pre splitting ur marines to weaken fungal is retarded? you would rather clump them up? ok then. clearly uve never watched a zvz where players with less infestors split there roaches in order to do more damage to a player that has more infestors.
You can pre splitting marines when you're not moving around constantly. How the hell can terran moving to Zerg bases w/o knowing what's coming for them? Zerg knows where T is, but T can't because thanks god for the fucking creep spread. There're so many problem with splitting marines, yes you can split them, but no sometimes with the vision range of T is shorter than Zerg due to creep tumor ok?
And btw don't even compare Roaches with marines, roaches don't die instantly to baneling but marines do.
This thread is turning into what I initially thought about the title : "Rock" is whining how imba "Paper" is while saying "Scissors" are in gd shape.
After all these months, I think it will be fun to see infestor go back to the stage of pre-TSL3, so that we can see how clueless the old zergs are.
In fact, zergs nowadays mainly use infestor as a deathball units which in theory is vulnerable to flanking, but the speedlings and creeps just prevent that in the current Meta game.
On November 12 2012 02:41 Melaine wrote: Fungle has been nerfed several times over the years......I don't understand the fuss.....Terran+protoss had their flavor of the month op, terran was op for 2 years and we had only Terran Gsl's, zerg has few months of great results......and people cry like mad???
This is the only Gsl season code s out of years and many seasons that we finnaly have alot of zergs in the group....and its not because of infestor.....infestors were the same as they were last year and zergs were losing.....only change was the Korean Zergs got better........you guys act like they did a major buff on infestors and all the sudden they are op.
Such silly things people choose to cry about just because their race is losing. I'm surprised Team Liquid puts up with the mass infestor posts and does not start deleting most of them.
im surprised you can be so frustrated when the majority of people on this website especially the older players with more RTS experience would tell you that the infestor is bad for Sc2 and bad for esports.
if you truly love the zerg race you will understand that they might have to nerf your "support caster" to fill it's role as a support caster and pick up the slack in other areas zerg lacks like harass lategame and unit efficiency without infestor support.
My post is not "frustrated" it's just stupid and dumb what people in America choose to cry over, When the GSL casters themselfs and tons of Korean pros have stated, that zerg is strong right now because of the player not because of infestors.
People just seem to want to cry over every little thing, last year it was "Protoss is op vs terran" and then mvp showed you people how to play and the crying went away.
If infestors are so "op" then why was zerg losing all last year??? Infestor was the same last year as it is now?? All I see is the PLAYER getting better in South Korean, and people in other places just seem want to cry about it instead of trying to get better. Last year we had mostly Protoss and Terrans in Code s, Now its still Terrans, and zerg picked up the slack.....All I see is Players getting better, and the intro of Kespa skill.....
Maybe the Zergs finally figured it out?
No, the man is correct about infestors.
Infestors were never the problem, the new 5 range queens are.
5 range Queens barely affect PvZ. What actually happened was Zergs figured stuff out and realised that Infestors are broken as hell.
Massive use of Infested Terrans has only started within the last year or so, right? So yep ... Zerg finally figured it out that they can get free units for just 25 energy and that they can use them to tear down bases with zero risk involved for example.
On November 12 2012 09:09 Dunmer wrote: Buff feedback against psionic, hence dealing with infestors/ghosts and nerf it against everything else.
i swear to god ill be so fucking mad if blizzard ends up buffing snipe and feedback, that would screw tvp up
I didn't mean to change snipe at all, sorry if that was unclear. I mean to change feedback the way snipe was to that it is in fact buffed against infestors and nerfed against regular units.
If you buff Feedback you dont buff it against Infestors only. TERRIBLE idea because Feedback is too good already by making Thors and Ravens and Battlecruisers useless in a TvP.
----
What the people who list tournament wins and statistics are totally forget is that winning isnt everything and watching is very important. As a viewer of tournaments I think that seeing masses of fungaled units unable to move is a terrible thing ... in such a game of "high speed action". The same is true for masses of Banelings rolling into a bunch of Terran infantry and then exploding in a big blob of green ... and if there are still most of the Zerglings and Banelings alive people just say "sucks to be you Terran; learn to split". The thing is that micro *should be* required from the attacker and not the defender to keep the fights fair, since the attacker is already choosing the most advantageous position for him to fight in.
Terrans can screw themselves over ... stimming too much? sieging and unsieging at the wrong time? spread out your units too much and you die to Zergling/Baneling piecemeal, keep them together and you get fungaled and banelinged. Where is the point where Zerg screw themselves? If Blizzard could add some "price" to the Infestor abilities - like the immobility of the Siege Tank is the price for its attack or the hit points lost is the price for stimming - then it wouldnt be as bad if Infestor abilities are powerful.
Suggestion: 1. Remove Neural Parasite and replace it with "Consume" from the Defiler (ratio of energy should be "cost in minerals of the unit reduced by the amount of hp missing"). 2. Increase the energy cost for Fungal to 125 (like Seeker Missile) and Infested Terran to 50 (like autoturret). This would keep the abilities as they are and make them less spammable "for free". The research for Consume needs to be late.
Ugh you zergs. Ballistic, I thank you for replying to my post level-headedly, even if I don't agree with your points. Splitting marines takes far more effort to do than a moving banelings or fungal. The protoss deathball has not worked since the beginning of 2012; not since Stephano invented the much maligned 13 minute roach remax. Protoss is now a plethora of coin flippy allins.
I'm sorry, but really, infestor-broodlord is downright ridiculous no matter how you look at it. The number of pros who agree are ever growing. I'd say brace yourselves for the nerfs. I for one look forward to a ZvX late game which is less boring in the future. For now, skipping every single ZvX game. It's dumb and retarded how any one tiny mistake from a P/T or even a Z in a ZvZ results in insta-losses thanks to fungal.
On November 12 2012 15:42 Ballistixz wrote: FYI, if you split your units you can significantly weaken the ammount of damage fungal does to ur army. if u clump marines together, its ur fault if u lose 20-30 of them to fungals. you split against banelings so why not fungals?
You have some reaction time against banelings, against fungal an instant spell, there isn't much you can do. You also can't always expect to position and move your marines where fungal is wasted - in other words, due to the pathing and speed of the game fungal will almost always be cost-effective even if you play extremely well with 600APM. The times it isn't cost effective is in low numbers (early game, or, late-late game).
All they have to do to fix fungal is remove the root. You can keep it instant speed. You can keep the damage the same, it's just the goddamn root that makes it so unbelievably good. You know if you even get hit with one fungal you might as well say goodbye to those units - which is pretty piss poor design. It entirely removes micro from the equation and the game mechanics punish the opposing player even more due to the pathing.
Would agree with those saying the queen buff is also a significant factor in zergs recent successes. It is an absolutely ginormous buff to zerg early game vT (and thus the whole game). It changed the shape of the matchup forever into a far more boring one as well.
Also, to ballistic who says you don't enjoy forcefields, colossi or vortex:
Forcefields still require more skill than fungal. They can be a double edged sword if not placed down perfectly. They require apm, and is not a guaranteed trap against a smart opponent. Fungal traps regardless of, well, anything. It just traps. FF also allows for sick micro like burrow or medivac pickups. Not to mention smart tactics like using massive units to break ff walls early (this is a highly prevalent strategy in PvP).
Colossi, granted, are another stupid unit, but they have to be babysat and have hard counters. Tell me, how exactly do you hard counter infestors? The versatility of colossi (or lack thereof) does not begin to compare with infestors.
Vortex is another one of those abilities that restrict micro, and unlike ff it is guaranteed. However there is one more factor at play here: the caster itself. The mothership is slow, expensive, large, inconspicuous, and the cast range for vortex is extremely short. Granted that the vortex is a stupid coin flippy mechanic designed to counter broodlords, and I would take any option over it, but still, fungal is way easier and to pull off.
I understand you seem to be trying to promote the idea that the game is fundamentally designed badly; I would agree to a slight extent. However it doesn't mean infestors are fine now. As I've said before, I wouldn't mind zerg dominating if zerg games were actually interesting to watch. Infestor/blord= a skillless unit comp every game, and that bores the shit out of me. The game is both unwatchable and unplayable when there are zergs in it. You agree that you don't like watching fungal, hence, wouldn't a change in the spell be the ideal solution for all of us? It's a win-win. If hydras and ultras (the only 'bad' units in the zerg arsenal; I don't buy the thought that "all zerg units are shit except infestors) were buffed to compensate, I'm sure the game would be more interesting and balanced and fun to play as a whole.
Fungals are bad enough, but I don't recall anyone mentioning that ITs have a ridiculous effective range of 14,
In ZvT, once infestors sneak into a base, they're like dts with 14 range. If you happen to not look at where the eggs came from, the possible locations of infestors lie in a circle of radius 14 around the egg locations, expanding at the speed of burrowed infestors. I've see many GSL games where infestors do their damage and remain hidden even after the opponent checks with multiple scans.
In ZvP, force fields don't mean much (although force field is a stupid spell) against 14 effective range; tanks only have 13 range and are good against force fields. I've seen many GSL games where the protoss casts force fields to defend 3rd, but eggs fly in from 9 range and hatch into ITs with 5 range, still doing a lot of damage. During late game, infestors are difficult to reach assuming the Zerg player is competent at taking advantage of the 14 effective range.
Nerf IT casting range to 5 would seem reasonable. 10 effective range is still quite long. Of course, if this is too much of a nerf, then buff other units. The point is to make infestors not 10 times more appealing than any other Zerg unit in most situations.
As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
How do you emp when you're supposed to keep them at the back? Also, one emp hits how many infestors? Also, if your ghosts die, now what? GG right? If you're such a genius, do try it, post some replays.
As I read from another post somewhere on TL, this ghost thing has been asked far too many times without listening to the answers.
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
How do you emp when you're supposed to keep them at the back? Also, one emp hits how many infestors? Also, if your ghosts die, now what? GG right? If you're such a genius, do try it, post some replays.
As I read from another post somewhere on TL, this ghost thing has been asked far too many times without listening to the answers.
This kind of goes back to effective range of ITs (14).
I don't like infestors but what about a different approach to nerfing them?
They are pretty strong already. What about buffing them even more and making them expensive and/or cost more supply? That way they could become a support unit, like HT. Right now, they can fulfill the role of a core unit in many compositions.
Yeah if they nerf fungal, we'll see a huge drop of zergs in tournaments (should I remind some of you that zergs arent dominating as hard as everyone is saying? Guys like Stephano, Life, Leenock, outplay their opponents, HARD, I'm not saying I know everything about balance, but damn, it took 10 months of a HUUUUGE terran domination for Blizzard to move, now that zergs finally win a good proportion of recent high level tournaments, the world is suddenly ending). I do think the projectile fungal might be good, but other than that zerg rely absolutely on infestors due to our race "flow", siege tanks, colossus, force fields, zerg has 0, absolutely 0 control (also talking about "space control" granted for high range AOE units) except for fungal. And it is also the only way for zergs to stop air without commiting to hydras who are a shitty unit (yeah Stephano made them work one fucking game, and it was such a non sense that he had to make a joke about it), I'm not taking in a design perspective, I do think fungal is quite dumb, just like forcefields, it's not good gameplay / esport, but at the moment it is necessary, maybe if they tweak swarm host, buff hydras for HotS, we could avoid having fungals, or simply as some sort of AOE poison + slow instead of a lockdown, but people crying for OP OP OP ZERG are really blind if they think it's clearly imbalanced, dont know about you but I still see pros beating the shit ouf of zergs as good as them just because they're smart and they adapt to the current metagame, just like Nestea managed to beat well executed 2 raxx scv all ins when no one else could in Korea ages ago. I understand the frustration of deeply thinking that the game is unbalanced, I felt that as a zerg and clearly 28 patches proved me right, but at the stage we're at? Game is fairly balanced, and even if it's only "fairly", people have to show patience because to actually fix it without ruining the pro scene is a really hard thing to do right now, look at how a simple buff on the queen shifted the metagame and tournament results... Patience ffs
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
How do you emp when you're supposed to keep them at the back? Also, one emp hits how many infestors? Also, if your ghosts die, now what? GG right? If you're such a genius, do try it, post some replays.
As I read from another post somewhere on TL, this ghost thing has been asked far too many times without listening to the answers.
ok, the context is super late game with lategame zerg with infestor versus midgame terran with complete upgrades.
ghosts also have this ability named "cloak. You can sneak to the infestor line to throw down those EMPs. You are also free to scan to check if an overseer. Now that is something you can do. You can't afford to lose ghosts yes, as zerg players can't afford to lose infestors.
More importantly, infestor rich armies can't be anywhere at once. You should take advantage of this. People like you are always assuming the outcome of a game is all big front battles. Remember, a broodlord army, is a higher tier army than your marine-tank-medivac-marauder. You can't expect to win a face to face fight if you have this kind of army. You should be threatening his economy and his tech.
Its easy to say, just learn to play!! Think! But that would give me a ban/warning so. There it is.
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
Terran use ghosts en masse against protos. They are really used alot, so we got experience how to use them. Did you ever consider we tried to use them against zerg but it just doesnt work? Zerg can have pretty much infinite detection out, there is no sniping that, so they also dont have to keep them back to prevent their detection from being sniped. One fungal and your ghosts are all dead, not to mention those ghosts have to survive past the broodling walls created by the broodlords and the IT walls by the infestors.
ghosts also have this ability named "cloak. You can sneak to the infestor line to throw down those EMPs. You are also free to scan to check if an overseer
And why exactly in the late game wouldnt the zerg have 10 of this unit called 'overseer' above his army?
But what you are saying is that zerg should autowin against terran, because zerg had higher tier army, the terran higher tier army isnt particulary great, so since zerg has higher tier they should win. Good to know.
But since you are obviously such a great player who can tell us we should just learn to play, why dont you upload a replay how it went for you?
More importantly, infestor rich armies can't be anywhere at once
They dont need to be, a single infestor shuts down drops in a base completely.
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
How do you emp when you're supposed to keep them at the back? Also, one emp hits how many infestors? Also, if your ghosts die, now what? GG right? If you're such a genius, do try it, post some replays.
As I read from another post somewhere on TL, this ghost thing has been asked far too many times without listening to the answers.
ok, the context is super late game with lategame zerg with infestor versus midgame terran with complete upgrades.
ghosts also have this ability named "cloak. You can sneak to the infestor line to throw down those EMPs. You are also free to scan to check if an overseer. Now that is something you can do. You can't afford to lose ghosts yes, as zerg players can't afford to lose infestors.
More importantly, infestor rich armies can't be anywhere at once. You should take advantage of this. People like you are always assuming the outcome of a game is all big front battles. Remember, a broodlord army, is a higher tier army than your marine-tank-medivac-marauder. You can't expect to win a face to face fight if you have this kind of army. You should be threatening his economy and his tech.
Its easy to say, just learn to play!! Think! But that would give me a ban/warning so. There it is.
Think about this.
Pro players, meaning people that have increadibly insight in the game, all agree that there are situations where the Infestor is too strong. Even Zerg pro's accept this proposition. This situation is way beyond us diamond/master players to insightfull comment about.
On November 12 2012 18:49 Csong wrote: If infestors gets nerfed protoss is going to dominate both zerg and terran.
ya some master zerg who heavily rely on infestors play will drop to diamond but the win rate will still be 50%. Korean zerg will continue to dominate, players like DRG and Leenock are very good in mid game aggressive builds. Infestors are like bonus to Life, but his skills allow him to win games easily. toss dont dominate terran, it is quite a balance match up. End game protoss dont auto win against terran.
But i do agree zergs need some form of defense against immortal all in. If blizzard can nerf/change infestors in a very reasonable way, maybe they can more accessible in the early mid game. who knows. At least some change are coming
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
How do you emp when you're supposed to keep them at the back? Also, one emp hits how many infestors? Also, if your ghosts die, now what? GG right? If you're such a genius, do try it, post some replays.
As I read from another post somewhere on TL, this ghost thing has been asked far too many times without listening to the answers.
ok, the context is super late game with lategame zerg with infestor versus midgame terran with complete upgrades.
ghosts also have this ability named "cloak. You can sneak to the infestor line to throw down those EMPs. You are also free to scan to check if an overseer. Now that is something you can do. You can't afford to lose ghosts yes, as zerg players can't afford to lose infestors.
More importantly, infestor rich armies can't be anywhere at once. You should take advantage of this. People like you are always assuming the outcome of a game is all big front battles. Remember, a broodlord army, is a higher tier army than your marine-tank-medivac-marauder. You can't expect to win a face to face fight if you have this kind of army. You should be threatening his economy and his tech.
Its easy to say, just learn to play!! Think! But that would give me a ban/warning so. There it is.
Think about this.
Pro players, meaning people that have increadibly insight in the game, all agree that there are situations where the Infestor is too strong. Even Zerg pro's accept this proposition. This situation is way beyond us diamond/master players to insightfull comment about.
While generally pros will have more insight in the game, you dont need to be a pro to understand the dynamics. As an example: I understand fine how I should split my marines perfectly against banelings, I just cant do it myself.
And second, I can comment how it is on the ladder: infestors, infestors everywhere. Nice if we can watch tournaments that dont revolve around 40 infestors in an army, but also at my level (diamond) I wish there was more than infestors going on.
For the zergs who still claim everything is fine and we should just adapt, I wished you adapted to queens with normal range so we wouldnt now be stuck with stupid range queens. But dont worry, I adapted to the new metagame where zerg absolutely dominates all late game play. And I am pretty sure I am not the only one who adapted this way: when the map allows it I simply 2 rax every zerg opponent I get. Not perfect, but works quite reasonable.
On November 12 2012 18:49 Csong wrote: If infestors gets nerfed protoss is going to dominate both zerg and terran.
Unless blizzard decides to be smart (and awesome) and nerf infestor but buff zerg in other areas to compensate, so that zerg doesn't HAVE to go infestors to win games.
if they nerf the infestor but make hydras much better by comparison wouldn't that be the optimal solution? it would make an imba unit less imba and an unused unit useful
I really don't understand how people can compare fungal with siegetanks, forcefield or colossi.. it's obvious that they've never played against 25 infestors. I've read here that Leenock has outplayed HARD, and i would say to you that is wrong.. infestors have outplayed, not Leenock or every other player that abuse of this unit, because making 30 infestors is an absurd abuse, it's like cheating.. and they win a lot of money..
Really, let's compare fungal with forcefield (I really don't like ForceField, they're one of the main problem of protoss):
ForceField:
- Can be Dodged - Requires Skill to be useful - Strong in early-mid game - Less useful when the supply grows - If used poorly they advantage the opponent
Fungal:
- Can't be dodged, u have to pre-split army.. and u will be just covered by eggs - No skill involved to use, Life fungals are pretty the same of mine.. and I don't play zerg - Strong from the first infestor till the end of game - Chain fungal just win a game for you
Two bad designed spells, but one is tollerable.. the other is pretty disgusting, and this is not a problem of mine.. I play at a low level (Master EU), I can win against zerg.. I don't like to be forced to a 2 base allin every game but I can win.. the problem is, when in a tournament there's a XvZ I just leave the stream.. at 90% I know how the game will be won by infestors, or on the other hand, there will be an allin to stop the zerg.
And for the god sake, zergs aren't forced to get 30 infestors to win, they've played decently for 1 year before a stupid patch brought to you this op unit, the entire zerg metagame is a huge abuse to reach bl/infestor because is nearly unstoppable.. and zerg players should blame blizzard for that, not getting undeserved leagues and troll people on ladder. I hope that patchzergs will return where they deserve to be.
On November 12 2012 16:53 xAdra wrote: Ugh you zergs. Ballistic, I thank you for replying to my post level-headedly, even if I don't agree with your points. Splitting marines takes far more effort to do than a moving banelings or fungal. The protoss deathball has not worked since the beginning of 2012; not since Stephano invented the much maligned 13 minute roach remax. Protoss is now a plethora of coin flippy allins.
What has 12 min roach ling max to do with any protoss deathball? The 12min roach ling max is just good against fast third bases and can now be hold with a fast third base and immortal sentry.
Imho nerfing the infestor gives us some problems: - Can Zerg still beat the colossi voidray ball? (Even if it is not used at the moment, it could come back) - Can Zerg hold late sentry immortal allins? - Can Zerg go anything else than Muta in ZvZ? - Can Zerg still hold lategame terran armies?
There are probably some more problems but especially the ZvZ one probably prevents the fungal=missle as Mutas are one of the fastest units in the game.
I feel that making larger (massive?) units less affected by fungal would be a first thing, perhaps a 50% slowdown instead. It would make carriers more useful in late PvZ at least.. I dont mind either projectile on fungal, smaller IT range or more visible burrow movement. But if they add all three changes (or even two) at the same time I think they might be overdoing it. Slightly more visible burrow movement and projectile for fungal seems a good middle road to take.
On November 12 2012 19:20 TeveT wrote: I feel that making larger (massive?) units less affected by fungal would be a first thing, perhaps a 50% slowdown instead. It would make carriers more useful in late PvZ at least.. I dont mind either projectile on fungal, smaller IT range or more visible burrow movement. But if they add all three changes (or even two) at the same time I think they might be overdoing it. Slightly more visible burrow movement and projectile for fungal seems a good middle road to take.
That is not enough. Fungal should have no root effect as well and infestor size should be smaller, so they take more splash dmg. With the last 5 major tournaments taken by zerg, no amount of nerf would be overdoing it.
On November 12 2012 19:20 TeveT wrote: I feel that making larger (massive?) units less affected by fungal would be a first thing, perhaps a 50% slowdown instead. It would make carriers more useful in late PvZ at least.. I dont mind either projectile on fungal, smaller IT range or more visible burrow movement. But if they add all three changes (or even two) at the same time I think they might be overdoing it. Slightly more visible burrow movement and projectile for fungal seems a good middle road to take.
That is not enough. Fungal should have no root effect as well and infestor size should be smaller, so they take more splash dmg. With the last 5 major tournaments taken by zerg, no amount of nerf would be overdoing it.
Last 5 major tournaments taken by zerg? Am i missing a couple or something? If we look at liquipedia we got the last 5 tournaments 2 zerg, 2 protoss and 1 terran.
On November 12 2012 18:49 Csong wrote: If infestors gets nerfed protoss is going to dominate both zerg and terran.
Unless blizzard decides to be smart (and awesome) and nerf infestor but buff zerg in other areas to compensate, so that zerg doesn't HAVE to go infestors to win games.
I feel this tale "without infestors Zerg can't win" need to be changed.."without infestors Zerg can't steal" seems fair enough.
On November 12 2012 16:53 xAdra wrote: Ugh you zergs. Ballistic, I thank you for replying to my post level-headedly, even if I don't agree with your points. Splitting marines takes far more effort to do than a moving banelings or fungal. The protoss deathball has not worked since the beginning of 2012; not since Stephano invented the much maligned 13 minute roach remax. Protoss is now a plethora of coin flippy allins.
What has 12 min roach ling max to do with any protoss deathball? The 12min roach ling max is just good against fast third bases and can now be hold with a fast third base and immortal sentry.
Imho nerfing the infestor gives us some problems: - Can Zerg still beat the colossi voidray ball? (Even if it is not used at the moment, it could come back) - Can Zerg hold late sentry immortal allins? - Can Zerg go anything else than Muta in ZvZ? - Can Zerg still hold lategame terran armies?
There are probably some more problems but especially the ZvZ one probably prevents the fungal=missle as Mutas are one of the fastest units in the game.
can they go anything other than muta?
Once I saw your tag at the bottom it all made sense tho
On November 12 2012 16:53 xAdra wrote: Ugh you zergs. Ballistic, I thank you for replying to my post level-headedly, even if I don't agree with your points. Splitting marines takes far more effort to do than a moving banelings or fungal. The protoss deathball has not worked since the beginning of 2012; not since Stephano invented the much maligned 13 minute roach remax. Protoss is now a plethora of coin flippy allins.
What has 12 min roach ling max to do with any protoss deathball? The 12min roach ling max is just good against fast third bases and can now be hold with a fast third base and immortal sentry.
Imho nerfing the infestor gives us some problems: - Can Zerg still beat the colossi voidray ball? (Even if it is not used at the moment, it could come back) - Can Zerg hold late sentry immortal allins? - Can Zerg go anything else than Muta in ZvZ? - Can Zerg still hold lategame terran armies?
There are probably some more problems but especially the ZvZ one probably prevents the fungal=missle as Mutas are one of the fastest units in the game.
can they go anything other than muta?
The problem is that Mutas can run around Queens, static defense and Hydras without Infestor support. If you, for example make Fungal a Missle, Mutas can just evade it without losing much. This means that both Zerg go Muta Ling until one of them thinks his flock of Mutas is larger and attacks. The problem with this is the following: Just imagine you had to fight Viking vs Viking battles but with still Viking Flowers intact. It is very, very difficult to guess how many Mutas are in a flock.
Of course, there could be some cyclic countering going on (perhaps fast roach hydra 2 base attack) but that doesn't really improve the matchup.
And for the god sake, zergs aren't forced to get 30 infestors to win, they've played decently for 1 year before a stupid patch brought to you this op unit, the entire zerg metagame is a huge abuse to reach bl/infestor because is nearly unstoppable..
Yes, the played decently... if losing to toss Deathballs is what you call decent.
Just compare the way in which Ravens and Infestors have to be used. Ravens need to "get close" (and usually die) when using their abilities while Infestors are pretty safe with their super long casting range and even burrowed movement and the ability to cast their cheapest spell while burrowed. Added to this comes the "lockdown" of Fungal Growth and you basically have a terribly designed unit which can be very imbalancing in the game.
IMO the whole "free unit spawning" is a terrible idea. Sure it provides more "swarmyness", but it also gives the swarm race a superiority of numbers (no other race can get more than 200 food either) which is NOT made up for by the toughness of the units of the other two races. So Zerg needs to be toned down a lot to make the game more interesting.
And for the god sake, zergs aren't forced to get 30 infestors to win, they've played decently for 1 year before a stupid patch brought to you this op unit, the entire zerg metagame is a huge abuse to reach bl/infestor because is nearly unstoppable..
Yes, the played decently... if losing to toss Deathballs is what you call decent.
Then those deathballs are what need to be fixed ... instead of being replaced by another terribly overpowered concept. Just look around and you see complaints about "the deathball" as well, but sadly too many dumb people think that "ball" is the important part of that term and thus only limit their thinking to Terran bio-ball and Protoss deathballs. Its the absurd concentration of infantry units which is so terrible and the movement mechanics (plus the unlimited unit selection), but too many people dont understand that "less is more". The Infested Terrans can be cast in a super tight clump and much tighter than the comparable autoturret for instance. Thus the dps of the IT clump is MUCH higher than that of any autoturrets.
