|
On November 28 2012 09:29 Twilight Sparkle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 05:50 c0sm0naut wrote:
I also think Blizzard will have a hard time recruiting Terran players in HotS. I for one, stopped playing a few seasons ago after becoming jaded with Terran. I was able to just pick up Protoss and Zerg and have better results than my Terran and that bothered me. I'm sure with the removal of the Warhound and the reluctance of Blizzard to add new Terran units, they may well have a hard time getting Terrans interested.
i can relate to this post, i play random and every time i get terran i feel that i will already lose, even though in the past i used to main race as terran. i never relax all game and the expansion doesnt really make me want to play much. when they removed the warhound it didn't bother me too much because I havent played in the beta, but when they said that their rationale was that "terran was already a pretty complete race" or something similar (i am paraphrasing mind you) it just didn't sit with me. What is complete about being on the losing end of asymmetric balance? What is incomplete about Z or P that is different from T? It seems that they dont actually have a reason, other than that the warhound was stupidly OP and that they really didn't want to have to deal with a whole nother sc2 launch where the next year was constant whining about terran. No, they removed the warhound because it was an awful unit. It was fast, it murdered everything on the ground, it had long range, its active ability microed itself. It was designed to counter mechanical units, a niche that didn't need to be filled, so even if it was balanced it still wouldn't have added anything to the game. It was a design disaster.
Give it an across-the-board nerf - I think everyone agreed that, as a pile of numbers, it was too good - and change the autocast on the ability to target all units, not just mechanical ones. If the ability does 24 damage, say, make it 4 (+20 mechanical) and have toggleable autocast, with priority determined by distance. That way, good players can take the autocast off and manually target it where it's the most effective, at the cost of APM, and players without the multitasking can leave it on autocast and take their chances. If it needs a niche, decrease its speed and make it part of a mech composition against Roach/Hydra/Viper armies.
|
On November 28 2012 13:20 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 09:29 Twilight Sparkle wrote:On November 28 2012 05:50 c0sm0naut wrote:
I also think Blizzard will have a hard time recruiting Terran players in HotS. I for one, stopped playing a few seasons ago after becoming jaded with Terran. I was able to just pick up Protoss and Zerg and have better results than my Terran and that bothered me. I'm sure with the removal of the Warhound and the reluctance of Blizzard to add new Terran units, they may well have a hard time getting Terrans interested.
i can relate to this post, i play random and every time i get terran i feel that i will already lose, even though in the past i used to main race as terran. i never relax all game and the expansion doesnt really make me want to play much. when they removed the warhound it didn't bother me too much because I havent played in the beta, but when they said that their rationale was that "terran was already a pretty complete race" or something similar (i am paraphrasing mind you) it just didn't sit with me. What is complete about being on the losing end of asymmetric balance? What is incomplete about Z or P that is different from T? It seems that they dont actually have a reason, other than that the warhound was stupidly OP and that they really didn't want to have to deal with a whole nother sc2 launch where the next year was constant whining about terran. No, they removed the warhound because it was an awful unit. It was fast, it murdered everything on the ground, it had long range, its active ability microed itself. It was designed to counter mechanical units, a niche that didn't need to be filled, so even if it was balanced it still wouldn't have added anything to the game. It was a design disaster. Give it an across-the-board nerf - I think everyone agreed that, as a pile of numbers, it was too good - and change the autocast on the ability to target all units, not just mechanical ones. If the ability does 24 damage, say, make it 4 (+20 mechanical) and have toggleable autocast, with priority determined by distance. That way, good players can take the autocast off and manually target it where it's the most effective, at the cost of APM, and players without the multitasking can leave it on autocast and take their chances. If it needs a niche, decrease its speed and make it part of a mech composition against Roach/Hydra/Viper armies.
Im sorry but Terran doesnt need more powerful slow-moving deathball-promoting units, the warhound rly didnt fill a need.
|
On November 28 2012 07:34 NEEDZMOAR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 05:50 c0sm0naut wrote:
I also think Blizzard will have a hard time recruiting Terran players in HotS. I for one, stopped playing a few seasons ago after becoming jaded with Terran. I was able to just pick up Protoss and Zerg and have better results than my Terran and that bothered me. I'm sure with the removal of the Warhound and the reluctance of Blizzard to add new Terran units, they may well have a hard time getting Terrans interested.
i can relate to this post, i play random and every time i get terran i feel that i will already lose, even though in the past i used to main race as terran. i never relax all game and the expansion doesnt really make me want to play much. when they removed the warhound it didn't bother me too much because I havent played in the beta, but when they said that their rationale was that "terran was already a pretty complete race" or something similar (i am paraphrasing mind you) it just didn't sit with me. What is complete about being on the losing end of asymmetric balance? What is incomplete about Z or P that is different from T? It seems that they dont actually have a reason, other than that the warhound was stupidly OP and that they really didn't want to have to deal with a whole nother sc2 launch where the next year was constant whining about terran. Terran imo is complete in the way that they dont rely on spellcasters and aoe to do the job, they have single target units that promote micro and head to head engagements where the core of the army is fighting units that dont rely on aoe and casters to back them up, unlike protoss and zerg who both rely on casters and aoe to to take cost efficient fights e.g: infestors and sentries / colossus / HTs to win fights. how is that not a good thing?