And for the god sake, zergs aren't forced to get 30 infestors to win, they've played decently for 1 year before a stupid patch brought to you this op unit, the entire zerg metagame is a huge abuse to reach bl/infestor because is nearly unstoppable..
Yes, the played decently... if losing to toss Deathballs is what you call decent.
The metagame was 3 base roach hydra corruptor against 3 base Stalker Sentry Colossi Void-Ray, no infestors (pre-buff) and no broodlord because they was "waste of resources" lol. And PvZ wasn't toss favoured at least not when zergs don't ragequit in face of fake void-rays , I'm sorry buddy the composition was just terrible. We're not removing infestors, just making a support spellcaster what it is supposed to be and not a fucking core unit that auto-win the game.
The reason why you did not go Broodlords was simple: You cant tech to them (you are dead long before) and you cant protect them with just roaches. It was not toss favored? Really? Get your facts straight. Toss won almost every game on 3 Bases. It was a common saying "Dont ever let toss get a 3rd base!". The best advise toss had to zerg? "Dont let us get a deathball" So please put your "facts" straight. The "terrible unit compostion" ist just terrible because your terrible colossi obliterated any ground army zerg could muster, so zerg was forced into an even more terrible unit just to kill colossi... and with 20 - 30 Supply in useless corruptors you just die to the Blinkstalker reinforcements. The infestor is a bandaid, admittedly a terrible one, but nonetheless a bandaid because most other zerg units just plain suck.
ghosts also have this ability named "cloak. You can sneak to the infestor line to throw down those EMPs. You are also free to scan to check if an overseer And why exactly in the late game wouldnt the zerg have 10 of this unit called 'overseer' above his army?
But what you are saying is that zerg should autowin against terran, because zerg had higher tier army, the terran higher tier army isnt particulary great, so since zerg has higher tier they should win. Good to know.
But since you are obviously such a great player who can tell us we should just learn to play, why dont you upload a replay how it went for you?
More importantly, infestor rich armies can't be anywhere at once
They dont need to be, a single infestor shuts down drops in a base completely.
Zerg wouldn't like to make 10 overseers because the gas is needed for more important things. Like more broodlords, infestors and air upgrades later on. Hey, but its not a very bad idea since it takes no supply. But at that point in the game, gas is really precious. May I ask, maybe you are not master's level? Sorry, not league bashing, because 10 overseers is 500 gas. I can't afford that. Because if not, from this point on, I won't be making any sense to you.
And what are you saying a single infestor shuts down drops in a base completely? Are you sure? You are doing a drop not for the sake of just doing damage. You do it because you make your opponent busy, so you can do something else (like expanding or buying time to get your army in a good position). If you drop for the sake of just killing some drones and killing a building, then the infestor can surely get it with a fungal and IT. In all other cases (infestor out of position, defending front), You can do the drop.
I'm not saying that zerg should autowin against terran. But when you are still producing marine/tank/medivac in the 20 minute mark, you don't expect to win a frontal assault battle, this is the highest tech of zerg we are talking about. You can't afford not to do something. sorry for the long reply though.
I would like fungal not to completely snare but rather slow, it would make it possible to retreat from chain fungals. But lucky ms core already brings ability to retreat for protoss in HOTS.
I would also like to see a change to broodlord to that 3 unupgraded broodlords can force a maxxed terran to flee for his life, possibly ad so that your marines can kill the broodlings before they reach the army
I think making fungal a projectile is the best choice here. Decreasing radius or range is just boring and by making it a projectile might also be best for the spectator, when players show perfect marinesplits to dodge or when infestors set up a trap etc.
On November 12 2012 20:36 Flummie wrote: I think making fungal a projectile is the best choice here. Decreasing radius or range is just boring and by making it a projectile might also be best for the spectator, when players show perfect marinesplits to dodge or when infestors set up a trap etc.
Why is decreasing the range "boring"? You can have the excitement of "will the Infestor life to fungal or die before it can do it?" just like for the Raven, because the only "counter" to a lockdown is "kill the caster before it can cast". Spreading out units does NOT count as a counter, because you are decreasing your own dps that way AND the movement mechanics of SC2 specifically clump all your units together.
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
1) When there are broodlords, the ghosts will be blocked by the broodlings. 2) EMP radius is sick small. Even if the zerg clumps up 15 infestors, you will only be able to emp a few, and you need 2 emps to drain all energy. Also: it's a mistake by the zerg to clump his infestors up, not a good move by the terran.
All we need is that the infestor to have a smaller impact on the game. That can be achieved with some of the suggested fixes. Only some zergs foresee the apocalypse because of that lol.
Just like terrans could not get over the EMP nerf that was obviously imba now zergs can't comprehend that the infestor infests this game.
On November 12 2012 20:27 Charon1979 wrote: The reason why you did not go Broodlords was simple: You cant tech to them (you are dead long before) and you cant protect them with just roaches. It was not toss favored? Really? Get your facts straight. Toss won almost every game on 3 Bases. It was a common saying "Dont ever let toss get a 3rd base!". The best advise toss had to zerg? "Dont let us get a deathball" So please put your "facts" straight. The "terrible unit compostion" ist just terrible because your terrible colossi obliterated any ground army zerg could muster, so zerg was forced into an even more terrible unit just to kill colossi... and with 20 - 30 Supply in useless corruptors you just die to the Blinkstalker reinforcements. The infestor is a bandaid, admittedly a terrible one, but nonetheless a bandaid because most other zerg units just plain suck.
You both right. If infestor was buffed to help deal with protoss deathballs and then it caused the metagame to change into the "rush to hive, get bl/inf, attak" style. Then both infestor and protoss deathball should be nerfed.
So far it seems Blizz has no idea what the fuck to do with deathball, so infestor will stay as it is. Maybe they nerf the IT or Fungal to air, cant imagine anything else before HoTS.
On November 12 2012 20:50 ceaRshaf wrote: All we need is that the infestor to have a smaller impact on the game. That can be achieved with some of the suggested fixes. Only some zergs foresee the apocalypse because of that lol.
Just like terrans could not get over the EMP nerf that was obviously imba now zergs can't comprehend that the infestor infests this game.
The ghost has way less of an impact and usage even before the EMP. Zerg needs infestor's in current state or something else need to be buffed (Hydra's please) or they will simply die midgame unless they go muta's every single game in the hope to delay the opponent to get broodlords up.
I find it funny that Z players are complaining that deathballs will become prominent when before Protoss were taking late as hell thirds (12/13 minute thirds) while constantly turtling, delaying their deathball forever. There were plenty of examples where I could have pointed out as to why a Z lost a certain match back then, and most of it was because Z players were not playing aggressive enough.
People for example were complaining that Idra losing to Cruncher was some big deal, when Idra clearly fucked up on Shakuras by attacking into some of the most idiotic positions ever. He never contested Cruncher's 3rd for example that he could have easily stopped, and never attempted to try anything different then standard max out Roach/Corrupter.
For example, if Idra didn't expend so much gas on stupid shit like Hydras he could have easily had air upgrades + Infestors (and back then Infestors were just fine, IT is just as good as it is now and FG was still a root). He didn't max out early on Roaches to deny the third despite the fact that Cruncher was playing a really risky build, and he didn't even Roach drop into Cruncher's main which would have severely hurt him big time. The complaint that "deathballs" would come back is just nonsense.
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
How do you emp when you're supposed to keep them at the back? Also, one emp hits how many infestors? Also, if your ghosts die, now what? GG right? If you're such a genius, do try it, post some replays.
As I read from another post somewhere on TL, this ghost thing has been asked far too many times without listening to the answers.
ok, the context is super late game with lategame zerg with infestor versus midgame terran with complete upgrades.
ghosts also have this ability named "cloak. You can sneak to the infestor line to throw down those EMPs. You are also free to scan to check if an overseer. Now that is something you can do. You can't afford to lose ghosts yes, as zerg players can't afford to lose infestors.
More importantly, infestor rich armies can't be anywhere at once. You should take advantage of this. People like you are always assuming the outcome of a game is all big front battles. Remember, a broodlord army, is a higher tier army than your marine-tank-medivac-marauder. You can't expect to win a face to face fight if you have this kind of army. You should be threatening his economy and his tech.
Its easy to say, just learn to play!! Think! But that would give me a ban/warning so. There it is.
I don't think it is as easy as you say.
1. Every good zerg has an overseer with their army. So cloaked ghost raids are shut down hard. 2. Yes, the main bulk of infestor/broodlord cannot be everywhere at once. But centrally placed, it does not take long for them to reach an outpost of your territory. Add in the fact that zerg sees an incoming attack before it arrives due to the creep and that you can stall the attack with one infestor and you see why some people are afraid to engage the zerg (assuming the army is centrally positioned). Should you be able to catch the army out of position and force some weird type of elimination race, there is the problem that the zerg army is incredibly cost efficient.
The points in 2. is why I believe protoss never try to run around the zerg army in the late game and try to get a money vortex. Even though it might not be successful very often, the odds are still higher.
On November 12 2012 21:03 superstartran wrote: I find it funny that Z players are complaining that deathballs will become prominent when before Protoss were taking late as hell thirds (12/13 minute thirds) while constantly turtling, delaying their deathball forever. There were plenty of examples where I could have pointed out as to why a Z lost a certain match back then, and most of it was because Z players were not playing aggressive enough.
People for example were complaining that Idra losing to Cruncher was some big deal, when Idra clearly fucked up on Shakuras by attacking into some of the most idiotic positions ever. He never contested Cruncher's 3rd for example that he could have easily stopped, and never attempted to try anything different then standard max out Roach/Corrupter.
haha, what? Your example is a bunch of foreigners?
On November 12 2012 17:33 GeorgeForeman wrote: As long as Terrans continue to refuse to made ANY ghosts, even in max-army situations with both players sitting on large banks, I refuse to get too worked up about a need to nerf infesters to "fix" TvZ. There are so many matches I see where the Terran would stand a far better chance of winning if they'd just build 5 ghosts. it requires extra micro to keep them at the back, but EMPing a clump of infestors can change the course of a battle.
How do you emp when you're supposed to keep them at the back? Also, one emp hits how many infestors? Also, if your ghosts die, now what? GG right? If you're such a genius, do try it, post some replays.
As I read from another post somewhere on TL, this ghost thing has been asked far too many times without listening to the answers.
ok, the context is super late game with lategame zerg with infestor versus midgame terran with complete upgrades.
ghosts also have this ability named "cloak. You can sneak to the infestor line to throw down those EMPs. You are also free to scan to check if an overseer. Now that is something you can do. You can't afford to lose ghosts yes, as zerg players can't afford to lose infestors.
More importantly, infestor rich armies can't be anywhere at once. You should take advantage of this. People like you are always assuming the outcome of a game is all big front battles. Remember, a broodlord army, is a higher tier army than your marine-tank-medivac-marauder. You can't expect to win a face to face fight if you have this kind of army. You should be threatening his economy and his tech.
Its easy to say, just learn to play!! Think! But that would give me a ban/warning so. There it is.
I don't think it is as easy as you say.
1. Every good zerg has an overseer with their army. So cloaked ghost raids are shut down hard. 2. Yes, the main bulk of infestor/broodlord cannot be everywhere at once. But centrally placed, it does not take long for them to reach an outpost of your territory. Add in the fact that zerg sees an incoming attack before it arrives due to the creep and that you can stall the attack with one infestor and you see why some people are afraid to engage the zerg (assuming the army is centrally positioned). Should you be able to catch the army out of position and force some weird type of elimination race, there is the problem that the zerg army is incredibly cost efficient.
The points in 2. is why I believe protoss never try to run around the zerg army in the late game and try to get a money vortex. Even though it might not be successful very often, the odds are still higher.
It's quite map dependent as well, maps with a lot of ledges on them make it harder to apply that approach. The Broods can slowly advance across the map and be safe from blinks and whatnot. Daybreak is a really clear example of this, there are tons of dead-spaces that the Broods can chill over that makes them really difficult to ever engage. They'll advance slowly yes, but eventually they'll get to your bases and your production and you have to engage them eventually.
The one thing I miss about Shattered Temple is that in PvZ it was one of the absolute best maps I've played in terms of skirting around a BL/Infestor ball. It had a really open middle ground, and you could blink up and around the ledges to the other bases with stalkers and the likes.
On November 12 2012 10:19 Tsuki.eu wrote: Fungal projectile is a useless nerf, we dont need fungal to be harder to use. We need fungal to be less good vs everything (and IT also)...
The idea is that would be less good vs everything, because you could actually micro against it.
For a pro player, projectile change wont matter much, after being used to it. (its not enough)
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
sure it does... nerf the Infestor and this gonna be how every zerg gonna die
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
Since people bitch about colossus/void ray, i'd like to point out that Z would rape it today without infestors. Both roach max (hello mondragon!) and roach into muta would destroy that build horribly.
In modern play, you just can't tech that much while taking a third, nor can you delay your third base for that long. Today, protoss starts teching as late as 11 minutes, so his composition will not be void ray/colossus heavy when he maxes out anyway. Back in the day 5+ colossi was common, now you see 3-4 with the first P max (in standard games).
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
Oh i agree Ryung played better today. But the problem with balancing is when you got a micro element (like lets say marines or sentries) and you compare a pro vs pro match to a less skilled match, you will notice ofc that the pro can simply do more with his units. So when you try to balance it for everyone you only make it arguably worse on the top lvl.
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
On November 12 2012 02:23 wangstra wrote: Personally I'm no longer interested or invested into what happens to infestors (or balance in general). What I do know is Blizzard has dug themselves into a hole.
They have not been consistent in the way they balance and their comments on infestors in particular have caused a lot of consternation. This reminds me of situation in WoW where for almost a year they refused to touch mage damage despite a lot of community action. When they finally conceded and made the change, it didn't matter. They were ridiculed and had lost respect.
I see the same situation happening here. When they do finally make a change, and rest assured they will, the uproar will be louder than the welcome.
Tbh i kind of agree with this, in WOW they were really ignoring the community in many cases. Than they started listening to the community more in cata but the community already hated them and was full of whine at every move, resulting in a more boring wow, little bit more balanced and with a community just as mad on balance. This is not the first time people are screaming at them and they aren't reacting, the 1/1/1 situation was exactly the same, it took them about 5 month to say "Oh, ok, you can have +1 range on immortal".
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
haven't u read any interview of those top Koreans ? They always compare the players skill even not the same race, and always said about it whenever talking about balance, i can't quote some but u can check them out.
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
There is no reason to assume that it couldnt be (reasonably) balanced across different levels. For example make a unit more micro-intensive to use, and it will be a larger nerf to casual players than to pros. So balance for all levels. And of course that isnt always easy, and it also wont always be possible. But you can at least try it.
But even if you were right, should we seriously be balancing the game around ONE player? So fuck every single terran/toss player, because there is ONE terran who can deal with it? And then why take that player as benchmark, and not the ideal player with ideal micro (read: automaton micro). And the day he says: "Fuck this, I go play LOL", we can do balance changes? And until that time you tell every single player to not complain, since if they become as good as one other player managed they will be able to beat infestors.
Just kidding of course, there is no reason to beat infestors as terran, simply 2-rax them all until they complain to blizzard that that should be nerfed. After which we still got the SCV rush. Wonder how long it takes before having 45HP on SCVs compared to 40 on probes/drones is called unfair.
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
When one race can move and spam a single skill with his spell caster, while the other has to split like crazy constantly, stim, focus fire, and other shenanegans, then one race puts more effort into it.
If more effort from one race is used constantly to achieve same result as another, the first race is underpowered and should be buffed, or the second one has to be nerfed so it requires more effort. Simple as that.
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
When one race can move and spam a single skill with his spell caster, while the other has to split like crazy constantly, stim, focus fire, and other shenanegans, then one race puts more effort into it.
If more effort from one race is used constantly to achieve same result as another, the first race is underpowered and should be buffed, or the second one has to be nerfed so it requires more effort. Simple as that.
well, at least the race that amoves and uses a single skill, needs two different units to do so The most fun part is, that most Terrans and Protoss complain about the Infestor destroying the units that they keep on building en mass, because they are hard to beat without infestors. Well, Infestors beat marines, deal with it. The solution is to stop playing this game Dota-style and start playing it strategy style and use other units. (which I agree, is a late/endgame ZvX problem as well with Infestors; but up to 15mins in the game, Zergs have to use their full arsenal minus hydras, to react to all the stuff Terrans could throw at them)
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
When one race can move and spam a single skill with his spell caster, while the other has to split like crazy constantly, stim, focus fire, and other shenanegans, then one race puts more effort into it.
If more effort from one race is used constantly to achieve same result as another, the first race is underpowered and should be buffed, or the second one has to be nerfed so it requires more effort. Simple as that.
well, at least the race that amoves and uses a single skill, needs two different units to do so The most fun part is, that most Terrans and Protoss complain about the Infestor destroying the units that they keep on building en mass, because they are hard to beat without infestors. Well, Infestors beat marines, deal with it. The solution is to stop playing this game Dota-style and start playing it strategy style and use other units. (which I agree, is a late/endgame ZvX problem as well with Infestors; but up to 15mins in the game, Zergs have to use their full arsenal minus hydras, to react to all the stuff Terrans could throw at them)
Infestor counter every tech terran has. Infested terrans destroy tank lines, battlecruisers, hellions and thors. Neural parasite makes playing for big units as thors and battlecruisers not viable. Fungal renders vikings, banshees and every air useless, even raven's seeker missile as fungal has 9 range and costs so much less energy that it is not funny. Infestors can burrow, are big and don't take big splash damage and emp.
The versatility of the infestor is its biggest problem. And don't say derogatory with statements 'start playing it strategy style and use other units', which is very hypocritical since infestor is a non core unit used in EVERY MATCHUP, in every situation. I know you want to defend your race, but community, spectators, commentators, progamers have spoken: infestor is imbalanced.
Marines are a core unit of the terran army, as are lings and zealots for zerg and toss respectively. Why not stop making lings or zlots? Cause they are core units. But you don't see terrans massing ghosts in every matchup, nor you see tosses massing ht's in every matchup. Infestor is useful in every matchup, in every situation. Too useful. Has to be nerfed. Has nothing to do with strategy, micro or anything. It is just too easy to use in every situation, without being difficult in any aspect, while negating fungal and infested terrans requires far more skill than spamming them. Not fair, hence imbalanced.
While I despise Fungal as a spell independently of the point of view I take, be it design or use or spectator value, I am hoping that they will be more moderate in their approach than they were with snipe and EMP, which were gutted rather than nerfed.
whether one player beats the other today is not very important. players can play exceptionally well sometimes, and exceptionally bad sometimes (DRG >_>)
you have to examine the game design and see what kind of problems it is causing. it makes zerg want to turtle to hive tech and other races either have to hit a timing or avoid fighting the infestor/BL altogether. that's not very exciting play. fungal also stops most of the interesting plays a skilled player can pull off. neither is that very exciting.
On November 13 2012 00:13 WigglingSquid wrote: While I despise Fungal as a spell independently of the point of view I take, be it design or use or spectator value, I am hoping that they will be more moderate in their approach than they were with snipe and EMP, which were gutted rather than nerfed.
Exactly BECAUSE they nerfed snipe and emp, they should also nerf fungal to the ground. The logic is the following: Snipe was used by a single player in a single game and was nerfed instantly.
So if we follow the same approach, we must nerf fungal and infestor even more, because fungal is used by every zerg player in every matchup.
On November 12 2012 07:57 Shinespark wrote: Speaking of changing the infestor, please change fungal's name to plague, so korean comentators can again go "PLAGUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"
On November 13 2012 00:13 WigglingSquid wrote: While I despise Fungal as a spell independently of the point of view I take, be it design or use or spectator value, I am hoping that they will be more moderate in their approach than they were with snipe and EMP, which were gutted rather than nerfed.
Exactly BECAUSE they nerfed snipe and emp, they should also nerf fungal to the ground. The logic is the following: Snipe was used by a single player in a single game and was nerfed instantly.
So if we follow the same approach, we must nerf fungal and infestor even more, because fungal is used by every zerg player in every matchup.
And then you destroy zergs in general unless you buff something else like the hydra's. Ghost were used a lot true but they were NOTHING compared to zerg usage of infestors.
You people seem to forget that "nerf" doesn't imply "nerf it to the ground until it's useless" (hello reapers).
You can nerf the infestor to the point where it's still a strong caster that decides games, but not strong enough for the correct choice for any zerg on 3+ bases to always be "sit back and make more infestors. Then make even more infestors".
On November 13 2012 00:13 WigglingSquid wrote: While I despise Fungal as a spell independently of the point of view I take, be it design or use or spectator value, I am hoping that they will be more moderate in their approach than they were with snipe and EMP, which were gutted rather than nerfed.
Exactly BECAUSE they nerfed snipe and emp, they should also nerf fungal to the ground. The logic is the following: Snipe was used by a single player in a single game and was nerfed instantly.
So if we follow the same approach, we must nerf fungal and infestor even more, because fungal is used by every zerg player in every matchup.
And then you destroy zergs in general unless you buff something else like the hydra's. Ghost were used a lot true but they were NOTHING compared to zerg usage of infestors.
Why would i buff something in exchange of something that was imbalanced? I don't see the point. Zerg has won the last 5 major tournaments, represent 40%+ of the GM population, and are generally regarded now as the EZ race by the community.
Did Blizzard buff something in exchange for the ghost nerfs, or the reaper nerfs? Nope. So zerg should not get anything buffed, only infestor severely nerfed. Then we wait and see zergs actually doing something more than a move + point and click insta cast spell. Remember muta ling? They were fun. And required skill, positioning, multitasking, sense for the game, made everything more dynamic and showed the difference between a good zerg and a bad zerg. In the current situation, in which both Nerchio and Life can beat MVP, how will we know the difference?
Edit: I'm tired of seeing all of these Zerg players whining that nerfing infestors will break the game for Zerg. I'm sorry, you didn't appreciate the ease of getting three bases thanks to overlord/queen buffs? You need a unit that you can make to fight anything too? Please continue to call marines OP just because they can fight everything too.
On November 13 2012 00:13 WigglingSquid wrote: While I despise Fungal as a spell independently of the point of view I take, be it design or use or spectator value, I am hoping that they will be more moderate in their approach than they were with snipe and EMP, which were gutted rather than nerfed.
Exactly BECAUSE they nerfed snipe and emp, they should also nerf fungal to the ground. The logic is the following: Snipe was used by a single player in a single game and was nerfed instantly.
So if we follow the same approach, we must nerf fungal and infestor even more, because fungal is used by every zerg player in every matchup.
And then you destroy zergs in general unless you buff something else like the hydra's. Ghost were used a lot true but they were NOTHING compared to zerg usage of infestors.
I disagree. Ling Baneling ultra, with a few hydras or roaches verus archons works very well too. People would need to adapt, true, but isn't that the fun part?
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
When one race can move and spam a single skill with his spell caster, while the other has to split like crazy constantly, stim, focus fire, and other shenanegans, then one race puts more effort into it.
If more effort from one race is used constantly to achieve same result as another, the first race is underpowered and should be buffed, or the second one has to be nerfed so it requires more effort. Simple as that.
well, at least the race that amoves and uses a single skill, needs two different units to do so The most fun part is, that most Terrans and Protoss complain about the Infestor destroying the units that they keep on building en mass, because they are hard to beat without infestors. Well, Infestors beat marines, deal with it. The solution is to stop playing this game Dota-style and start playing it strategy style and use other units. (which I agree, is a late/endgame ZvX problem as well with Infestors; but up to 15mins in the game, Zergs have to use their full arsenal minus hydras, to react to all the stuff Terrans could throw at them)
Infestor counter every tech terran has. Infested terrans destroy tank lines, battlecruisers, hellions and thors. Neural parasite makes playing for big units as thors and battlecruisers not viable. Fungal renders vikings, banshees and every air useless, even raven's seeker missile as fungal has 9 range and costs so much less energy that it is not funny. Infestors can burrow, are big and don't take big splash damage and emp.
Simply not true. Infestors don't counter Tanks or Tank/Hellion. That's why you build Broodlords. Broodlords counter those units, Infestors force the Tank/Hellion combo to engage broodlords and fills a variety of jobs against Vikings, loose groups of hellions, banshees and Thors (via IT).
And I'm really sick of this NP arguement vs BCs. 10range Yamato and 6range normal attack vs 7range fungal. Z has to particularily outplay you, to get some use out of NP vs BC. Yes, if you have a stray BC cruising around and hitting a bunch of Infestors, sure the Infestors will NP it with easy. But BCs used in an army or as an army need mass corruptors as reaction, if both players control equally.
Admittetly, usually ITs are enough, just like marines are enough against BCs 90% of the time. Bad luck for airunits that are meant to be used vs ground units, they are completly useless in this game after 15mins - unless you can make them untouchable. + Show Spoiler +
which you usually can only do with Broodlords, due to their range and due to infestors; banshee, BC, mutalisk, Void Ray and Carrier are all crap, because you can attack them easily and they are simply not costefficient Broodlords aren't very costefficient either, but you can prevent the opponent from destroying them
On November 13 2012 00:10 sieksdekciw wrote: The versatility of the infestor is its biggest problem. And don't say derogatory with statements 'start playing it strategy style and use other units', which is very hypocritical since infestor is a non core unit used in EVERY MATCHUP, in every situation. I know you want to defend your race, but community, spectators, commentators, progamers have spoken: infestor is imbalanced.
A core unit is defined by its core usage. So the Infestor is a core unit. Just like the siege tank is a core unit in TvZ and TvT. You know, people have (unjustifiedly) complained since the beginning of SC2, that units are pressed too much into roles. Now the Infestor is a spellcaster that is used as a core unit. Immidiatly the same people complain about the fact that it is not role-exclusive.
On November 13 2012 00:10 sieksdekciw wrote: Marines are a core unit of the terran army, as are lings and zealots for zerg and toss respectively. Why not stop making lings or zlots? Cause they are core units. But you don't see terrans massing ghosts in every matchup, nor you see tosses massing ht's in every matchup. Infestor is useful in every matchup, in every situation. Too useful. Has to be nerfed. Has nothing to do with strategy, micro or anything. It is just too easy to use in every situation, without being difficult in any aspect, while negating fungal and infested terrans requires far more skill than spamming them. Not fair, hence imbalanced.
Zealots aren't core units in PvP and also not a core unit in a lot of ZvP strategies. Marines are not a core unit in Mech styles. And the post was not about core units, it was about Terrans whining since the beginning of the game about every unit that would force them out of their comfortable marinespam "strategies". Yes, bio should be viable and Infestors are probably OP, but stupid comments like yours about only infestors while half a year ago most Terrans claimed that Mech is not viable at all in high level TvZ.
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
When one race can move and spam a single skill with his spell caster, while the other has to split like crazy constantly, stim, focus fire, and other shenanegans, then one race puts more effort into it.
If more effort from one race is used constantly to achieve same result as another, the first race is underpowered and should be buffed, or the second one has to be nerfed so it requires more effort. Simple as that.
well, at least the race that amoves and uses a single skill, needs two different units to do so The most fun part is, that most Terrans and Protoss complain about the Infestor destroying the units that they keep on building en mass, because they are hard to beat without infestors. Well, Infestors beat marines, deal with it. The solution is to stop playing this game Dota-style and start playing it strategy style and use other units. (which I agree, is a late/endgame ZvX problem as well with Infestors; but up to 15mins in the game, Zergs have to use their full arsenal minus hydras, to react to all the stuff Terrans could throw at them)
Infestor counter every tech terran has. Infested terrans destroy tank lines, battlecruisers, hellions and thors. Neural parasite makes playing for big units as thors and battlecruisers not viable. Fungal renders vikings, banshees and every air useless, even raven's seeker missile as fungal has 9 range and costs so much less energy that it is not funny. Infestors can burrow, are big and don't take big splash damage and emp.
Simply not true. Infestors don't counter Tanks or Tank/Hellion. That's why you build Broodlords. Broodlords counter those units, Infestors force the Tank/Hellion combo to engage broodlords and fills a variety of jobs against Vikings, loose groups of hellions, banshees and Thors (via IT).
And I'm really sick of this NP arguement vs BCs. 10range Yamato and 6range normal attack vs 7range fungal. Z has to particularily outplay you, to get some use out of NP vs BC. Yes, if you have a stray BC cruising around and hitting a bunch of Infestors, sure the Infestors will NP it with easy. But BCs used in an army or as an army need mass corruptors as reaction, if both players control equally.
Admittetly, usually ITs are enough, just like marines are enough against BCs 90% of the time. Bad luck for airunits that are meant to be used vs ground units, they are completly useless in this game after 15mins - unless you can make them untouchable. + Show Spoiler +
which you usually can only do with Broodlords, due to their range and due to infestors; banshee, BC, mutalisk, Void Ray and Carrier are all crap, because you can attack them easily and they are simply not costefficient Broodlords aren't very costefficient either, but you can prevent the opponent from destroying them
On November 13 2012 00:10 sieksdekciw wrote: The versatility of the infestor is its biggest problem. And don't say derogatory with statements 'start playing it strategy style and use other units', which is very hypocritical since infestor is a non core unit used in EVERY MATCHUP, in every situation. I know you want to defend your race, but community, spectators, commentators, progamers have spoken: infestor is imbalanced.
A core unit is defined by its core usage. So the Infestor is a core unit. Just like the siege tank is a core unit in TvZ and TvT. You know, people have (unjustifiedly) complained since the beginning of SC2, that units are pressed too much into roles. Now the Infestor is a spellcaster that is used as a core unit. Immidiatly the same people complain about the fact that it is not role-exclusive.
On November 13 2012 00:10 sieksdekciw wrote: Marines are a core unit of the terran army, as are lings and zealots for zerg and toss respectively. Why not stop making lings or zlots? Cause they are core units. But you don't see terrans massing ghosts in every matchup, nor you see tosses massing ht's in every matchup. Infestor is useful in every matchup, in every situation. Too useful. Has to be nerfed. Has nothing to do with strategy, micro or anything. It is just too easy to use in every situation, without being difficult in any aspect, while negating fungal and infested terrans requires far more skill than spamming them. Not fair, hence imbalanced.
Zealots aren't core units in PvP and also not a core unit in a lot of ZvP strategies. Marines are not a core unit in Mech styles. And the post was not about core units, it was about Terrans whining since the beginning of the game about every unit that would force them out of their comfortable marinespam "strategies". Yes, bio should be viable and Infestors are probably OP, but stupid comments like yours about only infestors while half a year ago most Terrans claimed that Mech is not viable at all in high level TvZ.
Fungal is 9 range.
And are you comparing infestor to tank as a core unit? I find that laughable
Tank: Good vs marines, zerglings. Can't do anything vs zealots, doesn't shoot up, takes time to siege, is slow and can't retreat. Terrible vs muta, banshee and brood lords.
Infestor Harras with infestors, cause they are invisible for free. You can handle big targets with neural parasite. You can handle small targets with fungal. You can handle air with fungal. You can handle air with infested terrans.
So siege tank is a clumsy position retaining unit. Infestor is a mobile versatile harrass position retaining unit, specializing in killing big and small targets and an anti air utility.
It's not too strange that they took such a long time fixing it. The infestor hasn't been changed since 2011* and it's only the last few months it has started to dominate as much as it does. The ghost was nerfed in the mean time, but the infestor/broodlord composition is really strong vs protoss as well.
On November 12 2012 22:31 foxj wrote: well said ... but not everyone is top tier Korean Terran like Ryung and balance is not only for even people from bronze to GM but also top korean
edit: oh well Ryung played too well =) but it doesnt have any relation to balance discuss i guess :/
Actually if you want a close to balanced game you have to balance for the top. if you make it so lower terrans would win, imagine what Ryung would do.
nah i think it was just because Ryung's skill overall better than Curious and DRG. Balanced the game for the top, but then how many people actually could play Terran ? :/ I mean, balance should be fair between two players who has same skill ceiling. And one more thing, few games can't decide the balance ^_^
How do you compare ryung's skill to drg's directly when they never play the same race? Combining that with balance would be running in circles.
One way to compare is to let ryung play zerg for a significant number of games, compare the winrates of drg and ryung and then the other way around. But no one will ever do that. Besides, suppose the races are equal (hypothetical situation), but stylistically different. Suppose drg is a very all round player (he will learn all styles very quickly) but ryung is not (he learns only 1 style very quickly). In case of equally balanced races, the favor will always go to drg in my test. the difference between imbalance and stylistic difference cannot be seen.
I'm not refuting your point, because i agree. But comparing 2 players' skill without them playing the same race (or even the same style) is not a good measure for balance. The statement 'balance should be fair between 2 players who has the same skill ceiling' is meaningless in an actual balance discussion. It can't be measured.
When one race can move and spam a single skill with his spell caster, while the other has to split like crazy constantly, stim, focus fire, and other shenanegans, then one race puts more effort into it.
If more effort from one race is used constantly to achieve same result as another, the first race is underpowered and should be buffed, or the second one has to be nerfed so it requires more effort. Simple as that.
well, at least the race that amoves and uses a single skill, needs two different units to do so The most fun part is, that most Terrans and Protoss complain about the Infestor destroying the units that they keep on building en mass, because they are hard to beat without infestors. Well, Infestors beat marines, deal with it. The solution is to stop playing this game Dota-style and start playing it strategy style and use other units. (which I agree, is a late/endgame ZvX problem as well with Infestors; but up to 15mins in the game, Zergs have to use their full arsenal minus hydras, to react to all the stuff Terrans could throw at them)
Infestor counter every tech terran has. Infested terrans destroy tank lines, battlecruisers, hellions and thors. Neural parasite makes playing for big units as thors and battlecruisers not viable. Fungal renders vikings, banshees and every air useless, even raven's seeker missile as fungal has 9 range and costs so much less energy that it is not funny. Infestors can burrow, are big and don't take big splash damage and emp.
Simply not true. Infestors don't counter Tanks or Tank/Hellion. That's why you build Broodlords. Broodlords counter those units, Infestors force the Tank/Hellion combo to engage broodlords and fills a variety of jobs against Vikings, loose groups of hellions, banshees and Thors (via IT).
And I'm really sick of this NP arguement vs BCs. 10range Yamato and 6range normal attack vs 7range fungal. Z has to particularily outplay you, to get some use out of NP vs BC. Yes, if you have a stray BC cruising around and hitting a bunch of Infestors, sure the Infestors will NP it with easy. But BCs used in an army or as an army need mass corruptors as reaction, if both players control equally.
Admittetly, usually ITs are enough, just like marines are enough against BCs 90% of the time. Bad luck for airunits that are meant to be used vs ground units, they are completly useless in this game after 15mins - unless you can make them untouchable. + Show Spoiler +
which you usually can only do with Broodlords, due to their range and due to infestors; banshee, BC, mutalisk, Void Ray and Carrier are all crap, because you can attack them easily and they are simply not costefficient Broodlords aren't very costefficient either, but you can prevent the opponent from destroying them
On November 13 2012 00:10 sieksdekciw wrote: The versatility of the infestor is its biggest problem. And don't say derogatory with statements 'start playing it strategy style and use other units', which is very hypocritical since infestor is a non core unit used in EVERY MATCHUP, in every situation. I know you want to defend your race, but community, spectators, commentators, progamers have spoken: infestor is imbalanced.
A core unit is defined by its core usage. So the Infestor is a core unit. Just like the siege tank is a core unit in TvZ and TvT. You know, people have (unjustifiedly) complained since the beginning of SC2, that units are pressed too much into roles. Now the Infestor is a spellcaster that is used as a core unit. Immidiatly the same people complain about the fact that it is not role-exclusive.
On November 13 2012 00:10 sieksdekciw wrote: Marines are a core unit of the terran army, as are lings and zealots for zerg and toss respectively. Why not stop making lings or zlots? Cause they are core units. But you don't see terrans massing ghosts in every matchup, nor you see tosses massing ht's in every matchup. Infestor is useful in every matchup, in every situation. Too useful. Has to be nerfed. Has nothing to do with strategy, micro or anything. It is just too easy to use in every situation, without being difficult in any aspect, while negating fungal and infested terrans requires far more skill than spamming them. Not fair, hence imbalanced.
Zealots aren't core units in PvP and also not a core unit in a lot of ZvP strategies. Marines are not a core unit in Mech styles. And the post was not about core units, it was about Terrans whining since the beginning of the game about every unit that would force them out of their comfortable marinespam "strategies". Yes, bio should be viable and Infestors are probably OP, but stupid comments like yours about only infestors while half a year ago most Terrans claimed that Mech is not viable at all in high level TvZ.
Fungal is 9 range.
And are you comparing infestor to tank as a core unit? I find that laughable
Tank: Good vs marines, zerglings. Can't do anything vs zealots, doesn't shoot up, takes time to siege, is slow and can't retreat. Terrible vs muta, banshee and brood lords.
Infestor Harras with infestors, cause they are invisible for free. You can handle big targets with neural parasite. You can handle small targets with fungal. You can handle air with fungal. You can handle air with infested terrans.
So siege tank is a clumsy position retaining unit. Infestor is a mobile versatile harrass position retaining unit, specializing in killing big and small targets and an anti air utility.
Yeah, you are not biased.
meant NP (which is 7range), as can clearly been seen if you would read it, instead of just clutchin anything that can help you.
Not gonna go into detail, as you are not answering to what I wrote, as I have already covered a lot of your claims like "you can handle big units with NP". And yes, tanks are core units. A core unit is not a unit that deals with everything. It's a unit that fulfills a core role, what siege tanks do. But you are even inconsistent in your own argumentation: "siege tanks are not core units because - list of units - is good against them" (funny detail, I say Tanks are core units in TvZ and TvT, and part of your argument against that is that they can't kill zealots. You make my day ) one posts earlier, you claim that zealots are core units. Tell me: can zealots beat roaches, mutalisks, broodlords, Archons, Colossi, Infestors, etc?
To be honest, as a Zerg, I would love to see a big nerf on the Infestor but In Heart of The Swarm not in WoL, and that they rebalanced the game around it. In WoL, nerfing the Infestor is by no mean an easy thing to do, because it will affect all three match up, and from mid game to late late game so it'll have an huge impact on the game.
First of all, I do not agree with Terran complaining about the Infestor breaking the ZvT match up. It maybe makes more easy for a zerg to play it than for the terran (if you can define and quantify what easy is...), and it might be more boring as a viewer point of view, but I find that Terran has the tools to fight it with good upgrade, good positioning... etc, and if the Zerg is greedy and rush to hive terran can try to hit a timing attack to kill him or do enough damage so he can't recover. I'm not saying it's easy or fun to play, but it's totally doable and good terran already does it. The real problem with the infestor brood lord to me, is more in ZvP where the only chance for a protoss to win in late game against a
People wanting to nerf the infestor to the ground aren't being objective, I do understand the frustration playing against it, and as I already say, I would love to be able to play other style than this one and there 're some (I like to do a lot of ling/muta for example) but in the end, you always have to fall back into infestor brood lord in late game, unless you all in. It's kinda like saying, Immortal sentry all in is too strong (and, it actually is) so we should nerf the sentry. That would fix this all in, okay, but broke a huge section of the Protoss early to midgame strategy.
What would be the best is for WoL, I guess, to maintain the strenght of the infestor, not to nerf fungal or IT, but make it harder to use so only very good player would be able to use them correctly. For example, reducing the size of the infestor, so it would be more clumped would make them more fragile against siege tank, EMP, collossus... etc while very tip top Zerg would have to alway split their infestor into different group.
Do we really want an infestor nerf now? I'm personally sick of them but it's the timing that's crucial.
HOTS will be out eventually. And there's a very cool new unit there called the swarm host. Despite people disliking it, it's essentially a great unit. It's slow, fragile, but very strong when used well. So, yes, it can destroy you but you can outplay someone using it. This leads to good gameplay (unlike being able to fungal things left and right from 9 range before dumping a billion IT's on top of the remaining army).
So, if the infestor nerf comes now, Blizz will probably water down the nerf and buff something in WoL, but this will probably not lead Blizz to tailor the Z midgame around the swarm host. But I would rather prefer good positional play in the TvZ MU instead of a close simile to what we have now in WoL.
On November 13 2012 01:53 Vanadiel wrote: To be honest, as a Zerg, I would love to see a big nerf on the Infestor but In Heart of The Swarm not in WoL, and that they rebalanced the game around it. In WoL, nerfing the Infestor is by no mean an easy thing to do, because it will affect all three match up, and from mid game to late late game so it'll have an huge impact on the game.
First of all, I do not agree with Terran complaining about the Infestor breaking the ZvT match up. It maybe makes more easy for a zerg to play it than for the terran (if you can define and quantify what easy is...), and it might be more boring as a viewer point of view, but I find that Terran has the tools to fight it with good upgrade, good positioning... etc, and if the Zerg is greedy and rush to hive terran can try to hit a timing attack to kill him or do enough damage so he can't recover. I'm not saying it's easy or fun to play, but it's totally doable and good terran already does it. The real problem with the infestor brood lord to me, is more in ZvP where the only chance for a protoss to win in late game against a
People wanting to nerf the infestor to the ground aren't being objective, I do understand the frustration playing against it, and as I already say, I would love to be able to play other style than this one and there 're some (I like to do a lot of ling/muta for example) but in the end, you always have to fall back into infestor brood lord in late game, unless you all in. It's kinda like saying, Immortal sentry all in is too strong (and, it actually is) so we should nerf the sentry. That would fix this all in, okay, but broke a huge section of the Protoss early to midgame strategy.
What would be the best is for WoL, I guess, to maintain the strenght of the infestor, not to nerf fungal or IT, but make it harder to use so only very good player would be able to use them correctly. For example, reducing the size of the infestor, so it would be more clumped would make them more fragile against siege tank, EMP, collossus... etc while very tip top Zerg would have to alway split their infestor into different group.
People draw the comparison between the reasons for nerfing the infestors now, with the reasons given at the time for the ghost snipe nerf. I actually think the more apt comparison is with the EMP radius nerf.
As it was, Protoss v Terran was a matchup that was gradually evolving into the relatively stable macro-play that we see today, however as Terrans were getting better at playing a more macro-centric style, their use of heavier ghost counts became more of an issue. Firstly, Protoss relied massively on their sentries to hold chokes against timing pushes, and hence we saw a lot of ghost timing attacks to EMP sentries and stim up ramps to kill Protoss.
The EMP radius change, while it was controversial at the time I feel has in the long run benefited the matchup, and increased the skillset of the players of both sides. While before Terrans could carpet Protoss armies with EMPs, nowadays they have to be more discerning in their placement. The other side of this equation is that Protoss players split their templars better, or put them in prisms. They were trying to do this before the EMP nerf too, but now with the radius nerf they are rewarded more for doing so because it's not as spammable.
I may be somewhat biased in that high level Korean PvT on average gives me the best non-mirror games to watch but I'd like to see a similar approach used in balancing infestors. They should still be potent, like EMP still is against Protoss, but reward good, prudent use of the infestor's spells, not mindless spam from 20 infestors.
On November 13 2012 01:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Do we really want an infestor nerf now? I'm personally sick of them but it's the timing that's crucial.
HOTS will be out eventually. And there's a very cool new unit there called the swarm host. Despite people disliking it, it's essentially a great unit. It's slow, fragile, but very strong when used well. So, yes, it can destroy you but you can outplay someone using it. This leads to good gameplay (unlike being able to fungal things left and right from 9 range before dumping a billion IT's on top of the remaining army).
So, if the infestor nerf comes now, Blizz will probably water down the nerf and buff something in WoL, but this will probably not lead Blizz to tailor the Z midgame around the swarm host. But I would rather prefer good positional play in the TvZ MU instead of a close simile to what we have now in WoL.
That is a very good parallel. And i agree on PvT being the most entertaining non mirror matchup, especially since at the highest level Templar play is favoured and emphasized over Colossus.
On November 13 2012 01:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Do we really want an infestor nerf now? I'm personally sick of them but it's the timing that's crucial.
HOTS will be out eventually. And there's a very cool new unit there called the swarm host. Despite people disliking it, it's essentially a great unit. It's slow, fragile, but very strong when used well. So, yes, it can destroy you but you can outplay someone using it. This leads to good gameplay (unlike being able to fungal things left and right from 9 range before dumping a billion IT's on top of the remaining army).
So, if the infestor nerf comes now, Blizz will probably water down the nerf and buff something in WoL, but this will probably not lead Blizz to tailor the Z midgame around the swarm host. But I would rather prefer good positional play in the TvZ MU instead of a close simile to what we have now in WoL.
On November 13 2012 01:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Do we really want an infestor nerf now? I'm personally sick of them but it's the timing that's crucial.
HOTS will be out eventually. And there's a very cool new unit there called the swarm host. Despite people disliking it, it's essentially a great unit. It's slow, fragile, but very strong when used well. So, yes, it can destroy you but you can outplay someone using it. This leads to good gameplay (unlike being able to fungal things left and right from 9 range before dumping a billion IT's on top of the remaining army).
So, if the infestor nerf comes now, Blizz will probably water down the nerf and buff something in WoL, but this will probably not lead Blizz to tailor the Z midgame around the swarm host. But I would rather prefer good positional play in the TvZ MU instead of a close simile to what we have now in WoL.
Do you really think it's a good unit? In my opinion it's the wordt unit in the expansion. It's either extremely weak in slow numbers, or extremely strong in large numbers. Fights almost never are close. Either one side gets overwhelmed, or the swarmhosts all get killed and the zerg looses.
Further, this unit almost only works in a deathball. And weren't we trying to get away from that? I mean, the unit almost only works if it's supported by a large blob of other units, usually your entire army. It can do some base harassing with Nydus worms and so, but in general it's very clunky, slow to deploy and has no interesting burst damage.
Maybe some people think locusts versus siege or collosus is fun, but I'm ALREADY bored of it and the game isn't even released.
Something that actually holds a position would be a lot more interesting for Zerg instead of even more free units...
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. .
Yes, the metagame is so awesome right now.
To be honest, i don't care, i hope they really try hard to balance HoTS and get something fun at the same time, not a "statiscally" balanced game.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. .
Yes, the metagame is so awesome right now.
To be honest, i don't care, i hope they really try hard to balance HoTS and get something fun at the same time, not a "statiscally" balanced game.
No one can discuss rationally with you without the presumption they're arguing for the infestor. You'd think some people would be able to shed their bias and look beyond a game with objectivity.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushes. Not exactly an innovative bunch. And I remember Idra was complaining to Blizzard at a time where roaches were 1 limit and zerg's metagame against terran was to mass ultralisks with no other units for support. And Blizzard listened, and started nerfing terran and buffing zerg.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
Ahahahahah you're upset because blizzard nerfed snipe so fast "based off a single game" (which they absolutely didn't, by the way), so now you want the infestor nerfed in the exact same manner? Are you a child? Think a bit.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushed.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
The problem is that you're under the assumption Blizzard owes you for poor balance decisions in the past and should nerf the infestor with no regard for balance in spite of Zergs. And that's why I'm happy Blizzard didn't listen to community whine this time around and allowed the metagame to flesh itself out before acting -- even if it could be wrong. Do Terrans really think Blizzard should continue a precedent for knee-jerk balance patches simply because they're now on the opposing end of a difficult metagame that isn't being immediately nerfed to the ground? The bias is nauseating.
The infestor is to strong I don't think anyone would doubt that. It is truly a zerg 'catch all' unit.
The issue is every race needs a catch all unit, T has marines, P has stalkers. Z sadly doesn't have that cheaper catch all unit that can be massed to deal with a variety of situations. Instead Z has the infestor which is expensive but harder to lose and works as a catch all unit. The issue is it's tech level and strength are to high for it to be a catch all unit as that makes it to powerful.
The problem is that Zerg became reliant as the infestor as a catch all because the hydra was so bad. The easiest solution that blizzard could of implemented ages ago would of been to fix the hydra's issues and then they could of nerfd the infestor to be the type of support unit it should of been all along.
As it is just trying to balance the infestor will be a nightmare as any nerf could just as easily underpower zerg as leaving it alone overpowers zerg.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushed.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
The problem is that you're under the assumption Blizzard owes you for poor balance decisions in the past and should nerf the infestor with no regard for balance in spite of Zergs. And that's why I'm happy Blizzard didn't listen to community whine this time around and allowed the metagame to flesh itself out before acting -- even if it could be wrong. Do Terrans really think Blizzard should continue a precedent for knee-jerk balance patches simply because they're now on the opposing end of a difficult metagame that isn't being immediately nerfed to the ground? The bias is nauseating.
Yeah I'd agree with the sentiment that Blizzard have actually been pretty consistent with their own position for a good while. A lot of the playerbase previously were criticising constant balance changes, wanting them to be a little more hands-off and let things develop organically. Now when Blizzard have employed that approach for months people are wanting them to make wholescale changes.
That said, I do think there are issues with the Zerg race at present, but minor tweaks would be the way forward for me
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushed.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
The problem is that you're under the assumption Blizzard owes you for poor balance decisions in the past and should nerf the infestor with no regard for balance in spite of Zergs. And that's why I'm happy Blizzard didn't listen to community whine this time around and allowed the metagame to flesh itself out before acting -- even if it could be wrong. Do Terrans really think Blizzard should continue a precedent for knee-jerk balance patches simply because they're now on the opposing end of a difficult metagame that isn't being immediately nerfed to the ground? The bias is nauseating.
There is no bias in treating everybody equally. Knee-jerk patches or not, terran had been nerfed. I don't see them saying they regret the choices they made, nor even admitting that nerfing terran and buffing zerg and toss was a mistake.
Since they don't want to revert changes and admit their mistakes, the only way we can achieve balance is if they nerf the hell out of zerg.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushed.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
The problem is that you're under the assumption Blizzard owes you for poor balance decisions in the past and should nerf the infestor with no regard for balance in spite of Zergs. And that's why I'm happy Blizzard didn't listen to community whine this time around and allowed the metagame to flesh itself out before acting -- even if it could be wrong. Do Terrans really think Blizzard should continue a precedent for knee-jerk balance patches simply because they're now on the opposing end of a difficult metagame that isn't being immediately nerfed to the ground? The bias is nauseating.
There is no bias in treating everybody equally. Knee-jerk patches or not, terran had been nerfed. I don't see them saying they regret the choices they made, nor even admitting that nerfing terran and buffing zerg and toss was a mistake.
Since they don't want to revert changes and admit their mistakes, the only way we can achieve balance is if they nerf the hell out of zerg.
They're not going to admit mistakes, they all have PR training. How about you enjoy the new Blizzard balance team instead of being spiteful all the time. They owe you nothing.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushes. Not exactly an innovative bunch. And I remember Idra was complaining to Blizzard at a time where roaches were 1 limit and zerg's metagame against terran was to mass ultralisks with no other units for support. And Blizzard listened, and started nerfing terran and buffing zerg.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushes. Not exactly an innovative bunch. And I remember Idra was complaining to Blizzard at a time where roaches were 1 limit and zerg's metagame against terran was to mass ultralisks with no other units for support. And Blizzard listened, and started nerfing terran and buffing zerg.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
Someone is a little bit biased...
Again, if treating everybody the same is being biased, then yes, I am biased. Favoring zerg seems what passes for non bias nowadays. I refuse to be a part of that.
On November 13 2012 04:40 Nerski wrote: The infestor is to strong I don't think anyone would doubt that. It is truly a zerg 'catch all' unit.
The issue is every race needs a catch all unit, T has marines, P has stalkers. Z sadly doesn't have that cheaper catch all unit that can be massed to deal with a variety of situations. Instead Z has the infestor which is expensive but harder to lose and works as a catch all unit. The issue is it's tech level and strength are to high for it to be a catch all unit as that makes it to powerful.
Zerg doesn't need a "catch-all" when they have mass speedlings, drones, and queens. A myth that seemingly came from nowhere is that the Zerg army is weak when this couldn't be anything further from the truth. Zerg will not fall apart once the Infestor isn't game-breakingly overpowered anymore.
On November 13 2012 01:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Do we really want an infestor nerf now? I'm personally sick of them but it's the timing that's crucial.
HOTS will be out eventually. And there's a very cool new unit there called the swarm host. Despite people disliking it, it's essentially a great unit. It's slow, fragile, but very strong when used well. So, yes, it can destroy you but you can outplay someone using it. This leads to good gameplay (unlike being able to fungal things left and right from 9 range before dumping a billion IT's on top of the remaining army).
So, if the infestor nerf comes now, Blizz will probably water down the nerf and buff something in WoL, but this will probably not lead Blizz to tailor the Z midgame around the swarm host. But I would rather prefer good positional play in the TvZ MU instead of a close simile to what we have now in WoL.
Do you really think it's a good unit? In my opinion it's the wordt unit in the expansion. It's either extremely weak in slow numbers, or extremely strong in large numbers. Fights almost never are close. Either one side gets overwhelmed, or the swarmhosts all get killed and the zerg looses.
Further, this unit almost only works in a deathball. And weren't we trying to get away from that? I mean, the unit almost only works if it's supported by a large blob of other units, usually your entire army. It can do some base harassing with Nydus worms and so, but in general it's very clunky, slow to deploy and has no interesting burst damage.
Maybe some people think locusts versus siege or collosus is fun, but I'm ALREADY bored of it and the game isn't even released.