Casters vs unit attacks is a bad "comparison" / "necessity" / "way to do it" for the simple fact that casters can FOCUS all of their power on one moment in time, whereas the Siege Tank is "balanced" for continuous fire. There is no BURST POTENTIAL in a siege tank and thus it is kinda screwed when compared to its "counterparts" for Protoss and Zerg.
The Siege Tank is also immobile and thus disadvantaged when you compared it to the Colossus and it doesnt create "free units" which are automatically replaced while being invisible itself - like the Swarm Host does. There also is no Forcefield or Fungal for Terrans to block a swarm of enemy units and those two abilities are kinda neutralizing the only Terran cast ability ... Stimpack.
So how is it NOT a bad thing how the balance between the three races is designed now?
|
Blazinghand
United States25558 Posts
If nothing else, these proposed changes stop the utter ridiculousness that was infestors fungalling other infestors in ZbZ
|
On November 27 2012 19:21 gosublade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2012 16:07 Talack wrote:On November 27 2012 16:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On November 27 2012 14:15 Richard Nixon wrote:On November 27 2012 13:50 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Wow... this is genius. 75 energy with cooldown please! XD (and either remove seeker missile upgrade, or combine/remove some of other raven upgrades...) Because a cooldown doesn't solve the problem of damage-stacking. The whole reason Blizzard doesn't want to buff seeker is because, unlike psi storm and fungal (which apply an effect, and thus "stacking" it will only extend the duration, not increase dps), seeker can be stacked to potentially eliminate entire armies instantly within the time period of a second or two. You give Ravens a cooldown and they can still launch 1 seeker per Raven at the same time. You have 10-15 Ravens and you will see a good size army simply evaporate. This isn't a good thing for the game, and makes Ravens a nightmare to balance, which leads to having the awkward, unreliable unit we have today. Hm, i haven't thought of that before. I can't think of any ways to fix this except to simply make it a DPS spell over time kind of thing... AKA irradiate. Surely there must be another to add some diminishing effect to using a lot of them in the same immediate area? Irradiate would be x10000 more interesting and better than seeker missile. Wish they would take out seeker and implement it since it would be a lot better in all 3 match ups compared to seeker missile ugh seeker would also be super awesome spell if they had been activate with tweaking and chancing it since the beginning. Who knows, it might be something comletely different now.. why its taking them 3 years to fix raven is beyond me.
The Rock stated in the last TL Interview that they moved units and skills out of the game, because they didn't know how to balance them properly without changing up the whole game balance. I don't really understand all the hate on the Reaver, err I mean the Seeker Missile. Stackable instant damage can work if its dodgeable, which it is. If you really manage to get hit by 10 seeker missiles, you either play terran or you didn't payed attention to your army for 5 seconds near the opponent army without any spotters at all. Which is bad play and should be punished.
I probably was the wrong test Person for this map, because I used Ghost/Raven before and don't go massfestor. So all I noticed was that Terran/Toss were slightly easier to play against Zerg if they use Infestors. And that it was more difficult to keep Infestors alive if the opponent knew how to feedback/snipe. I actually found it a buff for Zerg that Archons are immune to Fungal. You Fungal their army and then neural the still attack moving Archons, the Archons will then proceed to destroy the Toss army. Just have to make sure to stay under 60 energy after the Neural.
I liked the Seeker Missile change, because its really nice when you add a single Raven early on against Zerg.
I am not sure if these changes help though. It might also trigger Zerg players to go up to 230 supply before they decide to attack.
|
|
|
On November 29 2012 00:27 Lukeeze[zR] wrote:Sometime in the next few days, we intend to replace this map with one that has a couple of different balance adjustments, for further testing. We'll go into greater detail on that in the blog and here in the forums at that time.http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7199640072?page=24#474
already posted, see the previous page
|
Thanks alot to everyone who actually tested the changes! I'm glad to see they are bringing out other ones 
|
On November 28 2012 20:19 Blazinghand wrote:
If nothing else, these proposed changes stop the utter ridiculousness that was infestors fungalling other infestors in ZbZ
Yep. Thing is there's plenty of good reasons to nerf the Infestor.