Something that actually holds a position would be a lot more interesting for Zerg instead of even more free units...
I can see your point, but I still think swarm host has a lot of good about it. First of all, it's vulnerable - to air, between locust spawns, when it's moving, etc. This already adds a lot over the current infestor. Furthermore, if they have a mass of swarm hosts near your base, and you absolutely cannot kill them, you can counter much better. 2 of these guys won't stop a drop. And definitely not a doom-drop. They aren't mobile enough.
I don't know how the balance and meta will develop eventually but I like the potential.
On November 13 2012 01:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Do we really want an infestor nerf now? I'm personally sick of them but it's the timing that's crucial.
HOTS will be out eventually. And there's a very cool new unit there called the swarm host. Despite people disliking it, it's essentially a great unit. It's slow, fragile, but very strong when used well. So, yes, it can destroy you but you can outplay someone using it. This leads to good gameplay (unlike being able to fungal things left and right from 9 range before dumping a billion IT's on top of the remaining army).
So, if the infestor nerf comes now, Blizz will probably water down the nerf and buff something in WoL, but this will probably not lead Blizz to tailor the Z midgame around the swarm host. But I would rather prefer good positional play in the TvZ MU instead of a close simile to what we have now in WoL.
infestor swarmhost bl corruptor gogo
I'm fine with that...
what makes you think they won't make infestors with it.
On November 13 2012 01:54 Ghanburighan wrote: Do we really want an infestor nerf now? I'm personally sick of them but it's the timing that's crucial.
HOTS will be out eventually. And there's a very cool new unit there called the swarm host. Despite people disliking it, it's essentially a great unit. It's slow, fragile, but very strong when used well. So, yes, it can destroy you but you can outplay someone using it. This leads to good gameplay (unlike being able to fungal things left and right from 9 range before dumping a billion IT's on top of the remaining army).
So, if the infestor nerf comes now, Blizz will probably water down the nerf and buff something in WoL, but this will probably not lead Blizz to tailor the Z midgame around the swarm host. But I would rather prefer good positional play in the TvZ MU instead of a close simile to what we have now in WoL.
infestor swarmhost bl corruptor gogo
I'm fine with that...
what makes you think they won't make infestors with it.
They could, if they nerf them now, especially.. But the reason why I wrote the long post is that if they start balancing HOTS with the idea that infestor is too strong/boring/versatile, they are more likely to nerf harder and emphasize different gameplay.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushed.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
The problem is that you're under the assumption Blizzard owes you for poor balance decisions in the past and should nerf the infestor with no regard for balance in spite of Zergs. And that's why I'm happy Blizzard didn't listen to community whine this time around and allowed the metagame to flesh itself out before acting -- even if it could be wrong. Do Terrans really think Blizzard should continue a precedent for knee-jerk balance patches simply because they're now on the opposing end of a difficult metagame that isn't being immediately nerfed to the ground? The bias is nauseating.
There is no bias in treating everybody equally. Knee-jerk patches or not, terran had been nerfed. I don't see them saying they regret the choices they made, nor even admitting that nerfing terran and buffing zerg and toss was a mistake.
Since they don't want to revert changes and admit their mistakes, the only way we can achieve balance is if they nerf the hell out of zerg.
I think regret is not the word you are looking for. It is a little strong for the subject at hand. Regret is used in phrases like "I am really sorry I killed your dog due to my negligence." Do you really want them to show regret for making a video game slightly imbalanced? I mean, that is more of a "Woops, who would have known that 6 months later, that balance change would come back to haunt us?"
When this game was released, someone was going to get nerfed hard, because it was going to be imbalanced. Terran happened to draw the shortest straw and got the crap nerfed out of them. Now, zerg will likely be reigned in and the cycle continues.
So glad that they are not doing any major balance changes before the WCS finals. That would fuck up zergs sooo much. Hopefully they make infestors 3 supply instead of 2 so you cant go mass infestor as much.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushes. Not exactly an innovative bunch. And I remember Idra was complaining to Blizzard at a time where roaches were 1 limit and zerg's metagame against terran was to mass ultralisks with no other units for support. And Blizzard listened, and started nerfing terran and buffing zerg.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
Oh god, you are one of those "terrans players are just better" people. Ever thought for a second that maybe, just maybe terran was fucking broken on release and that a lot of nerfs were required? We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushes. Not exactly an innovative bunch. And I remember Idra was complaining to Blizzard at a time where roaches were 1 limit and zerg's metagame against terran was to mass ultralisks with no other units for support. And Blizzard listened, and started nerfing terran and buffing zerg.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
Oh god, you are one of those "terrans players are just better" people. Ever thought for a second that maybe, just maybe terran was fucking broken on release and that a lot of nerfs were required? We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
What are you talking about, those are the best arguments ever? I loved the threads claiming that Terran GSL players were some godlike super race that only Terran could fulfill their micro needs. Every day it was some new version of: "They are the best players in the world, which is why they play Terran, because it has allows them to take advantage of their godlike skills. Just because they are gods does not mean you should nerf the race that I happen to also play."
P.S. The infestor is still kinda messed up, but that does not mean we need to go back to quick stim, or blue flame hellions drops the kill 35 works in 2 shots. Lets move forward, not backwards.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Not necessarily, as I've said for many moons Terran is very hard to play at that level, but there's also more you can do with the race in certain aspects. It's a rather simple concept that people continually ignore.
It doesn't matter if you have MKP controlling your units if you're Protoss or Zerg, there's still less possibilities for the stellar micro that makes Korean Terrans so formidable.
see the whole problem with this is IT WILL NEVER BE RIGHT. when you start altering one thing, you can change another. players get better at the game and overcome it and develop new comps or doom comps/pushes. I remember this very forum telling me NEVER to build more than 6 infestors while in the current patch . . . but all the pros are building like 15????? the difference half a year makes.
Look at ghosts . . i RARELY see them in ZvT anymore . . before the nerf on their damage i used to hate them and fear them, tbh, ive started to see a resurgence of the unit over the last few months but nothing like it was before the nerf. Just mark these words. zergs are having their day right now but when the nerfs come in and you realise that it opens a door to some other tactic we are right back here again. Since the game has come out, zerg was always the underpowered race and winners were always congrated for their macro level of play . . now us players have worked out the kinks and made it this way. Other races need to start messing around cos all im seeing is the same mass death ball which we were complaining about before the queen buff and this new gglord/infestor comp. because everyone is crying about the game right now ill have to side with maybe us zergs got a little bit too good, we put the time in and worked it all out so ill agree, nerf us . . but well work it out again
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushes. Not exactly an innovative bunch. And I remember Idra was complaining to Blizzard at a time where roaches were 1 limit and zerg's metagame against terran was to mass ultralisks with no other units for support. And Blizzard listened, and started nerfing terran and buffing zerg.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
Actually this is only half true. There were some zergs that actually knew how to play properly and were able to do well during that terran-dominated era (people often forget that Nestea went through a whole season without losing a match), it was just that there were so many terrans during that time (when the meta WAS imbalanced towards terran and it was a lot harder to leave code S compared to how difficult it is to stay in code S right now) that it didn't matter to people and they just complained to nerf terran instead of trying to learn to use the full utility of their race. Now the situation is entirely reversed where those same people are telling us to "learn to play terran" in the face of actual true imbalance and now is when blizzard conveniently tries to "let the game run it's course". I'm not one of those people that say all the terrans during that era were truly better players than their counterparts, but when there WERE people from the other races doing well Blizzard should have left the game alone then as opposed to now where MVP does well in ONE tournament and apparently all is right with the current iteration of the game.
On November 13 2012 06:29 aZealot wrote: Given the recent comments in this thread, I just want to add that Protoss is the worst race with the worst players.
We need mammoth buffs to compensate, I tell you. MAMMOTH!!!
So Dustin will give you guys an electronic wooly mammoth, enjoy.
On November 13 2012 06:29 aZealot wrote: Given the recent comments in this thread, I just want to add that Protoss is the worst race with the worst players.
We need mammoth buffs to compensate, I tell you. MAMMOTH!!!
So Dustin will give you guys an electronic wooly mammoth, enjoy.
On November 13 2012 06:29 aZealot wrote: Given the recent comments in this thread, I just want to add that Protoss is the worst race with the worst players.
We need mammoth buffs to compensate, I tell you. MAMMOTH!!!
So Dustin will give you guys an electronic wooly mammoth, enjoy.
Is it massive? Can I smash FFs with this mammoth?
Nope, midget strain of the mammoth. Good luck sir. At least watching it impale marines will be really "epic" and stuff .
On November 13 2012 06:05 StatixEx wrote: see the whole problem with this is IT WILL NEVER BE RIGHT. when you start altering one thing, you can change another. players get better at the game and overcome it and develop new comps or doom comps/pushes. I remember this very forum telling me NEVER to build more than 6 infestors while in the current patch . . . but all the pros are building like 15????? the difference half a year makes.
Look at ghosts . . i RARELY see them in ZvT anymore . . before the nerf on their damage i used to hate them and fear them, tbh, ive started to see a resurgence of the unit over the last few months but nothing like it was before the nerf. Just mark these words. zergs are having their day right now but when the nerfs come in and you realise that it opens a door to some other tactic we are right back here again. Since the game has come out, zerg was always the underpowered race and winners were always congrated for their macro level of play . . now us players have worked out the kinks and made it this way. Other races need to start messing around cos all im seeing is the same mass death ball which we were complaining about before the queen buff and this new gglord/infestor comp. because everyone is crying about the game right now ill have to side with maybe us zergs got a little bit too good, we put the time in and worked it all out so ill agree, nerf us . . but well work it out again
ghosts aren't made in modern tvz because they serve essentially the same purpose as a siege tank now, they are an anti-infestor only unit now, not a broodlord or ultra unit. they cost 200/100 as opposed to siege tank 150/125 and tie up barracks time so it cuts dramatically into bio production. also, if zerg gets 1 overseer you cannot snipe broodlords. it will not happen. you can get emps and snipes off on infestors, but you will never hit a broodlord. sniping overseers used to work but there is no limit on overseer count and they cost only 50 gas. i use a mass MMM style vs z so i will have like 20 techlab raxes once we get into the very long phase and players that see even one ghost will make like 4 overseers to guard their broods. sniping them used to work, but eventually youre just using all ur energy on supply-less units
i really dont understand the logic that people keep bringing up about how "all terrans have _____ understanding of the game" or "all zergs learned to use ____ so now they're good" or "all the protoss players had ____ micro" etc.
What in the world makes you think a certain type of player picks a certain race 100% of the time? Seriously, I really don't think that EVERY zerg was bad at starcraft on release etc.
The balance changes will be good, but looking at the numbers right now it's not horribly imbalanced. Sure I would love to see some changes, but that's because I enjoy a changing metagame, and I think the "attitude" of the community right now of being angry is only because the vocal ones are the angry ones. The "ladder anxiety" is overblown because people who don't have it ARE ON THE LADDER RIGHT NOW. So many players just totally avoid these kinds of threads because it's all just hatred and crying over imbalance. It's this collective 13 year old mentality. The vast majority of players will not be angry with blizzard for balancing the game. Of course if a particular race is deemed to be under powered, then more of those players will complain, but the number of people complaining is really so loosely related to actual balance that it's ridiculous.
Balance and the meta game are constantly shifting, and they will be for the foreseeable future. How much enjoyment do you actually get when you lose a ladder match and spend the next 10 minutes raging at your opponent and their imba race. I honestly have SO much more fun when I either play to improve myself (and notice my mechanics/game sense getting better), or play for shits and giggles (sometimes ladder, sometimes customs, sometimes 2v2's etc) because when it's over I feel good about myself. I really think people would do better to understand that it doesn't help anything to be visibly upset over a thing that you effectively can't do anything about. Why not change the one thing you have complete control over - your own mind. If you truly think that you have no control over what makes you mad or what makes you happy then I really suggest you find talk to someone about it. Everybody has control over their life and more people need to start realizing that they can have fun with the game if they just open their mind a little to the possibility that perhaps the people WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LIVING FOR DECADES are perhaps slightly more knowledgeable on game design and balance than the general public is...
On November 13 2012 07:00 StayPhrosty wrote:Everybody has control over their life and more people need to start realizing that they can have fun with the game if they just open their mind a little to the possibility that perhaps the people WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LIVING FOR DECADES are perhaps slightly more knowledgeable on game design and balance than the general public is...
so dustin browder has been doing this "game design" thing for a decade now you think he would be better than platinum league, lol
my mind was open when WOL was released and it has been closed after years of kneejerk balancing and the devs giving horrible interviews proving that they basically dont watch or care about sc2 anymore
On November 13 2012 07:00 StayPhrosty wrote:Everybody has control over their life and more people need to start realizing that they can have fun with the game if they just open their mind a little to the possibility that perhaps the people WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LIVING FOR DECADES are perhaps slightly more knowledgeable on game design and balance than the general public is...
so dustin browder has been doing this "game design" thing for a decade now you think he would be better than platinum league, lol
my mind was open when WOL was released and it has been closed after years of kneejerk balancing and the devs giving horrible interviews proving that they basically dont watch or care about sc2 anymore
By that logic, David Kim, who's actually the balance guy, is a Grand Master Random, so he'll never be wrong...
On November 13 2012 07:00 StayPhrosty wrote:Everybody has control over their life and more people need to start realizing that they can have fun with the game if they just open their mind a little to the possibility that perhaps the people WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LIVING FOR DECADES are perhaps slightly more knowledgeable on game design and balance than the general public is...
so dustin browder has been doing this "game design" thing for a decade now you think he would be better than platinum league, lol
my mind was open when WOL was released and it has been closed after years of kneejerk balancing and the devs giving horrible interviews proving that they basically dont watch or care about sc2 anymore
By that logic, David Kim, who's actually the balance guy, is a Grand Master Random, so he'll never be wrong...
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
On November 13 2012 07:00 StayPhrosty wrote:Everybody has control over their life and more people need to start realizing that they can have fun with the game if they just open their mind a little to the possibility that perhaps the people WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LIVING FOR DECADES are perhaps slightly more knowledgeable on game design and balance than the general public is...
so dustin browder has been doing this "game design" thing for a decade now you think he would be better than platinum league, lol
my mind was open when WOL was released and it has been closed after years of kneejerk balancing and the devs giving horrible interviews proving that they basically dont watch or care about sc2 anymore
By that logic, David Kim, who's actually the balance guy, is a Grand Master Random, so he'll never be wrong...
hasn't played in multiple seasons idk if he got a new acct or something, i'm just pointing it out
I would imagine he prefers to remain anonymous while playing, imagine the amount of complaints he gets. Can't be too hard for him to get new accounts either, lol.
On November 13 2012 07:00 StayPhrosty wrote:Everybody has control over their life and more people need to start realizing that they can have fun with the game if they just open their mind a little to the possibility that perhaps the people WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LIVING FOR DECADES are perhaps slightly more knowledgeable on game design and balance than the general public is...
so dustin browder has been doing this "game design" thing for a decade now you think he would be better than platinum league, lol
my mind was open when WOL was released and it has been closed after years of kneejerk balancing and the devs giving horrible interviews proving that they basically dont watch or care about sc2 anymore
By that logic, David Kim, who's actually the balance guy, is a Grand Master Random, so he'll never be wrong...
hasn't played in multiple seasons idk if he got a new acct or something, i'm just pointing it out
I would imagine he prefers to remain anonymous while playing, imagine the amount of complaints he gets. Can't be too hard for him to get new accounts either, lol.
Good news I guess. It remains to see how they change it though. In all honesty, I think that once infestors are changed, the whole game is going to get completely changed, and seeing they're still in hots beta, they should use this oppertunity to do exactly that.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
So your entire point is based on 'programmers know better', and you proceed shitting on other people's opinion? If Blizzard team is so wise and competent why can't they still balance the game after 2,5 years?
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Concaves beat "a tight group of units". Other than that, i agree with the first part of your post.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
On November 13 2012 01:37 DemigodcelpH wrote: Thank god. This is perhaps one of the most glaring and longest lived blatant imbalances that has ever occurred in SC2.
I'm glad that the developers are finally stepping up.
Glaring? Blatant? Long-lived? Took 2 years and lists of zerg buffs/p+t nerfs for this metagame to come to fruition where zergs reached the potential/got good enough. Even then, Protoss and Terran were still very successful playing towards the solution to mass infestor lategame which is just killing zerg before broods pop. It's scarcely an obvious imbalance, if an imbalance at all. We may never know the lategame solution once it's patched, we just know we're very unlikely to find it.
One supply roaches was a pretty obvious and blatant imbalance.
I have to be honest, but I don't think nerfs or buffs affected much the game as it is now. I think the reason why we did not see infestors as imbalanced before was a combination of small maps, and slow and stagnant zerg metagame development. It took zerg 6 months to learn to use banelings and not only roaches, and an additional 6 months to learn how to stop timing pushes. Not exactly an innovative bunch. And I remember Idra was complaining to Blizzard at a time where roaches were 1 limit and zerg's metagame against terran was to mass ultralisks with no other units for support. And Blizzard listened, and started nerfing terran and buffing zerg.
We can clearly see that when the gap in skill between zerg and terran players was that big 1 year ago, the scene was dominated by good, skilled players. Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to catch up though, they just nerfed terran here and there and buffed zerg here and there. And now we are at a point where the skill gap is narrowing, where zergs actually try to micro their units, and we just now notice how much easier and imbalanced their race is and has been in the first place.
What we, the terran players ask, is for Blizzard to not employ a double standard and nerf the zerg to the ground as they continiously did with terran for 1.5 years based on the fact that a group of godlike players with godlike micro (MVP, MKP, MMA) were destroying zergs left and right.
Blizzard did not wait for the zergs to try and find and answer. They buffed zerg, nerfed terran. Simple as that. Based on a single game of MVP, Blizzard nerfed ghosts's snipe. Based on another single game of MVP against Nestea, Blizzard retracted the decision of buffing raven speed. If they were consistent with the way they deal with things, they should have nerfed infestor brood lord and corruptor 6 to 9 months ago, since EVERY zerg player IN EVERY game IN EVERY matchup uses exactly the same combination, and uses it with ease. Thus, Blizzard must nerf infestor, and nerf it heavily.
+1
Even though i'm protoss, i always cringe when i see terrans lose to broodlord infestor so easily after ghost nerf. Even if you have a ton of viking, one goddamn fungal on them and it's gg. Sad ...
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
I don't think players care what day to day activities blizzard and friends are doing, or what ever qualification and background they come from . Maybe if he would to be put in charge he probably manifest his version of what sc2 "should be " and it could be better than what the current development are doing .
Second I think everyone has the right to complain and it doesn't matter who the hell do you think you are .... We want the game to be better we put our ideas and try to pin point what could be a better solution but the effort feels a little futile because we don't have the necessary tools to change anything.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
infestor buff removed any cap skill involved with the zerg race. Honestly when the game was balanced tvz was the most exciting and entertaing matchup to watch. Nowadays we've noname and noskill player like vortix or slivko facing (and defeating) MVP with plain AMOVE.
right now zerg are unharassable early game thx to siegequeen, utterly strong in mid game and totally op in late game: well this is a bit too much even for the asymmetrical balance. master league is filled with zerg just because of infestors: otherwise these retards would never break through platinum league, where they deserve to rest forever.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
On November 13 2012 19:16 Stilgorn wrote: infestor buff removed any cap skill involved with the zerg race. Honestly when the game was balanced tvz was the most exciting and entertaing matchup to watch. Nowadays we've noname and noskill player like vortix or slivko facing (and defeating) MVP with plain AMOVE.
right now zerg are unharassable early game thx to siegequeen, utterly strong in mid game and totally op in late game: well this is a bit too much even for the asymmetrical balance. master league is filled with zerg just because of infestors: otherwise these retards would never break through platinum league, where they deserve to rest forever.
Sweet, sweet terran tears.
I would point to all of your mistakes and pure rage post, but I won't miss my time with you more than these two lines.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
I am just someone who is most likely older than you and who is not connected to any race in SC2 deeply enough to care about it. I am not an SC2 player, but I have played BW for a long time ... for fun ... so I can compare the two. What I see is that there are general problems with the "newer and more advanced" game which the older game did not have and I complain about them. Then guys like you come around and tell me to "fuck off" or "stop trying to turn SC2 into BW" which totally isnt the point. If you have problems understanding the arguments I make then I could help you understand maybe, BUT the devs at Blizzard *should be* smart enough to understand them and they dont seem to be. So I cry foul and call them "unwise", because they are taking the tough and complicated way to balance the game and its new expansion.
Thinking and arguing about the points made is MUCH preferrable to pure braindead arrogance and zealous belief in that "everything will turn out for the better" and that "Blizzard devs will set us free". So dont rage ... ARGUE YOUR POINT INSTEAD. I have given you my views on the matter, now tell me why automatically clumped up units is the better way to go.
On November 13 2012 20:25 Stilgorn wrote: rage? its truth. infestor nerf= mass demotion.
Yeah sure, because only terran belongs to GM and above, and all zergs are just noobs who a move to victory.
Are you watching the GSL today? Great games, and few infestors. But hey, zergs win because the infestor is OP (even if the infestor was the same for almost a year)
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
There are two ways of judging a problem or risk: 1. Only experts can really see/decide which way is the best way. 2. Only unconnected people can decide on an impartial basis.
As an example you should ask yourself if scientists should decide about nuclear power plants OR if people who arent biased or blind in some way should do it. Scientists are usually really smart and always see the "ideal solution" and how things could be implemented for example, but never factor in the humans which still have to keep safety measures up. We know how things go from the oil spill in the gulf of mexico, which was caused by a company saving on necessary regular safety protocols and replacements.
This is the reason why I question the ability of Blizzard devs to judge the necessary changes accurately. They think that they can fix the problems through units because thats what they have done so far, but that is an illusion IMO and is made impossibly hard by the movement mechanics (auto-clumping) and unlimited unit selection. Just compare SC2 battles to BW battles and you will notice that it didnt really matter that Siege Tanks and PSI Storm were "a bit powerful" in BW, because you still werent able to annihilate your opponent in less than a minute like it would be able if those two attacks had the same values in SC2. Thus the changes made to the density of units is important. Obviously this is a statistic which is not listed anywhere and thus it isnt on the minds of the devs ... which makes them partially blind to its effect.
Just look at the changes of the dps between the games and you see that the Siege Tank and Storm got reduced dps and that the single Marine didnt change that much, BUT due to the fact that those Marines can walk around in a tight bunch of more than 12 units they have a much higher dps as a group. This is the change which made SC2 acquire the deathball (all fighting units in a tight clump from both sides in a grand 30 second battle and either one of them wins or they macro up to try it again).
Micro of units - like Nony's Carrier micro - is pretty much useless compared to the increased dps of a clump of infantry. So that is another loss and nothing can make that work without the unit clumping being removed first. SC2 should be a strategy game and not a "who builds the better army faster than his opponent?" one. The devs dont see that or at least they dont see that the solution to many of these problems is ... - forced unit spreading while being able to clump your units through micro, - limited unit selection and - reduced unit production (just remove all the asymmetric production speed boots along with the economic speed boost). This should make the game much more interesting, because the deathball will be less likely to happen and positional and defensive play will have their place. It should also allow for more interesting abilities which can be overpowered as well ... just as it was in BW.
Question, what about a different targeting reticle? A teardrop shape with a fixed starting point would make balled up infestors unable to target a wide unit formation since teardrops are all slim and stuff.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
Whoa there buddy, your tell me that theory-crafting on forums is less effective that straight up testing? Those are some strong words your using there and you better be prepared to back that up with FACTS. I mean, theory-crafting has to be effective, look at all the people who are doing it. I mean, the community agrees, look at all the people posting about how to fix the game.
I do agree that Rabiator's substantial point is weak. Neither the unit test map here on TL nor that blue post support the hypothesis that unit clumping is the solution to the current problems.
I'm mostly interested in the idea that there are too many (or few) hard counters. Too many in terms of marines/corruptors making carriers borderline useless and too few in terms of the infestor being too versatile. No-one has thought about unit selection for a while though. The latest patch made it even easier with the "select the entire army" button being added.
I have the feeling that this is a problem for beginners and not pros. Would limiting selection have a major effect on top-end games? I'll just leave that question out there. I don't have an answer.
But I do look forward to cringing less when I see my bronze-level friends leaving army behind all over the map...
used to be gm terran for 6 seasons, tvz was the most fun matchup which kept me on playing, stopped 2 month after the quen buff, game just isnt fun anymore, now playing dota which is fun! gj blizz :D
On November 13 2012 07:26 JJH777 wrote: This GSL is the first big tournament where zerg has been so overrepresented I consider MLGs, WCS Korea, WCG Korea, certain dreamhacks, certain IEMs, WCS Asia, OSL, and some other random tournaments to have been the major ones since the patch. Which dreamhacks and IEMs I consider major are based on how many koreans/the quality of koreans that went to them.
There have been 4 MLGs since the patch with the exception of the first one after the patch (like within a week of the patch) they have been the most balanced MLGs ever as far as ro16s and ro8s. WCS Korea was heavily Protoss dominated, WCG Korea was mostly Terrans and Protoss, and WCS Asia was protoss dominated. For dreamhacks I'm pretty sure the one Mana won was after the patch? Then there was the Taeja ForGG finals one. IEM the only one I remember is the one MVP won which aside from MVP beating all of them zerg did very well at I will admit. OSL zerg did badly in. Only 2 in ro16 and 1 in ro8. For other random tournaments there are like Asus Rog tournaments, ESWC, Lone Star Clash, Home Story Cups, TSL4 etc. Zerg won the HSC that was post patch and Lone Star. Mana won ESWC and Taeja won the Asus Rog. Creator won TSL4. Results have been pretty balanced post patch.
Please read this post.
And this post.
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
From T/P's point of view: Just because Terran (or Protoss) has had their share of OP'ness, it doesn't justify Z being OP right now, sure.
I agree with JJH777 that the results haven't been as imbalanced as one should suggest, purely looking at premier tournaments. I agree with Idra that the playstyles of T/P aren't developing, or are just starting to. People seem to realize dropping more severely hurts turtling as zerg, most of the time you can't defend the 4th AND 5th as a BL/Infestor army. (Look at Code S!).
Hell, I'd even say that the PvZ was less balanced when Nestea and Stephano managed to figure that matchup out so much they were able to withstand every all-in and get on 3 bases without really building attacking units. Still, we don't see that build anymore.
Give it another month, maybe 2, and it'll be balanced again.
On November 13 2012 19:16 Stilgorn wrote: master league is filled with zerg just because of infestors: otherwise these retards would never break through platinum league, where they deserve to rest forever.
This sentence made my day. So true.
Just look at IPL Fight Club again. HyuN's 14th victory in a row. A Terran or Protoss could NEVER achieve that. It's a joke. Sometimes I even think the whole Zerg race is just poorly designed - not just the Infestor. I don't know what to say.
On November 13 2012 21:15 Ghanburighan wrote: I do agree that Rabiator's substantial point is weak. Neither the unit test map here on TL nor that blue post support the hypothesis that unit clumping is the solution to the current problems.
I'm mostly interested in the idea that there are too many (or few) hard counters. Too many in terms of marines/corruptors making carriers borderline useless and too few in terms of the infestor being too versatile. No-one has thought about unit selection for a while though. The latest patch made it even easier with the "select the entire army" button being added.
I have the feeling that this is a problem for beginners and not pros. Would limiting selection have a major effect on top-end games? I'll just leave that question out there. I don't have an answer.
But I do look forward to cringing less when I see my bronze-level friends leaving army behind all over the map...
The testing methods usually only involved spreading out units, but that is only one of the things that need to be changed. Unit selection has to be adjusted and AoE needs a rebalance as well, so those tests were bound to fail.
IMO limiting the unit selection would actually help casuals since the battles would be on a much smaller scale and thus MUCH slower than those giant battles in SC2 right now where you can make a misclick and half your army is dead. Sadly too many people dont see this point from my perspective and only think that "oh I have everything in one box and that makes it easier because I dont need to switch". It is not that easy ...
Oh and please tell me why the point is weak ... I have yet to encounter someone actually trying argue with my reasoning ... instead its just flat statements.
On November 13 2012 05:26 Assirra wrote: We had 20 freaking terrans in code S. Are you honestly saying that had nothing to do with the current balance and just became "terran players just better".
Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
So if Blizzard half-heartedly tests something that isnt going to work in its implementation and which was regarded as a joke in the thread anyways (after that kind of "we dont take your ideas serious enough to even try them out in the beta" answer) it is enough for you? Well not for me and if you think I am wrong then ARGUE WITH THE REASONING. Explain to me why ... 1. asymmetric production speed boosts for the three races which kick in at different timings and dont work for every unit of each race are a good idea. 2. tightly clumped up groups of infantry are a good idea, because to make the game "fair" they had to nerf AoE abilities ... which usually are the exciting points in the game. 3. the deathball is a good thing. 4. tightly clumped units of Marines (and Hydras and Blink Stalkers) are NOT responsible for capital ships and defensive structures being more or less useless.
Just remember ... "because the devs say so" or something similar isnt a good enough reason. If you dont answer then I have to assume that I am right in that these things are terrible AND a problem of the game.
EDIT: Slight addition to the above: How "high quality" and "thorough" Blizzard internal testing is can be clearly seen by the HotS units and their really wild changes. I for one dont put much stock in those skills ... with such uninspired and almost random ability changes.
On November 13 2012 21:15 Ghanburighan wrote: I do agree that Rabiator's substantial point is weak. Neither the unit test map here on TL nor that blue post support the hypothesis that unit clumping is the solution to the current problems.
I'm mostly interested in the idea that there are too many (or few) hard counters. Too many in terms of marines/corruptors making carriers borderline useless and too few in terms of the infestor being too versatile. No-one has thought about unit selection for a while though. The latest patch made it even easier with the "select the entire army" button being added.
I have the feeling that this is a problem for beginners and not pros. Would limiting selection have a major effect on top-end games? I'll just leave that question out there. I don't have an answer.
But I do look forward to cringing less when I see my bronze-level friends leaving army behind all over the map...
The testing methods usually only involved spreading out units, but that is only one of the things that need to be changed. Unit selection has to be adjusted and AoE needs a rebalance as well, so those tests were bound to fail.
IMO limiting the unit selection would actually help casuals since the battles would be on a much smaller scale and thus MUCH slower than those giant battles in SC2 right now where you can make a misclick and half your army is dead. Sadly too many people dont see this point from my perspective and only think that "oh I have everything in one box and that makes it easier because I dont need to switch". It is not that easy ...
Oh and please tell me why the point is weak ... I have yet to encounter someone actually trying argue with my reasoning ... instead its just flat statements.
Oh, I meant it's weak because the tests you mentioned failed. The full package has not been tested yet. Remember, I'm the guy on your side in the end... But do expand on how the problematic combination of Broodlord/infestor/spines/corruptors would be improved. I still don't see it.
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
i think the point kharnage was trying to make was that the disagree => unwise reasoning is useless without actual knowledge on dev team's activity. There are some hints as to what they're busy with, but no more than that. I think the existence of something like the deathball is a weakness, in the sense that it determines for a near 100% how the game goes. In the case of a deathball, i'd rather see that stuff happens around which significant impact on a deathball vs deathball fight. At highest levels of play, one can already see something like that already, so i'm not too pessimistic, but at the moment it's just too difficult to pull off.
I can imagine them going in that direction, seeing some of the new units in hots. I do realise some people don't like these units, but they are a step in mentioned direction. There are certainly weaknesses in this concept, but saying people are unwise, or dumb for choosing a different concept is at least shortsighted, how good the reasons for another concept are, for that way, it will turn into a religious debate instead of an actual discussion.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
Oh so now it's not the Infestor that's OP but the whole race? Why should take you seriously, come on man, atleast give a decent response.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
Oh so now it's not the Infestor that's OP but the whole race? Why should take you seriously, come on man, atleast give a decent response.
I'm not saying that whole race is OP. I'm just completely against the guy who is ignorantly saying that BL/Infestor is the only way of playing Zerg.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
Oh so now it's not the Infestor that's OP but the whole race? Why should take you seriously, come on man, atleast give a decent response.
You really can't take IdrA seriously on balance. He complained about blinkstalker all-in after scouting it and not responding correctly.
And yeah broodlords are immobile, but so are tanks and thors (maybe a teeny bit less?). Speedling backstabs to the third base are better than hellion backstabs, you can't really take down production with hellions like you can with lings. So Zerg wins there too. Lost 20 drones to a hellion runby (lategame)? Make 20 drones with a bank of 60 larva.
Also, spines > bunkers.
/edit
All I'm saying is, Zerg isn't as IdrA would like you to think it is. Imba? Who knows. But definitely doing amazingly atm. And man, when IdrA talks about Toss and Terrans developing new strats/adjusting, where was his adjusting when complaining about Zerg being underpowered?
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
On November 13 2012 05:50 sieksdekciw wrote: [quote] Yes. And they are still better, and the only reason they are not again in code S, is cause zergs got a bit better and were heavily helped by the imbalance that zerg is. Don't get me wrong, the skill gap is still big, but not as big as before.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
So if Blizzard half-heartedly tests something that isnt going to work in its implementation and which was regarded as a joke in the thread anyways (after that kind of "we dont take your ideas serious enough to even try them out in the beta" answer) it is enough for you? Well not for me and if you think I am wrong then ARGUE WITH THE REASONING. Explain to me why ...
Half-heartedly... so everything that hasn't been exposed to a huge portion of the community for an extended periode of time is half-heartedly? If you read the article, you will read that DB stated that they tested various instances of such movement. Imo this is not half-heartedly testing. Furthermore, the HotS beta is not a playground for any community idea someone has ever had. Make a map, test it yourself. If it is a popular idea, you will find a few (yeah not a lot, but still some) people to test such stuff, at least if you can eloquently explain the idea and it's goals in a thread (--> FRB, --> Starbow). Or just test it in Starbow. It's in there, I played that mod, I like that mod, but I actually don't think that the movement makes a significant difference in the playability of certain styles (while I think that the unit/income changes do actually matter a lot to the gameplay of the mod).
To the other stuff:
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: 1. asymmetric production speed boosts for the three races which kick in at different timings and dont work for every unit of each race are a good idea. 2. tightly clumped up groups of infantry are a good idea, because to make the game "fair" they had to nerf AoE abilities ... which usually are the exciting points in the game. 3. the deathball is a good thing. 4. tightly clumped units of Marines (and Hydras and Blink Stalkers) are NOT responsible for capital ships and defensive structures being more or less useless.
1.) asymetric production was in BW as well. A hatchery can start to produce 3 Ultralisks in 42seconds, but a factory (similar cost to a hatchery) just 1siege tank. The production boost that were introduced in SC2 (on top of changed production times) - I believe you talk about those - chronoboost, larva inject, mules, reactores, switchable addons - don't do anything differently than the (broodwar-) difference between a gateway (150mineral building that can produce 1zealot = 100resources/2supply worth of units in 40seconds) vs a barracks (150mineral building that can produce 100resources/2supply worth of units in 48seconds), which leads to a production advantage for Protoss. And this is a really, really soft example. And (still talking BW), different units profit differently from this production differences. F.e: 1 larva, would you build an ultralisk or 2zerglings from it? Do you wait for 9larva and 450minerals, to start 18zerglings, or do you wait for 9larva and stockpile 900/900 to start 9mutalisks? Asymetric production is one of the core principles that made Starcraft different from games with similar design (like CnC1 and RedAlert). 2.) Tightly clumped units can be good, or can be bad. In a game with a good variety of melee units that are simply designed to be stronger than ranged units on their own, clumping is a vital part of ranged play. If I had the choice, I would want less clumping in SC2, but I actually think - talking from my experience with other RTS games - the only way to reduce unit clumping, is to force more actionbased play, so that you have to move out with smaller amounts of units earlier. (just play any RTS game as noob, do some Big Game Hunters style of turtle play and see how it turns out. It's always going to be ball vs ball. Only when you start to get better, start to get how rushes work etc, the amount of units per location will decrease. Therefore, the best - maybe only - way to decrease clumping is to increase action). And in conclusion, actionbased play is very tightly connected to unitdesign and - balancing against each other. SC2 PvZ is stale, because Protoss can't move out due to zerg-speed and the roach being too strong vs sametime-available Protoss units. Zerg on the other hand cannot attack either, because of Protoss-range and Protoss-walls. It's unhealthy unit relationship that is hurting the matchup, not clumping, yet all we see is deathballs vs deathballs. 3.) The deathball is not a good thing, but it's not a bad thing either. Deathballs are necessary. At some point in the game, you want to grab your army and kill the opponent. Same for watching a game. At some point, you want to see something big happening. Harassment all over the map is nice and exciting. However, seeing someone die from multipronged aggression while no real encounter has ever happened feels wrong. Outside of biostyles (the irony... the super dps-dense balls allow for these styles more than anything else) and multipronged zergstyles against macro Terrans (a pity that we don't see this enough. Probably the best reason to nerf endgame zerg to force more aggressive play), I agree that the game might be lacking these things. (lategame warp-prism usage is actually quite cool as well). But if you actually watched this game from the very beginning, it has become a lot better just by figuering out all the various timings and ways to spread an opponent out and though the deathball is a goal in the game, it's not a consistent playstyle anymore, most of the time. (and that was being done just by figuring and balance changes, without the change of coremechanics) 4.) Of course they are responsible for captial ships not being very good. But you know, there would be an easy solution. Buff the said units until they are viable. If rushing them becomes too strong, lengthen the time to tech there. For example, BCs and Broodlords do beat marines in the higher numbers, that's why we see those units in the late/endgame against marines. Carriers don't beat them ever, that's why we don't see them at all against marines. BCs have seen a little bit of usage against Zerg, but they could use a small buff still. Carriers need quite a buff. Defensive structures not good enough? Sorry, but I simply disagree with this. 1canon + wall holds a ton of (Zerg) stuff, spines are nearly as often being whined about as Broodlords are. Bunkers... don't even start about those things, they should get nerfed PFs, Turrets... all of that stuff is really good. Maybe Protoss vs air defense is slightly lacking. Maybe all the ground defenses could use +1range (7range spine/canon vs 5-6range mobile troops makes runbies quite strong and the need for siege weapons smaller), but they are generally quite good and cheap and outside of highlevel games, I can only encourage everybody to just build one extra, because it won't matter on that level of play for the macrogame, but win you a lot of games in the shortrun.
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: Just remember ... "because the devs say so" or something similar isnt a good enough reason. If you dont answer then I have to assume that I am right in that these things are terrible AND a problem of the game.
EDIT: Slight addition to the above: How "high quality" and "thorough" Blizzard internal testing is can be clearly seen by the HotS units and their really wild changes. I for one dont put much stock in those skills ... with such uninspired and almost random ability changes.
Most of the community has "asked" blizzard to be more open about their unit designs and allow themselves more changes. Blizzard listened, it's a good thing. Not a bad thing. Though I also agree with Artosis on that matter. Stuff like the warhound might not have been very interesting by design, but could have been really good for the strategy part in the RTS Starcraft:HotS. Still happy that it is gone, yet really courious about how it would have worked out with it.
Asymmetric production was in BW. However, BW rarely had max armies trading and then both sides had bank to remax. The slower Eco of BW made building up that huge bank much more rare. And even in rare 200/200 situations, the armies would be spread throughout the map so one side doesn't lose 100 supply in one fight. It was mostly a 20 supply advantage here, another 10 supply there until one side can't keep up. So being able to make 100+ supply at once wasn't as big an issue.
As someone that played t vs p in BW, this amount of whine about bl/infestors should be kinda comical. There's just no way in hell that dealing with bl/infestor is even close in difficulty to dealing with carriers in BW, whether it be pure carriers or combined with any combination of units. You attempt to beat it the same way, take the map and attack where they aren't, until you either have to face them head on or it's obvious you have the means to win in a convincing fashion. I don't remember that much carriers are imbalanced talk, though.
Maps like daybreak are a lot harder than, say, entombed valley when it comes to dealing with bl/infestor. Point is, if maps can alter the viability of units, then it's probably not inherently imbalanced and your complaints should probably be directed at how maps are made. Or, you can simply accept that sometimes maps will favor you and other times they won't. Life.
If you're whining because you can't win but you keep playing the same style, then you probably deserve every loss and should expect more. Have to focus more on exhausting possibilities. I find "corrupter timings," like in stephano versus crank, where they are used offensively, to be far more problematic than units that I have a choice to keep evading if I choose to. Especially when all of my timings, be it a fourth or a push, hinge on not losing units to corrupters that won't die before killing them. I don't think toss players have shown much resolve; if it's not one thing zerg is using, it's going to be something else they are crying about. Should be happy that hasn't been exposed yet.
HotS is set to come out. At least wait it out and see if the tempest helps you. All this said, design wise, the infestor probably does way too much and is boring. For an outsider, z vs t looks very imbalanced to me, in part due to the infestor. Since I haven't played t vs z/looked for solutions, that may be an unfounded opinion.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
So if Blizzard half-heartedly tests something that isnt going to work in its implementation and which was regarded as a joke in the thread anyways (after that kind of "we dont take your ideas serious enough to even try them out in the beta" answer) it is enough for you? Well not for me and if you think I am wrong then ARGUE WITH THE REASONING. Explain to me why ...
Half-heartedly... so everything that hasn't been exposed to a huge portion of the community for an extended periode of time is half-heartedly? If you read the article, you will read that DB stated that they tested various instances of such movement. Imo this is not half-heartedly testing. Furthermore, the HotS beta is not a playground for any community idea someone has ever had. Make a map, test it yourself. If it is a popular idea, you will find a few (yeah not a lot, but still some) people to test such stuff, at least if you can eloquently explain the idea and it's goals in a thread (--> FRB, --> Starbow). Or just test it in Starbow. It's in there, I played that mod, I like that mod, but I actually don't think that the movement makes a significant difference in the playability of certain styles (while I think that the unit/income changes do actually matter a lot to the gameplay of the mod).
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: 1. asymmetric production speed boosts for the three races which kick in at different timings and dont work for every unit of each race are a good idea. 2. tightly clumped up groups of infantry are a good idea, because to make the game "fair" they had to nerf AoE abilities ... which usually are the exciting points in the game. 3. the deathball is a good thing. 4. tightly clumped units of Marines (and Hydras and Blink Stalkers) are NOT responsible for capital ships and defensive structures being more or less useless.
1.) asymetric production was in BW as well. A hatchery can start to produce 3 Ultralisks in 42seconds, but a factory (similar cost to a hatchery) just 1siege tank. The production boost that were introduced in SC2 (on top of changed production times) - I believe you talk about those - chronoboost, larva inject, mules, reactores, switchable addons - don't do anything differently than the (broodwar-) difference between a gateway (150mineral building that can produce 1zealot = 100resources/2supply worth of units in 40seconds) vs a barracks (150mineral building that can produce 100resources/2supply worth of units in 48seconds), which leads to a production advantage for Protoss. And this is a really, really soft example. And (still talking BW), different units profit differently from this production differences. F.e: 1 larva, would you build an ultralisk or 2zerglings from it? Do you wait for 9larva and 450minerals, to start 18zerglings, or do you wait for 9larva and stockpile 900/900 to start 9mutalisks? Asymetric production is one of the core principles that made Starcraft different from games with similar design (like CnC1 and RedAlert). 2.) Tightly clumped units can be good, or can be bad. In a game with a good variety of melee units that are simply designed to be stronger than ranged units on their own, clumping is a vital part of ranged play. If I had the choice, I would want less clumping in SC2, but I actually think - talking from my experience with other RTS games - the only way to reduce unit clumping, is to force more actionbased play, so that you have to move out with smaller amounts of units earlier. (just play any RTS game as noob, do some Big Game Hunters style of turtle play and see how it turns out. It's always going to be ball vs ball. Only when you start to get better, start to get how rushes work etc, the amount of units per location will decrease. Therefore, the best - maybe only - way to decrease clumping is to increase action). And in conclusion, actionbased play is very tightly connected to unitdesign and - balancing against each other. SC2 PvZ is stale, because Protoss can't move out due to zerg-speed and the roach being too strong vs sametime-available Protoss units. Zerg on the other hand cannot attack either, because of Protoss-range and Protoss-walls. It's unhealthy unit relationship that is hurting the matchup, not clumping, yet all we see is deathballs vs deathballs. 3.) The deathball is not a good thing, but it's not a bad thing either. Deathballs are necessary. At some point in the game, you want to grab your army and kill the opponent. Same for watching a game. At some point, you want to see something big happening. Harassment all over the map is nice and exciting. However, seeing someone die from multipronged aggression while no real encounter has ever happened feels wrong. Outside of biostyles (the irony... the super dps-dense balls allow for these styles more than anything else) and multipronged zergstyles against macro Terrans (a pity that we don't see this enough. Probably the best reason to nerf endgame zerg to force more aggressive play), I agree that the game might be lacking these things. (lategame warp-prism usage is actually quite cool as well). But if you actually watched this game from the very beginning, it has become a lot better just by figuering out all the various timings and ways to spread an opponent out and though the deathball is a goal in the game, it's not a consistent playstyle anymore, most of the time. (and that was being done just by figuring and balance changes, without the change of coremechanics) 4.) Of course they are responsible for captial ships not being very good. But you know, there would be an easy solution. Buff the said units until they are viable. If rushing them becomes too strong, lengthen the time to tech there. For example, BCs and Broodlords do beat marines in the higher numbers, that's why we see those units in the late/endgame against marines. Carriers don't beat them ever, that's why we don't see them at all against marines. BCs have seen a little bit of usage against Zerg, but they could use a small buff still. Carriers need quite a buff. Defensive structures not good enough? Sorry, but I simply disagree with this. 1canon + wall holds a ton of (Zerg) stuff, spines are nearly as often being whined about as Broodlords are. Bunkers... don't even start about those things, they should get nerfed PFs, Turrets... all of that stuff is really good. Maybe Protoss vs air defense is slightly lacking. Maybe all the ground defenses could use +1range (7range spine/canon vs 5-6range mobile troops makes runbies quite strong and the need for siege weapons smaller), but they are generally quite good and cheap and outside of highlevel games, I can only encourage everybody to just build one extra, because it won't matter on that level of play for the macrogame, but win you a lot of games in the shortrun.
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: Just remember ... "because the devs say so" or something similar isnt a good enough reason. If you dont answer then I have to assume that I am right in that these things are terrible AND a problem of the game.
EDIT: Slight addition to the above: How "high quality" and "thorough" Blizzard internal testing is can be clearly seen by the HotS units and their really wild changes. I for one dont put much stock in those skills ... with such uninspired and almost random ability changes.
Most of the community has "asked" blizzard to be more open about their unit designs and allow themselves more changes. Blizzard listened, it's a good thing. Not a bad thing. Though I also agree with Artosis on that matter. Stuff like the warhound might not have been very interesting by design, but could have been really good for the strategy part in the RTS Starcraft:HotS. Still happy that it is gone, yet really courious about how it would have worked out with it.
1. The question was not about asymmetric production, but rather about asymmetric BOOSTS. The general asymmetric production between Zerg and the other two races works as proven in BW, but is the same true if you also apply boosts which only affect a limited part of their army for two races and the full repertoire for the third? I am convinced that Siege Tanks not being boosted through reactors is one of the reasons why mech is so hard to pull off; casters are telling us about the limited reproducability of the tank every mech game after all ... Since "more units on the battlefield" is not a good thing, the only remaining option is to get rid of these boosts ... which would also get rid of the MULE which people have whined about forever ...
2. If you make melee units much stronger than ranged units you are basically screwing up the balance when there are few units around. This doesnt work and increasing the attacks of the Siege Tank - to counteract the deathball for example - would be just as bad. If you had 2-3 Zealots while the opponent has 5-6 Marines you will win simply because there isnt that mass of units around. So your train of thought is not going in the right direction. Tougher units or units which deal more damage dont work if they are changed to accomodate the "mass army fight", because that always screws up the individual balance between any units ... so the only solution is to get rid of the deathball by NOT adjusting these combat values.
3. Deathballs are not necessary to win. If the other side isnt capable of bringing a deathball to the battlefield then you dont need yours to win either. The big clumps of armies do prevent real micro from happening, because you can not focus on a small part of your army and let your bigger part run into their doom. Just watch some BW games and you see plenty of action ... "something big" is NOT necessary for entertainment purposes, its just what people are told what they should think is good. As usual: bigger is not necessarily better.
Smaller fights between smaller armies just offer more control to the player since they are slower AND they leave room for the devs to implement seemingly overpowered abilities. If Fungal would only hit 3 Marines each time because they are spread out that much it wouldnt be such a pain in the rear ability for example. Slower battles are also easier to understand and follow for a spectator.
4. The same argument from #2 applies to capital ships ... if you buff the BC to not die easily to 20 Marines you would make BC rushes pretty powerful.
Static defenses are pretty terrible in SC2 due to the simple fact that a tight clump of infantry can tear a small number of them down too easily. Its the same as for the capital ships and buffing them is a terrible idea, because of cannon rushes and so on. Even a Planetary Fortress on its own only lasts longish against a serious attack if it is repaired instantly and nothing can prevent it from being destroyed by a column of Banelings rolling in on a rightclick.
----
So Blizzard is trying to be more open about their unit design, but the way they are doing it is pretty much piss poor, because of the comment about "internal testing" for the movement adjustment. That is a pretty decent thread of 40 pages and it got "a few hours" of testing? I cant take that seriously and even Browders recent comments in the OP are generic and only list "every possible option" ... which should be pretty obvious. That kind of "community interaction" is unnecessary because it stinks of a public relations ploy to just calm down the people complaining about it.
Another thing which formed my opinion of Blizzard devs being unwise is the pretty poor design for the new units in HotS ...
Yet another "free unit spawner" for the race with the biggest production capability and which is supposed to be replacing all their units regularly?
A unit which can pull enemy units into the midst of their own clump of units? (We did agree that "many infantry against few big ships is bad" and this pretty much shows they dont understand the problems their clumped unit movement creates.)
The many stupid implementations of the Oracle, Mothership Core and the "22 range I am safe against your attacks because I can fly and also have a lot of health"-Tempest for Protoss?
A mine which costs supply and fires missiles which are able to hit flyers?
The Warhound?
The Battle Hellion is an ok-ish concept, but it might suffer from the "what happens in a few vs few scenario" due to the increase hp. All they came up for this unit was a new name? They must be joking here ...
Sorry ... they just threw in their wildest ideas for units and created them and probably bothered more about "new death animation" than actually thinking about their unit concepts. I really cant take them seriously anymore until they start showing that they understand the concept of the deathball (they said they wanted to do something against it IIRC, so there is hope) and why/how it is made possible. Since the "tightly clumped unit problem" is independant of the race or the specific unit it needs a general solution and not one based on units.
On November 13 2012 23:37 vthree wrote: Asymmetric production was in BW. However, BW rarely had max armies trading and then both sides had bank to remax. The slower Eco of BW made building up that huge bank much more rare. And even in rare 200/200 situations, the armies would be spread throughout the map so one side doesn't lose 100 supply in one fight. It was mostly a 20 supply advantage here, another 10 supply there until one side can't keep up. So being able to make 100+ supply at once wasn't as big an issue.
Lets also not forget that you would be hard pressed to get a 200/200 BW army on a single screen, even if you wanted to. That game was built for a much smaller screen size, no wide screen, lower resolution and chunker UI. People forget how much more room everything took up in BW. It was one of the reasons why there were fewer deathballs.
Forcing people to operate on multiple screens can prevent “blobbing”.
Rabiator has fair points, Blizzard dev team are a decent AAA game developers. But surely, they're not 'epic' developers who could create legendary games, which we're looking for. And with the current state of game industry its impossible for such developers to exist. Therefore discussion of Blizzard's competency is meaningless, they've changed company direction (money comes before product). And possibly we'll never see any legendary games in the future ever
On November 14 2012 00:50 bokeevboke wrote: Rabiator has fair points, Blizzard dev team are a decent AAA game developers. But surely, they're not 'epic' developers who could create legendary games, which we're looking for. And with the current state of game industry its impossible for such developers to exist. Therefore discussion of Blizzard's competency is meaningless, they've changed company direction (money comes before product). And possibly we'll never see any legendary games in the future ever
These sorts of vague, overarching statements about “legendary developers” are the main reason why Blizzard can never win. The release a Starcraft 2 in an era when every company is trying to reinvent the RTS genre, adding “features” they think will make RTS games more enjoyable. Removing resource collection, base building, direct control of units, micro or control. Feature are added to automatically build units, build bases without building placement or formation buttons to force units into specific shapes, complete with buffs for that shape.
Then Blizzard comes out with Starcraft 2 and says: “Forget all that crap, we did it first and we did it best. People will build units by hand, they will scout with workers and worry about harvesting resources again. The only thing we find worth wild in this new world of RTS games are waypoints, shift commands and unlimited unit selection. Beyond that, all your stuff is crap.” and then Starcraft 2 sells 4.5 million over 2 years. Reviewers love the game, people are back to building bases, kiting units and worrying about build orders. It is like a pizza shop opening, only serving cheese pizza because its was the best and everyone being thankful for being shown that topping suck.