The fact that one unit can be massed as the best strategy is a sad commentary. It's not like the unit is tier 3, or is the Protoss carrier for the late, late game. It's a ground unit that is basically a one stop shop.
|
On November 28 2012 13:20 LuckoftheIrish wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 09:29 Twilight Sparkle wrote:On November 28 2012 05:50 c0sm0naut wrote:
I also think Blizzard will have a hard time recruiting Terran players in HotS. I for one, stopped playing a few seasons ago after becoming jaded with Terran. I was able to just pick up Protoss and Zerg and have better results than my Terran and that bothered me. I'm sure with the removal of the Warhound and the reluctance of Blizzard to add new Terran units, they may well have a hard time getting Terrans interested.
i can relate to this post, i play random and every time i get terran i feel that i will already lose, even though in the past i used to main race as terran. i never relax all game and the expansion doesnt really make me want to play much. when they removed the warhound it didn't bother me too much because I havent played in the beta, but when they said that their rationale was that "terran was already a pretty complete race" or something similar (i am paraphrasing mind you) it just didn't sit with me. What is complete about being on the losing end of asymmetric balance? What is incomplete about Z or P that is different from T? It seems that they dont actually have a reason, other than that the warhound was stupidly OP and that they really didn't want to have to deal with a whole nother sc2 launch where the next year was constant whining about terran. No, they removed the warhound because it was an awful unit. It was fast, it murdered everything on the ground, it had long range, its active ability microed itself. It was designed to counter mechanical units, a niche that didn't need to be filled, so even if it was balanced it still wouldn't have added anything to the game. It was a design disaster. Give it an across-the-board nerf - I think everyone agreed that, as a pile of numbers, it was too good - and change the autocast on the ability to target all units, not just mechanical ones. If the ability does 24 damage, say, make it 4 (+20 mechanical) and have toggleable autocast, with priority determined by distance. That way, good players can take the autocast off and manually target it where it's the most effective, at the cost of APM, and players without the multitasking can leave it on autocast and take their chances. If it needs a niche, decrease its speed and make it part of a mech composition against Roach/Hydra/Viper armies.
It was just a terrible terrible idea. Mobile with high dps and durable on top of it?
There's no real trade off to the unit. Expensive... maybe but then you've taken a toss quality and thrown it into a terran form.
|
Well the raven change has done nothing, and will do nothing. It needs to be completely reworked, as having a unit that no one makes hardly ever seems a bit illogical. It is essentially a super over priced observer, with a one time spell usage in most battles, since it has to suicide to cast spells usually, makes no sense. Unless they truly make drastic changes to these units then HOTS will be very very disappointing for Terran. (I have a beta key)
|
On November 28 2012 09:22 spaceyme wrote:
Disappointing if you look at the 1st and 2nd place spots in the last 5 major tournaments there's 2 Zerg's out of 10 spots, with 5 protoss and 3 Terrans.
Yet this patch is to address perceived zerg infestor being OP. Blizzard should stick to their guns and look at the stats on their side and come to their own conclusions, not be swayed by the vocal minority banding together to make their race more balanced in their minds.
If you took a proper sample size you'd know that Zergs have been winning everything. Does this "vocal minority" include just about every Korean pro (even the zergs), and 80% of the community?
I know you enjoy ZvZ ladder, but Zerg is getting nerfed. You won't have a "counter-everything" unit anymore, and you'll have to adapt.
|
i dont get how hard it is to make fungal 90% slow instead of hold. Blizzard really loves making every1 mad before listening to the community
|
On November 30 2012 09:27 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 09:22 spaceyme wrote:
Disappointing if you look at the 1st and 2nd place spots in the last 5 major tournaments there's 2 Zerg's out of 10 spots, with 5 protoss and 3 Terrans.
Yet this patch is to address perceived zerg infestor being OP. Blizzard should stick to their guns and look at the stats on their side and come to their own conclusions, not be swayed by the vocal minority banding together to make their race more balanced in their minds. If you took a proper sample size you'd know that Zergs have been winning everything. Does this "vocal minority" include just about every Korean pro (even the zergs), and 80% of the community? I know you enjoy ZvZ ladder, but Zerg is getting nerfed. You won't have a "counter-everything" unit anymore, and you'll have to adapt.
Sample size has nothing to do with facts.
Go to liquipedia and check the premier events results and dare to say one more time that "Zergs have been winning everything".
Oh and before you try, do not use the the whole "yea but those players were just way better then zergs" cause that has nothing to do with your previous statement.
|
|
|
|
|
There are two threads about this already and it is being discussed in the "Call to action #2" as well ... and so far that is only a "declaration of intent" and not something like patch notes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