It may be popular and easy to crap on Blizzard on TL. After all, we are comparing it to the gold standard of RTS game, perfected and shined over 10 years of play. And beyond that, there are thousands of posts where people flesh out in great detail how bad Starcraft 2 is, so you don’t even need to come up with your own reasons, they are provide for you.
But people forget where RTS games were going before Starcraft 2 came out and how much it reminded people that the original ideas are the best ideas.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
So if Blizzard half-heartedly tests something that isnt going to work in its implementation and which was regarded as a joke in the thread anyways (after that kind of "we dont take your ideas serious enough to even try them out in the beta" answer) it is enough for you? Well not for me and if you think I am wrong then ARGUE WITH THE REASONING. Explain to me why ...
Half-heartedly... so everything that hasn't been exposed to a huge portion of the community for an extended periode of time is half-heartedly? If you read the article, you will read that DB stated that they tested various instances of such movement. Imo this is not half-heartedly testing. Furthermore, the HotS beta is not a playground for any community idea someone has ever had. Make a map, test it yourself. If it is a popular idea, you will find a few (yeah not a lot, but still some) people to test such stuff, at least if you can eloquently explain the idea and it's goals in a thread (--> FRB, --> Starbow). Or just test it in Starbow. It's in there, I played that mod, I like that mod, but I actually don't think that the movement makes a significant difference in the playability of certain styles (while I think that the unit/income changes do actually matter a lot to the gameplay of the mod).
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: 1. asymmetric production speed boosts for the three races which kick in at different timings and dont work for every unit of each race are a good idea. 2. tightly clumped up groups of infantry are a good idea, because to make the game "fair" they had to nerf AoE abilities ... which usually are the exciting points in the game. 3. the deathball is a good thing. 4. tightly clumped units of Marines (and Hydras and Blink Stalkers) are NOT responsible for capital ships and defensive structures being more or less useless.
1.) asymetric production was in BW as well. A hatchery can start to produce 3 Ultralisks in 42seconds, but a factory (similar cost to a hatchery) just 1siege tank. The production boost that were introduced in SC2 (on top of changed production times) - I believe you talk about those - chronoboost, larva inject, mules, reactores, switchable addons - don't do anything differently than the (broodwar-) difference between a gateway (150mineral building that can produce 1zealot = 100resources/2supply worth of units in 40seconds) vs a barracks (150mineral building that can produce 100resources/2supply worth of units in 48seconds), which leads to a production advantage for Protoss. And this is a really, really soft example. And (still talking BW), different units profit differently from this production differences. F.e: 1 larva, would you build an ultralisk or 2zerglings from it? Do you wait for 9larva and 450minerals, to start 18zerglings, or do you wait for 9larva and stockpile 900/900 to start 9mutalisks? Asymetric production is one of the core principles that made Starcraft different from games with similar design (like CnC1 and RedAlert). 2.) Tightly clumped units can be good, or can be bad. In a game with a good variety of melee units that are simply designed to be stronger than ranged units on their own, clumping is a vital part of ranged play. If I had the choice, I would want less clumping in SC2, but I actually think - talking from my experience with other RTS games - the only way to reduce unit clumping, is to force more actionbased play, so that you have to move out with smaller amounts of units earlier. (just play any RTS game as noob, do some Big Game Hunters style of turtle play and see how it turns out. It's always going to be ball vs ball. Only when you start to get better, start to get how rushes work etc, the amount of units per location will decrease. Therefore, the best - maybe only - way to decrease clumping is to increase action). And in conclusion, actionbased play is very tightly connected to unitdesign and - balancing against each other. SC2 PvZ is stale, because Protoss can't move out due to zerg-speed and the roach being too strong vs sametime-available Protoss units. Zerg on the other hand cannot attack either, because of Protoss-range and Protoss-walls. It's unhealthy unit relationship that is hurting the matchup, not clumping, yet all we see is deathballs vs deathballs. 3.) The deathball is not a good thing, but it's not a bad thing either. Deathballs are necessary. At some point in the game, you want to grab your army and kill the opponent. Same for watching a game. At some point, you want to see something big happening. Harassment all over the map is nice and exciting. However, seeing someone die from multipronged aggression while no real encounter has ever happened feels wrong. Outside of biostyles (the irony... the super dps-dense balls allow for these styles more than anything else) and multipronged zergstyles against macro Terrans (a pity that we don't see this enough. Probably the best reason to nerf endgame zerg to force more aggressive play), I agree that the game might be lacking these things. (lategame warp-prism usage is actually quite cool as well). But if you actually watched this game from the very beginning, it has become a lot better just by figuering out all the various timings and ways to spread an opponent out and though the deathball is a goal in the game, it's not a consistent playstyle anymore, most of the time. (and that was being done just by figuring and balance changes, without the change of coremechanics) 4.) Of course they are responsible for captial ships not being very good. But you know, there would be an easy solution. Buff the said units until they are viable. If rushing them becomes too strong, lengthen the time to tech there. For example, BCs and Broodlords do beat marines in the higher numbers, that's why we see those units in the late/endgame against marines. Carriers don't beat them ever, that's why we don't see them at all against marines. BCs have seen a little bit of usage against Zerg, but they could use a small buff still. Carriers need quite a buff. Defensive structures not good enough? Sorry, but I simply disagree with this. 1canon + wall holds a ton of (Zerg) stuff, spines are nearly as often being whined about as Broodlords are. Bunkers... don't even start about those things, they should get nerfed PFs, Turrets... all of that stuff is really good. Maybe Protoss vs air defense is slightly lacking. Maybe all the ground defenses could use +1range (7range spine/canon vs 5-6range mobile troops makes runbies quite strong and the need for siege weapons smaller), but they are generally quite good and cheap and outside of highlevel games, I can only encourage everybody to just build one extra, because it won't matter on that level of play for the macrogame, but win you a lot of games in the shortrun.
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: Just remember ... "because the devs say so" or something similar isnt a good enough reason. If you dont answer then I have to assume that I am right in that these things are terrible AND a problem of the game.
EDIT: Slight addition to the above: How "high quality" and "thorough" Blizzard internal testing is can be clearly seen by the HotS units and their really wild changes. I for one dont put much stock in those skills ... with such uninspired and almost random ability changes.
Most of the community has "asked" blizzard to be more open about their unit designs and allow themselves more changes. Blizzard listened, it's a good thing. Not a bad thing. Though I also agree with Artosis on that matter. Stuff like the warhound might not have been very interesting by design, but could have been really good for the strategy part in the RTS Starcraft:HotS. Still happy that it is gone, yet really courious about how it would have worked out with it.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 1. The question was not about asymmetric production, but rather about asymmetric BOOSTS. The general asymmetric production between Zerg and the other two races works as proven in BW, but is the same true if you also apply boosts which only affect a limited part of their army for two races and the full repertoire for the third? I am convinced that Siege Tanks not being boosted through reactors is one of the reasons why mech is so hard to pull off; casters are telling us about the limited reproducability of the tank every mech game after all ... Since "more units on the battlefield" is not a good thing, the only remaining option is to get rid of these boosts ... which would also get rid of the MULE which people have whined about forever ...
As I have already said (or at least implied), production boosts are nothing but additional ways for production. Their asymetry by design is in no ways different to the general asymetry of production design. If tanks are not being produced because it takes too long to produce them, then just change the value, no need to question reactors.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 2. If you make melee units much stronger than ranged units you are basically screwing up the balance when there are few units around. This doesnt work and increasing the attacks of the Siege Tank - to counteract the deathball for example - would be just as bad. If you had 2-3 Zealots while the opponent has 5-6 Marines you will win simply because there isnt that mass of units around. So your train of thought is not going in the right direction. Tougher units or units which deal more damage dont work if they are changed to accomodate the "mass army fight", because that always screws up the individual balance between any units ... so the only solution is to get rid of the deathball by NOT adjusting these combat values.
I'm not saying that melee units should be stronger. I said that the strategies of the game should allow the player that has to build melee/low range units, to engage with them for as long as they scale well. SC2 doesn't manage that for all of those units, therefore the melee player must (go allin or) turtle and wait for the opponent to go into the open.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 3. Deathballs are not necessary to win. If the other side isnt capable of bringing a deathball to the battlefield then you dont need yours to win either. The big clumps of armies do prevent real micro from happening, because you can not focus on a small part of your army and let your bigger part run into their doom. Just watch some BW games and you see plenty of action ... "something big" is NOT necessary for entertainment purposes, its just what people are told what they should think is good. As usual: bigger is not necessarily better.
Broodwar tank pushes, broodwar hydralisk busts, MM pushes. Sorry, but that's all just big army play, the only difference being movement and visually, but it's the same idea. Get your whole army into the face of your opponent. I'm not a broodwar specialist, but in the few games I have seen (usually the ones that float around with comments like "amazing game") I actually haven't seen a single game, in which someone didn't try to overrun a locations with most of his army moving there.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: Smaller fights between smaller armies just offer more control to the player since they are slower AND they leave room for the devs to implement seemingly overpowered abilities. If Fungal would only hit 3 Marines each time because they are spread out that much it wouldnt be such a pain in the rear ability for example. Slower battles are also easier to understand and follow for a spectator.
Yes, and they are achieved by allowing for more aggressive macro play in all matchups or changing the production-action relation (upping the amount of things that can be done with a unit, until a new unit is produced and you gotta get out of there; map sizes, unit speed, production speed).
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 4. The same argument from #2 applies to capital ships ... if you buff the BC to not die easily to 20 Marines you would make BC rushes pretty powerful.
Did you even read what I wrote? If they become to powerful, make them enter the battlefield later. For example, BC now additionally needs an armory, and the fusion core takes another 20seconds. (this concept works very well for zerg units. Ever tried to rush Ultras of one or two bases, or broodlords? It's a bad strategy, because of the huge amounts of bound investments of time/resources) Even more, it's not about buffing them to be superunits. It's about smoothing out their transition. 1BC should get murdered by 20marines. The strength of Carriers and BCs lies within their supply efficientness, versality and the flying aspect. Right now, their costefficiency is just (in the case of the BC slightly) too low.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: Static defenses are pretty terrible in SC2 due to the simple fact that a tight clump of infantry can tear a small number of them down too easily. Its the same as for the capital ships and buffing them is a terrible idea, because of cannon rushes and so on. Even a Planetary Fortress on its own only lasts longish against a serious attack if it is repaired instantly and nothing can prevent it from being destroyed by a column of Banelings rolling in on a rightclick.
I simply disagree. I think it's easy enough to turtle in this game. If you want more defenders army advantages for small groups, then I agree with you. At least when we talk about Protoss.
On November 14 2012 00:50 bokeevboke wrote: Rabiator has fair points, Blizzard dev team are a decent AAA game developers. But surely, they're not 'epic' developers who could create legendary games, which we're looking for. And with the current state of game industry its impossible for such developers to exist. Therefore discussion of Blizzard's competency is meaningless, they've changed company direction (money comes before product). And possibly we'll never see any legendary games in the future ever
These sorts of vague, overarching statements about “legendary developers” are the main reason why Blizzard can never win. The release a Starcraft 2 in an era when every company is trying to reinvent the RTS genre, adding “features” they think will make RTS games more enjoyable. Removing resource collection, base building, direct control of units, micro or control. Feature are added to automatically build units, build bases without building placement or formation buttons to force units into specific shapes, complete with buffs for that shape.
Then Blizzard comes out with Starcraft 2 and says: “Forget all that crap, we did it first and we did it best. People will build units by hand, they will scout with workers and worry about harvesting resources again. The only thing we find worth wild in this new world of RTS games are waypoints, shift commands and unlimited unit selection. Beyond that, all your stuff is crap.” and then Starcraft 2 sells 4.5 million over 2 years. Reviewers love the game, people are back to building bases, kiting units and worrying about build orders. It is like a pizza shop opening, only serving cheese pizza because its was the best and everyone being thankful for being shown that topping suck.
It may be popular and easy to crap on Blizzard on TL. After all, we are comparing it to the gold standard of RTS game, perfected and shined over 10 years of play. And beyond that, there are thousands of posts where people flesh out in great detail how bad Starcraft 2 is, so you don’t even need to come up with your own reasons, they are provide for you.
But people forget where RTS games were going before Starcraft 2 came out and how much it reminded people that the original ideas are the best ideas.
Very well said, completely agree.
I will quote the Grrrr... on this matter, taken from his recent interview.
What do you think of starcraft2 as a game?
I thnk it's a good game. I lot of its critics are mostly people who had extremely high expectations... because it's the sequel of the greatest RTS game ever made.
Removing the Pathogen Glands upgrade could be a good start. It's not as drastic as the other changes that were suggested, but could still be not as game-breaking...
I wonder why that wasn't brought up yet? Seeing as the Khaydarin Amulet (HT energy upgrade) was removed, why is this still available?
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
Oh so now it's not the Infestor that's OP but the whole race? Why should take you seriously, come on man, atleast give a decent response.
You really can't take IdrA seriously on balance. He complained about blinkstalker all-in after scouting it and not responding correctly.
And yeah broodlords are immobile, but so are tanks and thors (maybe a teeny bit less?). Speedling backstabs to the third base are better than hellion backstabs, you can't really take down production with hellions like you can with lings. So Zerg wins there too. Lost 20 drones to a hellion runby (lategame)? Make 20 drones with a bank of 60 larva.
Also, spines > bunkers.
/edit
All I'm saying is, Zerg isn't as IdrA would like you to think it is. Imba? Who knows. But definitely doing amazingly atm. And man, when IdrA talks about Toss and Terrans developing new strats/adjusting, where was his adjusting when complaining about Zerg being underpowered?
blink stalkers were OP especially given the ladder spawn locations, and was nerfed in 1.4,
On November 14 2012 15:31 trinxified wrote: Removing the Pathogen Glands upgrade could be a good start. It's not as drastic as the other changes that were suggested, but could still be not as game-breaking...
I wonder why that wasn't brought up yet? Seeing as the Khaydarin Amulet (HT energy upgrade) was removed, why is this still available?
That's easy. HT's can be warped in instantly (with Khaydarin Amulet this means instant storm defence), while Infestors have a training time (meaning defence comes later). The problem wasn't really HT's starting with a storm, it was the combination of that upgrade + warpgate.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
HAH HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh lord your post made me laugh.
How many times do you see zerg win in mid-game alone without infestors? Oh that's right almost none. It's so rare in todays game because it's so easy to defend zerg attacks. There is a reason zergs are going for infestor/bl/corr (hint it's not because it's fun, it's the only viable thing to consistantly win games with).
Do you think it's coincidence that DRG for example is trying not to play the turtle style of infestor/bl/corruptor and is now losing more? Protoss/Terrans rarely lose to zerg in the mid game anymore. So no you really have no idea what you are talking about.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
HAH HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh lord your post made me laugh.
How many times do you see zerg win in mid-game alone without infestors? Oh that's right almost none. It's so rare in todays game because it's so easy to defend zerg attacks. There is a reason zergs are going for infestor/bl/corr (hint it's not because it's fun, it's the only viable thing to consistantly win games with).
Do you think it's coincidence that DRG for example is trying not to play the turtle style of infestor/bl/corruptor and is now losing more? Protoss/Terrans rarely lose to zerg in the mid game anymore. So no you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Please define Midgame and "win a game". I have seen tons of games recently in which zerg can defend everything and put a lot of pressure up with ling infestor and the advantage they get is so high, that they can mass infestors and go for broodlords safely. Maybe you can not finish your opponent with ling infestor as easily, but this combination is too strong and too easy to get.
On November 14 2012 00:06 playa wrote: As someone that played t vs p in BW, this amount of whine about bl/infestors should be kinda comical. There's just no way in hell that dealing with bl/infestor is even close in difficulty to dealing with carriers in BW, whether it be pure carriers or combined with any combination of units. You attempt to beat it the same way, take the map and attack where they aren't, until you either have to face them head on or it's obvious you have the means to win in a convincing fashion. I don't remember that much carriers are imbalanced talk, though.
Maps like daybreak are a lot harder than, say, entombed valley when it comes to dealing with bl/infestor. Point is, if maps can alter the viability of units, then it's probably not inherently imbalanced and your complaints should probably be directed at how maps are made. Or, you can simply accept that sometimes maps will favor you and other times they won't. Life.
If you're whining because you can't win but you keep playing the same style, then you probably deserve every loss and should expect more. Have to focus more on exhausting possibilities. I find "corrupter timings," like in stephano versus crank, where they are used offensively, to be far more problematic than units that I have a choice to keep evading if I choose to. Especially when all of my timings, be it a fourth or a push, hinge on not losing units to corrupters that won't die before killing them. I don't think toss players have shown much resolve; if it's not one thing zerg is using, it's going to be something else they are crying about. Should be happy that hasn't been exposed yet.
HotS is set to come out. At least wait it out and see if the tempest helps you. All this said, design wise, the infestor probably does way too much and is boring. For an outsider, z vs t looks very imbalanced to me, in part due to the infestor. Since I haven't played t vs z/looked for solutions, that may be an unfounded opinion.
Stop it. You're too smart for this thread. Leave now while you still can. Leave and never look back!
Hence spinecrawlers. They eliminate the mobility problem you're talking about by buying you time to get back to defend. Not to mention that creep, overlords, and changelings are practically map hacks in the late game.
On November 14 2012 00:50 bokeevboke wrote: Rabiator has fair points, Blizzard dev team are a decent AAA game developers. But surely, they're not 'epic' developers who could create legendary games, which we're looking for. And with the current state of game industry its impossible for such developers to exist. Therefore discussion of Blizzard's competency is meaningless, they've changed company direction (money comes before product). And possibly we'll never see any legendary games in the future ever
These sorts of vague, overarching statements about “legendary developers” are the main reason why Blizzard can never win. The release a Starcraft 2 in an era when every company is trying to reinvent the RTS genre, adding “features” they think will make RTS games more enjoyable. Removing resource collection, base building, direct control of units, micro or control. Feature are added to automatically build units, build bases without building placement or formation buttons to force units into specific shapes, complete with buffs for that shape.
Then Blizzard comes out with Starcraft 2 and says: “Forget all that crap, we did it first and we did it best. People will build units by hand, they will scout with workers and worry about harvesting resources again. The only thing we find worth wild in this new world of RTS games are waypoints, shift commands and unlimited unit selection. Beyond that, all your stuff is crap.” and then Starcraft 2 sells 4.5 million over 2 years. Reviewers love the game, people are back to building bases, kiting units and worrying about build orders. It is like a pizza shop opening, only serving cheese pizza because its was the best and everyone being thankful for being shown that topping suck.
It may be popular and easy to crap on Blizzard on TL. After all, we are comparing it to the gold standard of RTS game, perfected and shined over 10 years of play. And beyond that, there are thousands of posts where people flesh out in great detail how bad Starcraft 2 is, so you don’t even need to come up with your own reasons, they are provide for you.
But people forget where RTS games were going before Starcraft 2 came out and how much it reminded people that the original ideas are the best ideas.
What I was trying to say is, not that Blizzard team is UNABLE to do a perfect sequel, but the fact that they are constrained by the budget and deadline. Therefore, there might be some things they could polish, rework or develop further, but they couldn't, since modern game corporations don't follow that style of 'game development'. Which we used to know as passion for creating something great. Thats how games like Gothic, Morrowind, Fallout 1/2, Baldur's gate, Heroes came out. You can even read the manual for these games, and you see developers cared about games. Todays' industry work on games like its just another money project.
On November 13 2012 19:43 bokeevboke wrote: Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us.
There is a difference ib what we wanted SC2 to be – and what needed it to be.
Because it makes it simple, lets exaggerate a bit and assume SC2 would have been essentially BW in 3D with widescreen support and some changed / new news. Let's say, SC2 would have copied the quirks in the unit control (sometimes you need to use hold position, sometimes you need the patrol command for maximum effect.) The guys who were interested in BW would probably have loved the game. But how big would SC2 have been? Would it have justified 6+ years of development?
To support a game, the developer needs to make money. To make money, they need to attract the masses. To keep the masses, they also need to attract hardcore players and professional players. If this would be an easy thing to do, we had alternatives to SC2 already.
On November 13 2012 19:43 bokeevboke wrote: Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us.
There is a difference ib what we wanted SC2 to be – and what needed it to be.
Because it makes it simple, lets exaggerate a bit and assume SC2 would have been essentially BW in 3D with widescreen support and some changed / new news. Let's say, SC2 would have copied the quirks in the unit control (sometimes you need to use hold position, sometimes you need the patrol command for maximum effect.) The guys who were interested in BW would probably have loved the game. But how big would SC2 have been? Would it have justified 6+ years of development?
To support a game, the developer needs to make money. To make money, they need to attract the masses. To keep the masses, they also need to attract hardcore players and professional players. If this would be an easy thing to do, we had alternatives to SC2 already.
Even though they've gone overboard with their attempts to attract the masses through adjusting gameplay mechanics, at least in my opinion, point still stands and it'd be lovely if everyone understood that.
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought.
Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
HAH HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh lord your post made me laugh.
How many times do you see zerg win in mid-game alone without infestors? Oh that's right almost none. It's so rare in todays game because it's so easy to defend zerg attacks. There is a reason zergs are going for infestor/bl/corr (hint it's not because it's fun, it's the only viable thing to consistantly win games with).
Do you think it's coincidence that DRG for example is trying not to play the turtle style of infestor/bl/corruptor and is now losing more? Protoss/Terrans rarely lose to zerg in the mid game anymore. So no you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Please define Midgame and "win a game". I have seen tons of games recently in which zerg can defend everything and put a lot of pressure up with ling infestor and the advantage they get is so high, that they can mass infestors and go for broodlords safely. Maybe you can not finish your opponent with ling infestor as easily, but this combination is too strong and too easy to get.
I don't understand this post. It sounds like you want to disagree with him but what youre saying is agreeing with him.
You said it yourself, Zerg uses its early and mid-game tech simply to delay the opponent enough to get infestor/broods. The guy you responded to said that Zergs tend to go for infest/brood because its the only reliable strategy. You say you see lots of games where Zerg uses mid-game tech to give himself an opening to mass infest/brood.
You seem to be suggesting Zergs could consistently win at mid-game.If the advantage they get "is so high" why not finish them at mid-game then? Why let the game progress longer and give the opponent a chance to come back if you can just finish him then and there at mid-game?
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought.
Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
Is that a troll or are you serious? Idra the shining example of an unbiased observer...
But which tech should terran then go for exactly? Ravens? Really, ravens? Against infestors? I am sure you can find one video where it worked, but really, it doesnt work. Infestors just rape ravens. And they beat battlecruisers fine too, they are pretty much ideal counter: NP on first ranks to yamato the other battlecruisers, at least make sure they cant yamato your infestors, fungal prevents them from using their normal attack because it is outside their range, and then easily 100+ 3/3 marines delivered directly below the battlecruisers (they will be roughly equal, if not better than normal marines. Slow speed not very relevant against (fungaled) battlecruisers, yes lower attack speed than stimmed marines, but their higher attack easily compensates for that against high armor targets). And otherwise you still got some corrupters around to mop up what is left.
And while not a toss player, carriers suffer from pretty much the same. Less problems with yamato (NP) and range, but their interceptors are killed of quickly.
Anyway trying to tech against a zerg is just a waste of time, they are simply so much stronger late game. Better option: 2 rax every zerg you see.
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought.
Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
On November 14 2012 00:06 playa wrote: As someone that played t vs p in BW, this amount of whine about bl/infestors should be kinda comical. There's just no way in hell that dealing with bl/infestor is even close in difficulty to dealing with carriers in BW, whether it be pure carriers or combined with any combination of units. You attempt to beat it the same way, take the map and attack where they aren't, until you either have to face them head on or it's obvious you have the means to win in a convincing fashion. I don't remember that much carriers are imbalanced talk, though.
Maps like daybreak are a lot harder than, say, entombed valley when it comes to dealing with bl/infestor. Point is, if maps can alter the viability of units, then it's probably not inherently imbalanced and your complaints should probably be directed at how maps are made. Or, you can simply accept that sometimes maps will favor you and other times they won't. Life.
If you're whining because you can't win but you keep playing the same style, then you probably deserve every loss and should expect more. Have to focus more on exhausting possibilities. I find "corrupter timings," like in stephano versus crank, where they are used offensively, to be far more problematic than units that I have a choice to keep evading if I choose to. Especially when all of my timings, be it a fourth or a push, hinge on not losing units to corrupters that won't die before killing them. I don't think toss players have shown much resolve; if it's not one thing zerg is using, it's going to be something else they are crying about. Should be happy that hasn't been exposed yet.
HotS is set to come out. At least wait it out and see if the tempest helps you. All this said, design wise, the infestor probably does way too much and is boring. For an outsider, z vs t looks very imbalanced to me, in part due to the infestor. Since I haven't played t vs z/looked for solutions, that may be an unfounded opinion.
It took skill to properly micro Carriers in BW. You really think it takes skill to fungal an army and a-move Broodlords?
Also, Carriers had legitimate counters that didn't blow up in half a second if they make a positioning mistake. 3/3 Goliaths would murder Carriers if the Carriers are out of position, as you just FF each Carrier down and blow the fuck out of them.
Same styles? What? Terran has done the most adaptation, and Protoss has been extremely creative in how they've played lately too with alot of HT/Archon mobility styles. You act like it's so easy to get to these high tech armies when there's no possible way. Zerg's economy grows so fast that you HAVE to attack or you WILL be behind. There is no doubt about it at all. None whatsoever. So if the map is generously large at all, then you have idiotic games where the Z just outgrows and outexpands the other guy, and eventually chokes him to death or Blord/Infestor deathball him down. If the map is small enough to pressure/all-in, then you get boring ass games where T and P are doing nothing but literally 2 basing the Z into oblivion, because Z's economic growth is so strong that if you don't do massive damage you're fucked.
On November 13 2012 22:28 Rassy wrote: On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see that even idra admits the infestor is op (you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.) Hes wrong with a few statements though.
"you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive"
Yet it is always zerg who has the most bases, even if he goes for bl infestor. This isnt protoss or terrans fault, they harras all they can, yet zerg still gets to 4-5 base easily (bar 2 base all ins from protos) while protoss and terran are at 3 base. Then once zerg has this economy advantage he has a way to spend it, with bl infestor. Yes the end army of bl infestor is verry immobile, but the army comes at a stage that the map already has been split and fortified with static defences. There is verry little room to abuse the immobility of the end game army. An immobile midgame army like terran and toss have, allows the opponent (read zerg) to freely get 4-5 base and bl infestor, then once at the end stage there is no way annymore for terran or toss to explore the immobility of the zerg bl infestor army.
Oh, wait, you're seriously taking Idra's post. Let me laugh even harder.
You do understand that of three races Zerg has the most mobility during early and mid-game, right? And the fact that Zerg can win with mid-game alone, without BroodLords and 20+ infestors?
HAH HAHAHAHAHAHA Oh lord your post made me laugh.
How many times do you see zerg win in mid-game alone without infestors? Oh that's right almost none. It's so rare in todays game because it's so easy to defend zerg attacks. There is a reason zergs are going for infestor/bl/corr (hint it's not because it's fun, it's the only viable thing to consistantly win games with).
Do you think it's coincidence that DRG for example is trying not to play the turtle style of infestor/bl/corruptor and is now losing more? Protoss/Terrans rarely lose to zerg in the mid game anymore. So no you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Please define Midgame and "win a game". I have seen tons of games recently in which zerg can defend everything and put a lot of pressure up with ling infestor and the advantage they get is so high, that they can mass infestors and go for broodlords safely. Maybe you can not finish your opponent with ling infestor as easily, but this combination is too strong and too easy to get.
I don't understand this post. It sounds like you want to disagree with him but what youre saying is agreeing with him.
You said it yourself, Zerg uses its early and mid-game tech simply to delay the opponent enough to get infestor/broods. The guy you responded to said that Zergs tend to go for infest/brood because its the only reliable strategy. You say you see lots of games where Zerg uses mid-game tech to give himself an opening to mass infest/brood.
You seem to be suggesting Zergs could consistently win at mid-game.If the advantage they get "is so high" why not finish them at mid-game then? Why let the game progress longer and give the opponent a chance to come back if you can just finish him then and there at mid-game?
Anyone trying to keep up with Z in a macro game (as in getting to 3 bases) has to cut so many corners that it is absolutely ridiculous. That opens up the player to lots of various all-in, and with the new OL speed and creep, it's not hard to scout and then cripple him badly. If the Z player sees you playing too safe, he just drones like a whore and continues putting down his 5 expansions and laughing at you.
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought.
Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
Hahahahaha. You seriously believe that?
I think it's sarcasm, I mean it has to be... right?
On November 13 2012 08:23 IdrA wrote: you realize that to get that bl infestor super army you give up so much mobility you cant even defend yourself, much less pressure them. t/p should always end up with a ton of bases, production, and full tech if zerg is playing turtle hive. the army is supposed to be that strong cuz you give up everything else to get it. if you get an advantage early on then you can afford to build enough static defense or to apply pressure to t/p fast enough. if you dont you cant and you end up with a base race situation where you have the one super army you invested absolutely everything in. its supposed to be that strong cuz its all you get. but terrans and protosses are still stuck on doing 3 base timings that were really good but are slowly getting worse and worse as people learn defensive timings. when that fails theyre SUPPOSED to lose in the late game because its a failed investment. but bl/infestor is so slow and bad to attack with that zerg has to drag it out. this makes it look, to stupid people, like the terran and protoss is still competitively in the game but fighting against this unfairly untouchable zerg army when in fact the opponent should have left as soon as they ran their collosus army into a spine crawler wall and infestors.
maybe bl/infestor is stronger than it should be, but those situations are just what happens given game design and current play styles. that specifically is not an imbalance thing.
you cant really tell if its imbalanced yet because most p's and t's are still stuck on outdated styles.
even protosses who are learning to do the mass warp prism harass as z gets a slower army dont understand that thats just to buy you time and put the zerg allin. if you do something that encourages zerg to get a 200 supply broodlord infestor army but then stay on a stalker archon army you're the one doing something wrong. when more protosses are comfortable playing for the macro game and learn air transitions, and when terrans start to understand mech better and learn to use ghosts, if zerg still seems overpowered then we can talk. the game will be boring as shit, but terran and protoss late game armies can fight bl infestor if you're just willing to be as abusive and boring as zergs have learned to be.
There, idra has said it, and this is self evident, overcommitment to marine-tank, stalker colossus on 3 bases.. I have been holding back posting about terran and protoss going for a higher tech army because people will spew all kinds of excuses.I just want to say that p and t players should go for their own respective deathballs. (carriers, ravens, battlecruisers etc etc). T and P should have a defensive phase in the game if you want a face to face battle. Give it a moment of thought.
Many of you protoss/terran players out there, admit it, you are always going for 3 base timings and zerg just learn how to defend those better. Idra has spoken and he is not biased here.
Hahahahaha. You seriously believe that?
I think it's sarcasm, I mean it has to be... right?
You never know, people with latch on to anything that validates their opinion. Even if its a load of horseshit
The one point which IdrA has mentioned, but which goes unnoticed in all the sarcasm or "taking his post serious word-for-word" is that the Infestor only gets stupidly overpowered when there are a ton of them (20+) with decent energy on them in the army. "A few" of them arent really that terrible, because they would lose a big chunk of their energy (potential) from chainfungaling some Medivacs/Hellions/... and only when there are a lot of them with lots of regeneration for their energy does it turn into "chainfungal is always available".
This should be an obvious point, because they are spellcasters and can therefore have the potential to "let loose all of their firepower" in a few seconds. This doesnt work the same for all spellcasters and is determined by their spells. Do they stack well or are they redundant? The somewhat obvious answer is that both of the combat spells stack very well and thus any gathering of a large number of Infestors is going to have a serious impact on the game. Other spellcasters in SC2 dont stack their powers as well as the Infestor, mostly because none of their abilities are this offensive OR because they are dangerous to use (like running a Raven into 6 range of an enemy to launch a Seeker Missile or Autoturret) OR because they are defensive in nature. Forecefields alone for example dont kill anything and often enough they prevent the Zealots from getting to potential targets in a battle. Fungal has no such potential backfires (does it have friendly fire?).
Again we are at the point where the concentration is the bad part and this supports my belief that the game could be better off with less economic and production boosts ... which would result in smaller armies and less ridiculous numbers. In addition to this the units should be forced to spread out to be able to adjust AoE powers (like Fungal) easier from a balancing standpoint.
On November 14 2012 22:02 Rabiator wrote: The one point which IdrA has mentioned, but which goes unnoticed in all the sarcasm or "taking his post serious word-for-word" is that the Infestor only gets stupidly overpowered when there are a ton of them (20+) with decent energy on them in the army. "A few" of them arent really that terrible, because they would lose a big chunk of their energy (potential) from chainfungaling some Medivacs/Hellions/... and only when there are a lot of them with lots of regeneration for their energy does it turn into "chainfungal is always available".
This should be an obvious point, because they are spellcasters and can therefore have the potential to "let loose all of their firepower" in a few seconds. This doesnt work the same for all spellcasters and is determined by their spells. Do they stack well or are they redundant? The somewhat obvious answer is that both of the combat spells stack very well and thus any gathering of a large number of Infestors is going to have a serious impact on the game. Other spellcasters in SC2 dont stack their powers as well as the Infestor, mostly because none of their abilities are this offensive OR because they are dangerous to use (like running a Raven into 6 range of an enemy to launch a Seeker Missile or Autoturret) OR because they are defensive in nature. Forecefields alone for example dont kill anything and often enough they prevent the Zealots from getting to potential targets in a battle. Fungal has no such potential backfires (does it have friendly fire?).
Again we are at the point where the concentration is the bad part and this supports my belief that the game could be better off with less economic and production boosts ... which would result in smaller armies and less ridiculous numbers. In addition to this the units should be forced to spread out to be able to adjust AoE powers (like Fungal) easier from a balancing standpoint.
It's more about how easier infestors can survive compared to other casters due to long range skills, decent movement speed and burrow. That way you can stall your opponent and get to a good amount of infestors.
Terran is supposed to be overresented on ladder, GSL, foreign tournaments, other tournmanets etc. Since they are the most played race.
In fact, as GSL is the only place where that is happening, it is easy to conclude that terran is heavily imbalanced. I argue that the numbers are signifacntly signifcant as well. Terran has been underpresented in masters and GM For such a long time. Everytime a terran players plays against a zerg or a protoss player, he is vastly superior to them.
The average master terran player is like top 1% of his race, while the average toss/zerg is top 10%. The problem with the Blizzard team is that they just look at the statistics of the ladder, and think.. Uh TVZ on ladder = 50% (even though this is between the top 10% toss vs the top 1% teran). So obv. the terran is supposed to win a lot more than 50% if the game was balanced.
Honestly that's a pretty dumb assumption to make. The guys who are on the balance team are programmers, statisticians and mathematicians. They understand what you've explained and they understand a whole lot more. Being a programmer myself I can tell you that kind of stuff occurs to you while you're programming the system. They even mentioned in a post a while back about balance, and at a blizzcon, that they have a formula that figures that kind of stuff in. The math that was in that formula is miles more advanced than the math you're showing me right now.
Just because someone is a programmer doesnt mean he is WISE in his choices. The guys at Blizzard are too busy in their day-to-day activities and details to have a clue about "the big picture". You have to be NOT INVOLVED and IMPARTIAL to have a good view for the right choices, but as long as they try to "fix" the game through adjusting the units only they are not doing it right.
Simple example: What is the reason for the deathball? Why does it exist? 1. Units are FORCED into tight formations by the movement and unit selection mechanics of the game. These are neither race-specific nor unit-specific. 2. Having a tight group of units is the most efficient way to win, because it maximizes your firepower.
That second point is universally true and was true in BW already, but did the deathball exist back then? NO ... and this makes it clear where you need to "fix it" and since Blizzard isnt seeing it they are pretty "unwise" [which is less of an insult compared to dumb, which I was tempted to use].
Honestly, shit like this really pisses me off.
You have no clue what the 'day to day' activities of the dev team, or the balance team, or any of the blizzard staff entail. You have no idea of their qualifications, their backgrounds, or their ability to impartially have a 'good view' of the 'big picture'. You spout this shit as if you have a magically superior vision of what SC2 should be and it's so obvious that if blizzard haven't implemented 'your vision' then they are doing it wrong.
Who the FUCK do you think you are???
You may be pissed off but you're only embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of people that go around saying "Who the fuck do you think you are?" to people younger than them, forever stifling their creativity and self-confidence. Each of the people on the Blizz dev team (not to mention every great man that ever lived) was once a young man + Show Spoiler +
or woman, just an expression...
who was unhappy with the current state of affairs and started looking for new solutions. Most new proposals are wrong, but so are the old accepted ones. It's through civil discussion that new better ideas are born. So, Mr. Kharnage, stop pulling the argument from authority and find good reasons why the person is wrong. If you cannot, do not join in on the discussion.
This is not what he said. He said he is pissed off by people who deny that the developers are qualified, because of their personal opinions, which is actually very close to what you are saying. Even more, he gave an argument, which was that this guy has no clue about the day-to-day activities of blizzard, yet shits upon them.
Also, there is no bravery or greater intelligence in shitting upon someone elses work. Everybody knows that all things can always be done better. There is really nothing interesting in spreading general knowledge. Proving, that your own ideas are superior to longtime established, working solutions is the impressive part.
That's a very generous reading of what he said. In fact, having re-read those opinions, I still cannot get it. It does not matter what the day-to-day activities at Blizzard are, the whole point is that it should be possible to discuss the development process. If the opinions can be shown to be false, so be it. But he was telling the person to stop talking because he is not qualified and thus should shut up.
As for your own point, it's not about saying that things could be better, it's saying what should be better and how. It will not be clear in the beginning, but that's why we have a discussion. Yet, to have a discussion, we cannot have people going around telling others to shut up because they are not qualified.
Yeah, I see what you are saying, but just look at his example of unit movement, here is a quote from DB:
We tested this internally a week or two ago when we first saw this video (thanks to the author of the video).
It didn't actually change anything. We tried some really extreme values as well to really push it...
There is quite some more on that topic in this thread on B.net. And it clearly shows, that the discussion is there, that blizzard cares, and the developers do have a clue about the game.
So in conclusion (in my eyes), this guy is nothing but an (uninformed?) hater of the development team. Yes, Kharnage's reaction was quite fierce, but I fully understand him, because we all want SC2 to be the best it can be, yet it gets really frustrating to read everybodies amateur opinion over and over again on topics that people have already tested and argued through with a lot more effort than "the developers are not the right people to judge their game".
And yes, things are not clear in the beginning. That's why I said there is nothing interesting about claiming that stuff, the interesting stuff is trying to prove it, be it by a good detailed (and therefore probably long) arguement/discussion, or probably even better, through straight up testing.
So if Blizzard half-heartedly tests something that isnt going to work in its implementation and which was regarded as a joke in the thread anyways (after that kind of "we dont take your ideas serious enough to even try them out in the beta" answer) it is enough for you? Well not for me and if you think I am wrong then ARGUE WITH THE REASONING. Explain to me why ...
Half-heartedly... so everything that hasn't been exposed to a huge portion of the community for an extended periode of time is half-heartedly? If you read the article, you will read that DB stated that they tested various instances of such movement. Imo this is not half-heartedly testing. Furthermore, the HotS beta is not a playground for any community idea someone has ever had. Make a map, test it yourself. If it is a popular idea, you will find a few (yeah not a lot, but still some) people to test such stuff, at least if you can eloquently explain the idea and it's goals in a thread (--> FRB, --> Starbow). Or just test it in Starbow. It's in there, I played that mod, I like that mod, but I actually don't think that the movement makes a significant difference in the playability of certain styles (while I think that the unit/income changes do actually matter a lot to the gameplay of the mod).
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: 1. asymmetric production speed boosts for the three races which kick in at different timings and dont work for every unit of each race are a good idea. 2. tightly clumped up groups of infantry are a good idea, because to make the game "fair" they had to nerf AoE abilities ... which usually are the exciting points in the game. 3. the deathball is a good thing. 4. tightly clumped units of Marines (and Hydras and Blink Stalkers) are NOT responsible for capital ships and defensive structures being more or less useless.
1.) asymetric production was in BW as well. A hatchery can start to produce 3 Ultralisks in 42seconds, but a factory (similar cost to a hatchery) just 1siege tank. The production boost that were introduced in SC2 (on top of changed production times) - I believe you talk about those - chronoboost, larva inject, mules, reactores, switchable addons - don't do anything differently than the (broodwar-) difference between a gateway (150mineral building that can produce 1zealot = 100resources/2supply worth of units in 40seconds) vs a barracks (150mineral building that can produce 100resources/2supply worth of units in 48seconds), which leads to a production advantage for Protoss. And this is a really, really soft example. And (still talking BW), different units profit differently from this production differences. F.e: 1 larva, would you build an ultralisk or 2zerglings from it? Do you wait for 9larva and 450minerals, to start 18zerglings, or do you wait for 9larva and stockpile 900/900 to start 9mutalisks? Asymetric production is one of the core principles that made Starcraft different from games with similar design (like CnC1 and RedAlert). 2.) Tightly clumped units can be good, or can be bad. In a game with a good variety of melee units that are simply designed to be stronger than ranged units on their own, clumping is a vital part of ranged play. If I had the choice, I would want less clumping in SC2, but I actually think - talking from my experience with other RTS games - the only way to reduce unit clumping, is to force more actionbased play, so that you have to move out with smaller amounts of units earlier. (just play any RTS game as noob, do some Big Game Hunters style of turtle play and see how it turns out. It's always going to be ball vs ball. Only when you start to get better, start to get how rushes work etc, the amount of units per location will decrease. Therefore, the best - maybe only - way to decrease clumping is to increase action). And in conclusion, actionbased play is very tightly connected to unitdesign and - balancing against each other. SC2 PvZ is stale, because Protoss can't move out due to zerg-speed and the roach being too strong vs sametime-available Protoss units. Zerg on the other hand cannot attack either, because of Protoss-range and Protoss-walls. It's unhealthy unit relationship that is hurting the matchup, not clumping, yet all we see is deathballs vs deathballs. 3.) The deathball is not a good thing, but it's not a bad thing either. Deathballs are necessary. At some point in the game, you want to grab your army and kill the opponent. Same for watching a game. At some point, you want to see something big happening. Harassment all over the map is nice and exciting. However, seeing someone die from multipronged aggression while no real encounter has ever happened feels wrong. Outside of biostyles (the irony... the super dps-dense balls allow for these styles more than anything else) and multipronged zergstyles against macro Terrans (a pity that we don't see this enough. Probably the best reason to nerf endgame zerg to force more aggressive play), I agree that the game might be lacking these things. (lategame warp-prism usage is actually quite cool as well). But if you actually watched this game from the very beginning, it has become a lot better just by figuering out all the various timings and ways to spread an opponent out and though the deathball is a goal in the game, it's not a consistent playstyle anymore, most of the time. (and that was being done just by figuring and balance changes, without the change of coremechanics) 4.) Of course they are responsible for captial ships not being very good. But you know, there would be an easy solution. Buff the said units until they are viable. If rushing them becomes too strong, lengthen the time to tech there. For example, BCs and Broodlords do beat marines in the higher numbers, that's why we see those units in the late/endgame against marines. Carriers don't beat them ever, that's why we don't see them at all against marines. BCs have seen a little bit of usage against Zerg, but they could use a small buff still. Carriers need quite a buff. Defensive structures not good enough? Sorry, but I simply disagree with this. 1canon + wall holds a ton of (Zerg) stuff, spines are nearly as often being whined about as Broodlords are. Bunkers... don't even start about those things, they should get nerfed PFs, Turrets... all of that stuff is really good. Maybe Protoss vs air defense is slightly lacking. Maybe all the ground defenses could use +1range (7range spine/canon vs 5-6range mobile troops makes runbies quite strong and the need for siege weapons smaller), but they are generally quite good and cheap and outside of highlevel games, I can only encourage everybody to just build one extra, because it won't matter on that level of play for the macrogame, but win you a lot of games in the shortrun.
On November 13 2012 22:01 Rabiator wrote: Just remember ... "because the devs say so" or something similar isnt a good enough reason. If you dont answer then I have to assume that I am right in that these things are terrible AND a problem of the game.
EDIT: Slight addition to the above: How "high quality" and "thorough" Blizzard internal testing is can be clearly seen by the HotS units and their really wild changes. I for one dont put much stock in those skills ... with such uninspired and almost random ability changes.
Most of the community has "asked" blizzard to be more open about their unit designs and allow themselves more changes. Blizzard listened, it's a good thing. Not a bad thing. Though I also agree with Artosis on that matter. Stuff like the warhound might not have been very interesting by design, but could have been really good for the strategy part in the RTS Starcraft:HotS. Still happy that it is gone, yet really courious about how it would have worked out with it.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 1. The question was not about asymmetric production, but rather about asymmetric BOOSTS. The general asymmetric production between Zerg and the other two races works as proven in BW, but is the same true if you also apply boosts which only affect a limited part of their army for two races and the full repertoire for the third? I am convinced that Siege Tanks not being boosted through reactors is one of the reasons why mech is so hard to pull off; casters are telling us about the limited reproducability of the tank every mech game after all ... Since "more units on the battlefield" is not a good thing, the only remaining option is to get rid of these boosts ... which would also get rid of the MULE which people have whined about forever ...
As I have already said (or at least implied), production boosts are nothing but additional ways for production. Their asymetry by design is in no ways different to the general asymetry of production design. If tanks are not being produced because it takes too long to produce them, then just change the value, no need to question reactors.
Well these production boosts increase the number of units on the battlefield and that is NOT a good thing IMO as explained below ... so the boosts are a bad design due to several reasons. If you reduce the production time for the Siege Tank and the Thor and the BC in half you are basically negating/undermining the intention of the Reactor and also are contradicting your own point of getting out these units which "arent cost efficient" (your words and I think everyone agrees) out later [see #4 argument below].
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 2. If you make melee units much stronger than ranged units you are basically screwing up the balance when there are few units around. This doesnt work and increasing the attacks of the Siege Tank - to counteract the deathball for example - would be just as bad. If you had 2-3 Zealots while the opponent has 5-6 Marines you will win simply because there isnt that mass of units around. So your train of thought is not going in the right direction. Tougher units or units which deal more damage dont work if they are changed to accomodate the "mass army fight", because that always screws up the individual balance between any units ... so the only solution is to get rid of the deathball by NOT adjusting these combat values.
I'm not saying that melee units should be stronger. I said that the strategies of the game should allow the player that has to build melee/low range units, to engage with them for as long as they scale well. SC2 doesn't manage that for all of those units, therefore the melee player must (go allin or) turtle and wait for the opponent to go into the open.
So the question is: How do you want to make melee units more viable when they are faced by ranged units? How do you balance them between "just a few of each" and "tons of each"? The more units there are involved the higher the "rate of death" will be and this is the thing which ruins the game IMO, because it simply is too hard to balance units between those two. At some point the dps of a clump of Marines will be so high that any Zealots will have no chance to even get to them before dying ... They only manage it now because of the crutch called "charge upgrade". The same is true for all the other melee units.
So the logical conclusion is to somehow limit the number of units - especially ranged ones - involved in a battle or which are "in range". This is a pretty simple solution, but if you have a better one I would like to hear it. "Declarations of intent" like yours are all fine and well, but they have to be implemented as well.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 3. Deathballs are not necessary to win. If the other side isnt capable of bringing a deathball to the battlefield then you dont need yours to win either. The big clumps of armies do prevent real micro from happening, because you can not focus on a small part of your army and let your bigger part run into their doom. Just watch some BW games and you see plenty of action ... "something big" is NOT necessary for entertainment purposes, its just what people are told what they should think is good. As usual: bigger is not necessarily better.
Broodwar tank pushes, broodwar hydralisk busts, MM pushes. Sorry, but that's all just big army play, the only difference being movement and visually, but it's the same idea. Get your whole army into the face of your opponent. I'm not a broodwar specialist, but in the few games I have seen (usually the ones that float around with comments like "amazing game") I actually haven't seen a single game, in which someone didn't try to overrun a locations with most of his army moving there.
I didnt say that there were no big engagements in BW, just that you didnt need them as much as in SC2. Even then you almost never had the whole armies from both sides on one screen (or even two due to the increased size in SC2). The whole point is to make more options available for players, because defensive play - which more or less relies on less mobile forces - is not viable right now.
The bigger part of the problem is - which many people will agree with me - that the Lurker and the Reaver are pretty fun units in BW, but [my interpretation from here on] those two are not going to be fun in SC2 due to the fact that their attacks are AoE and pretty deadly. So you would have to nerf them to make them "fair and balanced" [like the Siege Tank] and would end up with less satisfying [=fun] attacks and units which are not cost effective. In short it is my theory that "less army density = abilities can be more overpowered = more fun". As an example you can look at the excitement of a Baneling mine being used to kill a bunch of Marines ... Instadeath with no warning, but a lot of luck and "lets hope he doesnt have detection" involved. That is OP but fun AND the right concentration of Banelings. Having 30 Banelings (because the Zerg got to the point of getting an insane economy going) roll into a bunch of Marines or even a Planetary Fortress is not fun, because it doesnt take any luck and the Terran can only defend against it with the micro skills of a young Korean kid. Even a casual player can build a Raven to have with his army to detect burrowed Banelings, but he cant micro like MKP against a bunch of them rolling into his infantry.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: Smaller fights between smaller armies just offer more control to the player since they are slower AND they leave room for the devs to implement seemingly overpowered abilities. If Fungal would only hit 3 Marines each time because they are spread out that much it wouldnt be such a pain in the rear ability for example. Slower battles are also easier to understand and follow for a spectator.
Yes, and they are achieved by allowing for more aggressive macro play in all matchups or changing the production-action relation (upping the amount of things that can be done with a unit, until a new unit is produced and you gotta get out of there; map sizes, unit speed, production speed).
Ummm ... I dont think your logic is right. "Aggressive play" will result in more random [= "you have to scout it or lose"] victories, which are terrible for both pros and casuals. More aggression will make the game faster and that means less easy to control. Just take your car and drive through a narrow city street at 50 km/h and then do the same at 200 km/h ... there is a reason why our cities have low speed limits in cities. There is a limit to what humans are capable of doing and Starcraft 2 is already too fast (for casuals at least). The reason for this is production capability and the army size and density involved in fights.
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: 4. The same argument from #2 applies to capital ships ... if you buff the BC to not die easily to 20 Marines you would make BC rushes pretty powerful.
Did you even read what I wrote? If they become to powerful, make them enter the battlefield later. For example, BC now additionally needs an armory, and the fusion core takes another 20seconds. (this concept works very well for zerg units. Ever tried to rush Ultras of one or two bases, or broodlords? It's a bad strategy, because of the huge amounts of bound investments of time/resources) Even more, it's not about buffing them to be superunits. It's about smoothing out their transition. 1BC should get murdered by 20marines. The strength of Carriers and BCs lies within their supply efficientness, versality and the flying aspect. Right now, their costefficiency is just (in the case of the BC slightly) too low.
Skyterran shouldnt be a "late game transition", but a truly possible alternative to bio and mech. Same for Protoss and Zerg. There is no really possible way to transition into this, because of the Terran upgrade style of three separate sets. You have to make the decision early and this is a good thing. Sadly there is no possibility for BCs to survive in a decent number because of the tightly clumped packs of Infantry (and Fungal and Neural and Feedback). Their chance to be useful against an enemy with a decent number of infantry is close to zero, but it could be less bad with a reduced density of infantry. Again I have given you my implementation on how to solve a problem. How do you want to make BCs viable for example? What needs to be changed?
On November 14 2012 00:40 Rabiator wrote: Static defenses are pretty terrible in SC2 due to the simple fact that a tight clump of infantry can tear a small number of them down too easily. Its the same as for the capital ships and buffing them is a terrible idea, because of cannon rushes and so on. Even a Planetary Fortress on its own only lasts longish against a serious attack if it is repaired instantly and nothing can prevent it from being destroyed by a column of Banelings rolling in on a rightclick.
I simply disagree. I think it's easy enough to turtle in this game. If you want more defenders army advantages for small groups, then I agree with you. At least when we talk about Protoss.
Oh there should be a defenders advantage for both armies and static defenses, but how do you want to achieve it? High ground advantage only goes so far and relies totally on the maps, so there should be something better. I have given you my implementation (forced spread of moving units and micro to allow for tighter positioning).
Why bother teching up if the zerg is turtling? As soon as you both engage, and your armies are wiped (or even if you come out way ahead of zerg), zerg can just flood with roaches and lings. What's the point of teching up at all? Larva mechanic is stronger than any terran or protoss late game.
On November 15 2012 01:21 BeholdOblivion wrote: Why bother teching up if the zerg is turtling? As soon as you both engage, and your armies are wiped (or even if you come out way ahead of zerg), zerg can just flood with roaches and lings. What's the point of teching up at all? Larva mechanic is stronger than any terran or protoss late game.
so true. Terran and toss cant realy tech up against zerg,they can never match reproduction of t2 and t3 units after the battle. Building all thoose factorys and starports for only 1 big army and 1 battle you have to win, also is not a verry efficient use of resources. Only way is to tech up and then kill the zerg with the 1 change you get, guess this is reason for the deathball play style.
Sorry for cutting the former quotes, but it is getting too much to handle for me ^^
Well these production boosts increase the number of units on the battlefield and that is NOT a good thing IMO as explained below ... so the boosts are a bad design due to several reasons. If you reduce the production time for the Siege Tank and the Thor and the BC in half you are basically negating/undermining the intention of the Reactor and also are contradicting your own point of getting out these units which "arent cost efficient" (your words and I think everyone agrees) out later [see #4 argument below].
Prodution is different from unit to unit. As an example: you get 100minerals/2supply worth of units from 1 single warpgate in 28seconds, but to achieve the same with barracks, you basically need two of them. The same is true raceintern. Some of the units biggest advantages is their production speed, with or without macroboosts.
That doesn't mean that "unboostable" units need to be balanced to be produced in the same speed as boosted ones. All that needs to be done is, to make sure that those unboosted units have enough other advantages. In TvZ and TvT this is the case for the siege tank and a great form of balance between bio(mech) and mech got achieved, even if mech core units don't profit as much from the macroboosts, as bio.
So the question is: How do you want to make melee units more viable when they are faced by ranged units? How do you balance them between "just a few of each" and "tons of each"? The more units there are involved the higher the "rate of death" will be and this is the thing which ruins the game IMO, because it simply is too hard to balance units between those two. At some point the dps of a clump of Marines will be so high that any Zealots will have no chance to even get to them before dying ... They only manage it now because of the crutch called "charge upgrade". The same is true for all the other melee units.
So the logical conclusion is to somehow limit the number of units - especially ranged ones - involved in a battle or which are "in range". This is a pretty simple solution, but if you have a better one I would like to hear it. "Declarations of intent" like yours are all fine and well, but they have to be implemented as well.
The idea I was implying was that melee strategies should have better strategical tools to force engagements. Simple example: Let's say it was possible for zerglings (for example through an upgrade) to climb over buildings very slowly and eventually get into a base. Mass ling could now inflict (more) damage to an opponent that has only a wall with 2marines or a canon behind. This is actually quite a stupid example, as I think speedlings - due to their speed and the baneling morph on low tier - do have quite some capabilities to attack an opponent, or at least backstab him whenever he wants to leave. The problematic units in these scenarios are mostly zealots and low-mid amounts of roaches.
It's not about rebalancing the units, it's about giving "melee races" tools, so that melee units can shine.
I didnt say that there were no big engagements in BW, just that you didnt need them as much as in SC2. Even then you almost never had the whole armies from both sides on one screen (or even two due to the increased size in SC2). The whole point is to make more options available for players, because defensive play - which more or less relies on less mobile forces - is not viable right now.
The bigger part of the problem is - which many people will agree with me - that the Lurker and the Reaver are pretty fun units in BW, but [my interpretation from here on] those two are not going to be fun in SC2 due to the fact that their attacks are AoE and pretty deadly. So you would have to nerf them to make them "fair and balanced" [like the Siege Tank] and would end up with less satisfying [=fun] attacks and units which are not cost effective. In short it is my theory that "less army density = abilities can be more overpowered = more fun". As an example you can look at the excitement of a Baneling mine being used to kill a bunch of Marines ... Instadeath with no warning, but a lot of luck and "lets hope he doesnt have detection" involved. That is OP but fun AND the right concentration of Banelings. Having 30 Banelings (because the Zerg got to the point of getting an insane economy going) roll into a bunch of Marines or even a Planetary Fortress is not fun, because it doesnt take any luck and the Terran can only defend against it with the micro skills of a young Korean kid. Even a casual player can build a Raven to have with his army to detect burrowed Banelings, but he cant micro like MKP against a bunch of them rolling into his infantry.
Well, yes AoE does need to have different values in BW an SC2, due to the changed gameplay. That doesn't mean that AoE is weak. Look at the example of Terran: Protoss AoE is in the right place to deal with Terran Bio without being to powerful Terran AoE is in the right place to deal with Terran Bio without forcing you to go Bio Zerg AoE is in the right place (or slightly to high in the lategame) to deal with Bio without being too powerful
I don't think any AoE in this game is weak, it's just not balanced properly against all the possible opposing units. (siege tanks/banelings to weak against bigger units, Colossi too strong against nonkiting units, storms not strong enough against roaches and broodlords). Generally I don't think bigass AoE is a very exciting solution. It limits basic units too much, yet some of the most dynamic (= fun) strategies are such that focus on using many of those on multiple fronts, while slowly teching towards the higher tech units. Mech is basically the one and only exception, in which I like bigass splash units as basic strategy. And this is due to the unique design of the siege tank and the fact that mech forces the opponent to be dynamic with low tier units. (at least it should; that it can't like in TvP or sometimes in TvZ is more a problem of underpowered siege tanks against certain units, than of AoE)
Ummm ... I dont think your logic is right. "Aggressive play" will result in more random [= "you have to scout it or lose"] victories, which are terrible for both pros and casuals. More aggression will make the game faster and that means less easy to control. Just take your car and drive through a narrow city street at 50 km/h and then do the same at 200 km/h ... there is a reason why our cities have low speed limits in cities. There is a limit to what humans are capable of doing and Starcraft 2 is already too fast (for casuals at least). The reason for this is production capability and the army size and density involved in fights.
I disagree that it turns out random. Look at PvZ, it is the most stale matchup of all, because no aggression is possible. Now think about it this way: What if Zerg could pressure an FFE of two base, yet not get away with quite as much if going for a 3base play. It would force Protoss, to blindly invest more into units early on, but if the zerg didn't go for the two base, use those units to try and make at least a little something happen.
Or the queen buff in TvZ. Standard Terran play at that time was, to do a medium commitment by building a factory and 4hellions, sit in the front of the zerg base and kite everything to death that is not a huge commitment, while building 3bases faster than the zerg or attacking the zerg heavily 2base vs 2base. Under the assumption that hellion contains were really too strong, let's say that blizzard had buffed roaches (please no discussion why this is wrong for PvZ or ZvZ or something, it's just a TvZ specific possibility and something else migth achieve something similar) instead of queens. Roaches are attack capable. Queens not. Now this would have been a buff, in which reacting to aggression with aggression would have been rewarded and might have changed the metagame differently. Zergs might have been contained on 2base, but they would have gotten the option to punish a Terran that undercommits to units more severly. But more Terran units early (less 3CC play), would have resulted in the need to do something with those units, if Zerg would go for a 2base spire or infestor build instead or just took the later (yet still fast in comparison to the Terran) third.
Dynamic is everything. Back and forth is the key to a good matchup. (I believe) TvT, TvZ, TvP and ZvZ are the best matchups, because they offer dynamic. If I pressure with ling/bling in ZvZ, my opponent needs to build units, but if he gets faked out, he needs to make something happen with said units. It's not always like that in those matchups, but usually we do see stuff like Protoss sending a (few) stalker(s) out to pressure a Terran, a Terran doing some medivac pushing or a zerg trying some ling stuff. Even PvP is like that from time to time. ZvP however is stale, because noone can play aggressive. A sentry+a canon+a wall holds nearly all Zerg aggression without even altering Protoss timings. Roach/ling compositions just rape Protoss open field outside of timings. Imo swarm hosts and Oracles can't be low enough in tech for that matchup. Anything that forces Zerg to stay on two base eco (even if it is with 3bases), anything that forces Protoss to invest into units instead of gateways (why is 1robo + X gates considered a tech setup; make it a starport, a robo and 3-4gates!) as standard play can only be good. Make swarm hosts so strong, that 2base Host will laugh the shit out of 3base drone zerg. Make it so that Oracles collect freewins against any hatchery that is not guarded by queens and spores. Again, dynamic is everything. I wanna see this game, with players playing against each other. Not against techs, not against bases and not against some unit AI or mechanical obstacles. Against some other person with a bananagrin, because he knows he is going to be in your face over and over again.
Skyterran shouldnt be a "late game transition", but a truly possible alternative to bio and mech. Same for Protoss and Zerg. There is no really possible way to transition into this, because of the Terran upgrade style of three separate sets. You have to make the decision early and this is a good thing. Sadly there is no possibility for BCs to survive in a decent number because of the tightly clumped packs of Infantry (and Fungal and Neural and Feedback). Their chance to be useful against an enemy with a decent number of infantry is close to zero, but it could be less bad with a reduced density of infantry. Again I have given you my implementation on how to solve a problem. How do you want to make BCs viable for example? What needs to be changed?
The Air attribute is too strong in this game imo, to allow air strategies to be mainstream strategies. If (nearly) every unit could attack air, it would be fine. But this is not the case, therefore pure air strategies are either boring (they force very certain compositions and strategies from the opponent), overpowered (they force air reactions, because GtA can't deal with them) or underpowered (you can't get them going, because GtA destroys them). There are very few instances of good Air strategies in this game (and as far as I know in Broodwar). Mutalisks, due to larva (which allows huge switches into this strategy and out of this strategy) and the fact that they are fast raiders, yet bad in combat. (With a grain of salt, because I don't know Broodwar too much) Carriers in Broodwar PvT, which are slightly similar to mutalisks, due to their huge range and the fact that Mech is basically not good at dealing with them, yet they are somewhat risky to pull off as well. And that's about it. BL/Corruptor (vs P and T) and endgame BC/Raven/Viking armies (vs T) are basically overpowered and force air reactions, while BC/Raven/Viking is nearly impossible to transition into vs an opponent that has antiair by default (bioplayers), so in that scenario underpowered.
That's why I think Air Units should only be supporters, raiders or endgame units in Starcraft games.
Oh there should be a defenders advantage for both armies and static defenses, but how do you want to achieve it? High ground advantage only goes so far and relies totally on the maps, so there should be something better. I have given you my implementation (forced spread of moving units and micro to allow for tighter positioning).
There is a variety of good things in the game, starting with vision/speed by creep, over siege mechanics, supply depots, queens and statics. Just add a little more to that arsenal, especially for Protoss.
So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
Yeah. That would be ridiculous since they patched it so PvZ begins with 3 hatches.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
Yeah. That would be ridiculous since they patched it so PvZ begins with 3 hatches.
marines....level-omega mutants..infinite potential...now go get out of platinum.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
No, against HerO he was confined on 3 bases, not mining anything at all from the extra hatches he built because they were destroyed immediately.
Zerg can't really afford to trade (or lose any unit) on 3 bases, but he can mass up the deathball just fine. It's happened in code S.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
No, against HerO he was confined on 3 bases, not mining anything at all from the extra hatches he built because they were destroyed immediately.
Zerg can't really afford to trade (or lose any unit) on 3 bases, but he can mass up the deathball just fine. It's happened in code S.
I was referring to the game between Leenock and Taeja on Antiga from RO8 last season. I understand 3 base Zerg with Hive tech is not sustainable but it's quite possible. It's not ideal but it can be done, and Leenock used queens to boost the cost efficiency of his army and made it work. 3 base Zerg is just as viable as 3 base Terran nowadays.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
Go watch HerO vs. Leenock from last season of GSL and tell me you can't go broodlord infestor off 3 bases and crush protoss.
On November 15 2012 04:12 WoefulMe wrote: I quite like this.
I hate it. as soon as Blizzard says "nerf x" all the players of race x come out of their holes and claim "everything is fine" and the other players need to "l2p". I'm not sure if Infestors would vanish or are "solved" but this last page was just as cliche as it can get.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
um Zergs go Broodlord on 3 bases all the time, if you have 14 minute hive you have 16 minute broodlords you probably don't have a 4th going, Depends on map and game aggression I am speaking from a PvZ POV I don't play Terran. Well that is how it works in master anyway.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
No, against HerO he was confined on 3 bases, not mining anything at all from the extra hatches he built because they were destroyed immediately.
Zerg can't really afford to trade (or lose any unit) on 3 bases, but he can mass up the deathball just fine. It's happened in code S.
I was referring to the game between Leenock and Taeja on Antiga from RO8 last season. I understand 3 base Zerg with Hive tech is not sustainable but it's quite possible. It's not ideal but it can be done, and Leenock used queens to boost the cost efficiency of his army and made it work. 3 base Zerg is just as viable as 3 base Terran nowadays.
I was going to say, isn't that standard on Antiga at the moment? 3 base turtle into hive tech then capture the middle, take bases 4 and 5 before pushing across map.
Im kinda pissed I spend so much time playing SC2 (11000 1v1 games) because it all seems like a gimmick to me now. Its crazy how OP terran whas at launch and look at them now. They will never find that sweetspot in balance that allot of players desire and thats because the core gameplay is way to extreme.
If zerg makes enough units at the right time and crushes an attack hes often able to take a big enough advantage thats going to carry him for the rest of the match. This is due to the larva mechanics but in combination with the design choice that most units in this game need to be hard countered.
It makes playing against zerg either stupid easy (terran once had rax before supply with reapers!!!!) or very frustratingly difficult (zerg buffs make early pressure now unrewarding, forced to lategame). So often it basicly comes down to a good read and some solid mechanics for zerg and its been that way from the beginning regardless of how good zerg whas at that time. Now they just have an easier time doing it due to awkward balancing by blizzard.
So everytime when I try to see the big picture and want to find some reason on balancing issues I just get a headache. I feel sorry for SC2 design team.
I also watched this guys stream, he whas my T hero ;(
On November 13 2012 21:17 mEtRoSG wrote: used to be gm terran for 6 seasons, tvz was the most fun matchup which kept me on playing, stopped 2 month after the quen buff, game just isnt fun anymore, now playing dota which is fun! gj blizz :D
I'm happy they're atleast noticing the tvz issues, i don't think tvz is THAT bad right now,but maybe a little nerf to infestors will make it more balanced though...Late game tvz so hard T_T;
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
Terran can easily go 3 base BC, if BC was any good and if you get a PF at the 3rd. It follows the same theory of going with the carn build of thor/hellion.
On November 13 2012 19:43 bokeevboke wrote: Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us.
There is a difference ib what we wanted SC2 to be – and what needed it to be.
Because it makes it simple, lets exaggerate a bit and assume SC2 would have been essentially BW in 3D with widescreen support and some changed / new news. Let's say, SC2 would have copied the quirks in the unit control (sometimes you need to use hold position, sometimes you need the patrol command for maximum effect.) The guys who were interested in BW would probably have loved the game. But how big would SC2 have been? Would it have justified 6+ years of development?
To support a game, the developer needs to make money. To make money, they need to attract the masses. To keep the masses, they also need to attract hardcore players and professional players. If this would be an easy thing to do, we had alternatives to SC2 already.
Even though they've gone overboard with their attempts to attract the masses through adjusting gameplay mechanics, at least in my opinion, point still stands and it'd be lovely if everyone understood that.
I agree with both of you.
Even SC2 in its current state still get complaints (from people that don't really play that game that is) that "it's the same as BW, just with better graphics, therefore I am not buying it or I don't like it".
People like "innovation" except at least with BW, BW was already a great game. It was innovative when it came out (one of the first RTS to have 3 vastly different races) and it was almost nearly balanced when it came out (only needing like 3-4 balance patches after BW came out). Blizzard said it themselves, BW became an amazing eSport (with fancy mechanics) and it was nearly balanced unintentionally (it was an accident, they never intended or imagined BW to be played competitively for money for years).
So the old saying goes, don't fix what isn't broken.
Anyway, on to new stuff that SC2 has that got me hyped (it worked) - They definitely probably got other people into the game with fancy stuff like protoss warp ins, the colossus (it can WALK UP RAMPS AND CLIFFS), and nydus worms. (Seriously, the SC2 presentation video which featured the colossus, warp ins, and nydus worm got me hyped for the game, so Blizzard did a good job with that.)
Though, they could have kept those (to some extent) and added other fancy stuff but kept the game similar to BW.
One of the main complaints of SC2 is the pathing and how it leads to unit clump + how there are lots of boring units like the colossus. They definitely could have mimiced BW as much as possible while still adding and/or replacing old units with new units.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
Terran can easily go 3 base BC, if BC was any good and if you get a PF at the 3rd. It follows the same theory of going with the carn build of thor/hellion.
Do you have any examples of this working at a high level tournament? I am not sure you can have enough defense to hold off the zerg before enough BCs get out. Especially if you have a PF at the 3rd.
On November 13 2012 19:43 bokeevboke wrote: Developers might be qualified, but the leader always decides how things gonna be. Considering that sc2 lead designer is from C&C and BfME -esque rts games no wonder that starcraft 2 isn't what we wanted it to be. At least for majority of us.
There is a difference ib what we wanted SC2 to be – and what needed it to be.
Because it makes it simple, lets exaggerate a bit and assume SC2 would have been essentially BW in 3D with widescreen support and some changed / new news. Let's say, SC2 would have copied the quirks in the unit control (sometimes you need to use hold position, sometimes you need the patrol command for maximum effect.) The guys who were interested in BW would probably have loved the game. But how big would SC2 have been? Would it have justified 6+ years of development?
To support a game, the developer needs to make money. To make money, they need to attract the masses. To keep the masses, they also need to attract hardcore players and professional players. If this would be an easy thing to do, we had alternatives to SC2 already.
Even though they've gone overboard with their attempts to attract the masses through adjusting gameplay mechanics, at least in my opinion, point still stands and it'd be lovely if everyone understood that.
I agree with both of you.
Even SC2 in its current state still get complaints (from people that don't really play that game that is) that "it's the same as BW, just with better graphics, therefore I am not buying it or I don't like it".
People like "innovation" except at least with BW, BW was already a great game. It was innovative when it came out (one of the first RTS to have 3 vastly different races) and it was almost nearly balanced when it came out (only needing like 3-4 balance patches after BW came out). Blizzard said it themselves, BW became an amazing eSport (with fancy mechanics) and it was nearly balanced unintentionally (it was an accident, they never intended or imagined BW to be played competitively for money for years).
So the old saying goes, don't fix what isn't broken.
Anyway, on to new stuff that SC2 has that got me hyped (it worked) - They definitely probably got other people into the game with fancy stuff like protoss warp ins, the colossus (it can WALK UP RAMPS AND CLIFFS), and nydus worms. (Seriously, the SC2 presentation video which featured the colossus, warp ins, and nydus worm got me hyped for the game, so Blizzard did a good job with that.)
Though, they could have kept those (to some extent) and added other fancy stuff but kept the game similar to BW.
One of the main complaints of SC2 is the pathing and how it leads to unit clump + how there are lots of boring units like the colossus. They definitely could have mimiced BW as much as possible while still adding and/or replacing old units with new units.
Except of course pathing in BW is completely broken. Take the dragoon for example. That unit pissed me off even when I was playing campaign. Of course, SC2 path can use a tweak to scatter things more, but to say BW is perfect on that is just...... Then, there's the 150 spawning pool and the 4 pool fest, or so I heard.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
Terran can easily go 3 base BC, if BC was any good and if you get a PF at the 3rd. It follows the same theory of going with the carn build of thor/hellion.
Do you have any examples of this working at a high level tournament? I am not sure you can have enough defense to hold off the zerg before enough BCs get out. Especially if you have a PF at the 3rd.
Marines, walls, bunkers, a few tanks, turrets if muta and a PF will hold anything long enough to get BC's out. The problem, as already stated, is that BC's suck.
I don't like the idea of a projectile fungal, though it does allow a stalker army to blink away before it hits, that being the only method of avoidance.
Fungal should do damage, but slow the units affected. It should not slow Massive units at all.
As for Neural, it should not affect units with supply of 6 or higher, OR the special abilities of the unit Neuraled cannot be cast by the infestor controlling it.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
Terran can easily go 3 base BC, if BC was any good and if you get a PF at the 3rd. It follows the same theory of going with the carn build of thor/hellion.
Do you have any examples of this working at a high level tournament? I am not sure you can have enough defense to hold off the zerg before enough BCs get out. Especially if you have a PF at the 3rd.
Marines, walls, bunkers, a few tanks, turrets if muta and a PF will hold anything long enough to get BC's out. The problem, as already stated, is that BC's suck.
BC's suck, as well as the zerg sees you turtling hardcore and can mass expo and send in changelings/overlords/whatever to see what you're going and outmacro you
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
No, against HerO he was confined on 3 bases, not mining anything at all from the extra hatches he built because they were destroyed immediately.
Zerg can't really afford to trade (or lose any unit) on 3 bases, but he can mass up the deathball just fine. It's happened in code S.
I was referring to the game between Leenock and Taeja on Antiga from RO8 last season. I understand 3 base Zerg with Hive tech is not sustainable but it's quite possible. It's not ideal but it can be done, and Leenock used queens to boost the cost efficiency of his army and made it work. 3 base Zerg is just as viable as 3 base Terran nowadays.
You just said hive tech on 3 bases as zerg is not sustainable...yet say its viable as 3base terran? =/??
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
Terran can easily go 3 base BC, if BC was any good and if you get a PF at the 3rd. It follows the same theory of going with the carn build of thor/hellion.
Do you have any examples of this working at a high level tournament? I am not sure you can have enough defense to hold off the zerg before enough BCs get out. Especially if you have a PF at the 3rd.
Marines, walls, bunkers, a few tanks, turrets if muta and a PF will hold anything long enough to get BC's out. The problem, as already stated, is that BC's suck.
BC's suck, as well as the zerg sees you turtling hardcore and can mass expo and send in changelings/overlords/whatever to see what you're going and outmacro you
I am just countering the point that terran is unable to do what zerg does with BL's. It is entirely feasible to do the same thing, it just isnt as good.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
Go watch HerO vs. Leenock from last season of GSL and tell me you can't go broodlord infestor off 3 bases and crush protoss.
It is not as simple as "3 base can't support broodlord infestor/or not" There are more factors, how early the gas is being mined, how long the gas heavy units are alive so you don't have to make them again. But I don't think leenock is able to consistently produce broodlords and infestors. The gas just won't be enough. He was really cost efficient with them.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
No, against HerO he was confined on 3 bases, not mining anything at all from the extra hatches he built because they were destroyed immediately.
Zerg can't really afford to trade (or lose any unit) on 3 bases, but he can mass up the deathball just fine. It's happened in code S.
I was referring to the game between Leenock and Taeja on Antiga from RO8 last season. I understand 3 base Zerg with Hive tech is not sustainable but it's quite possible. It's not ideal but it can be done, and Leenock used queens to boost the cost efficiency of his army and made it work. 3 base Zerg is just as viable as 3 base Terran nowadays.
You just said hive tech on 3 bases as zerg is not sustainable...yet say its viable as 3base terran? =/??
Yea, as going 3 base tier 3 tech with Terran isnt sustainable over a period of time. There are multiple, clear examples of Zerg getting their Hive tech off of 3 bases, I don't understand what you're still arguing here.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I've seen Leenock do it. In GSL. Code S.
I really don't think you understand Zerg or SC2. GG
I'm pretty sure you referring to a game where leenock had a 4th base mining just gas...Also, if your going to say "leenock did X, Y and Z", point out the game in which you are referring to, otherwise you just sound like you're spouting nonsense.
No, against HerO he was confined on 3 bases, not mining anything at all from the extra hatches he built because they were destroyed immediately.
Zerg can't really afford to trade (or lose any unit) on 3 bases, but he can mass up the deathball just fine. It's happened in code S.
I was referring to the game between Leenock and Taeja on Antiga from RO8 last season. I understand 3 base Zerg with Hive tech is not sustainable but it's quite possible. It's not ideal but it can be done, and Leenock used queens to boost the cost efficiency of his army and made it work. 3 base Zerg is just as viable as 3 base Terran nowadays.
You just said hive tech on 3 bases as zerg is not sustainable...yet say its viable as 3base terran? =/??
Yea, as going 3 base tier 3 tech with Terran isnt sustainable over a period of time. There are multiple, clear examples of Zerg getting their Hive tech off of 3 bases, I don't understand what you're still arguing here.
Its only because infestors are too strong and zerg can fight with infestors zerglings only. Whereas terran cant fight with marines medivac only.
Would you guys go for the old fungal? Which was longer duration but the same damage?
The reason being is that marines can survive as longer damage duration would lead to medivacs being able to heal a bit more so marines don't get too toasted, and the same goes for protoss shield regen. Would be interesting to see how old festors play in the modern game
They gave us a taste of the festor, but maybe the old fungal was a bit more balanced? The projectile thing looked good, but played pretty poorly when they did the PTR, but I would like to see things added which will increase the skill cap a little. Making festors a little smaller so EMP is more effective would be good too.
On November 15 2012 17:06 OptimusYale wrote: Would you guys go for the old fungal? Which was longer duration but the same damage?
The reason being is that marines can survive as longer damage duration would lead to medivacs being able to heal a bit more so marines don't get too toasted, and the same goes for protoss shield regen. Would be interesting to see how old festors play in the modern game
They gave us a taste of the festor, but maybe the old fungal was a bit more balanced? The projectile thing looked good, but played pretty poorly when they did the PTR, but I would like to see things added which will increase the skill cap a little. Making festors a little smaller so EMP is more effective would be good too.
That would still immobalize your units, but for 8 seconds now! I think the stun is what most people hate about the infestor
On November 15 2012 17:06 OptimusYale wrote: Would you guys go for the old fungal? Which was longer duration but the same damage?
The reason being is that marines can survive as longer damage duration would lead to medivacs being able to heal a bit more so marines don't get too toasted, and the same goes for protoss shield regen. Would be interesting to see how old festors play in the modern game
They gave us a taste of the festor, but maybe the old fungal was a bit more balanced? The projectile thing looked good, but played pretty poorly when they did the PTR, but I would like to see things added which will increase the skill cap a little. Making festors a little smaller so EMP is more effective would be good too.
The old fungal has way less dps. When I use fungal as ranged splash damage during a combat - it's current main role - it will be less potent by far.
This mostly hurts fungals use as "glasscanon" in combination with every unit that gets hit during a combat, while probably even buffing Infestor/Broodlord compositions, which don't get hit anyways but now the opponent can't move for another 4seconds while the Broodlords destroy them.
On November 15 2012 04:02 SupLilSon wrote: So how does the fact that Zerg can get Broodlords off 3 base or do any type of aggression off 3 base fit into IdrA's post? It's not like Terran can just forgo all forms of defense and just rush to straight BCs (as if that was a legitimate army anyways)
Terran does not have an infestor like unit that can do everything.
If you think zerg can support broodlords on 3 bases; you don't understand how zerg works.
I have to agree, Mass infestors with infested marines spam is a bit much in certain situations.
If the Zerg manages to get into a good spot where the Protoss can't pull back and wait out for the infested Terrans to die off then Protoss is basically dead. This is particularly dangerous if Zerg starts attacking a mining base of protoss. If protoss pulls back then the expansion will be dead long before the infested Terrans actually despawns.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LWcdL.png)
has been overpowered for a much longer time than 
's current era but he would never say that 
![[image loading]](http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/A-Christmas-Story-a-christmas-story-547133_100_100.jpg)
+1!
