|
Northern Ireland25085 Posts
On December 01 2012 12:01 GodTroll wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. Really? ghost snipe was dominating everything? H'ok, let's say they were coherently broken for the sake of argument. If you think blizzard should take small incremental steps to nerf units, how would that justify nerfing the ghost to oblivion by nerfing snipe to being totally useless, while buffing units that were countered by snipe in a single patch? How about not giving the other races time to adjust instead of sticking with one unit composition? It's been almost a year, and the consensus is- infestors are broken. Period. Blizzard has refused to do anything about them, while nerfing every single terran unit that cycles into the metagame. Either you've yet to realize that Blizzard's logic is flawed, or you're suffering from invincible fallacy and don't want to admit the truth.
It wasn't dominating everything, it was an illustrative example. I actually liked what we were seeing with ghost-mech and mass snipe, it was pretty cool to watch and we didn't get to see it get figured out by Zergs. I was more meaning that, in the case of ghost play being a 'problem', the problem itself was visible. It was ONE ability. Thus, Blizzard could nerf that one ability itself. The infestor is a problem because of everything about it, 2 abilities and perhaps its supply cost. It must be nerfed very, very carefully due to this.
For want of an analogy, consider if Blizzard gave Protoss Khaydarin Amulet back to 'encourage Templar play' and move us away from the Collosus. This would, in a world where Parting exists probably be entirely, completely fucking broken.
However, Blizzard in this instance can also easily fix this, because the problem created by giving us the amulet back is clear to identify - it's Khaydarin Amulet. They can just remove the research, and that particular problem is gone.
You cannot apply a catch-all 'solution' to the Infestor like that, at all.
|
On December 01 2012 12:05 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. "After testing the adjustment to Fungal Growth, we found it to be too big of a change."
This.
And I agree. Wombat, I'd like to know how the infestor is not like the ghost
the ghost was used to counter Ultralisks/Broodlords as well as EMP infestors
Infestors are useful against marines, do extra dmg to marauders, can lock hellions to prevent lings from being kited, fungal vikings, ravens and banshees to lock them into place for corruptors or queens, lob infested terran to circumvent the range advantage of siege tanks, use mass infested terran spawning to "nuke" buildings (and killing the infestor doesn't kill all of the IT), can mind control units up to 3 times their supply, can cloak for no energy, etc
i really dont think this is the comparison you want to make, haha
obviously, there are more "holes" in the zerg race which the infestor is required to fill and terran doesn't need these roles filled by the ghost as much, but I just think your point is pretty weak
|
On December 01 2012 12:03 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 11:53 SuperYo1000 wrote:On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. so your saying try little itty bitty changes for a week....Its contradicts itself. Maybe if blizz had actually been this way the entire time but protoss/terran have been the victim of kneejerk balance patches over the last 1.5 years but when a unit gets OP for zerg they take their sweet ass time....ya. The rage is just boiling over I made a post earlier explaining why this is wrong, which I will restate. Not that you're an idiot or anything, you may be simply unaware of Blizzard's statements. Basically, people were moaning that Blizzard were actively patching too hard, instead of allowing the metagame to settle, or for innovative solutions to be found to problems that people were having. I'll create a kind of chronological flowchart kind of thing to explain this. 1. The period of Terran dominance, at least at a GSL level. People recall this period I'm sure, they were doing super well and were nerfed and nerfed and nerfed some more. This eventually crossed a line, to the degree that people, especially Terrans were getting pissed off with how Blizzard were approaching balancing out the race. A common, common complaint was that Blizzard were bringing out patches to nerf cool strategies, without letting the metagame and players figure out whether they could deal with these strategies with the tools given to them. A good example of a change that happened in this time is the ghost snipe nerf, or prior to that, the addition of energy to Thors to stop Thor timings vP. It may/may not have been broken, but players were pissed off that as a community we weren't given the time to at least try to find non-patch solutions. 2. A change in Blizzard's approach to balance and patching. They took the feedback I mentioned in the last sentence to heart, and the Queen/Overlord patch was put out. They mentioned to us that they were pursuing a new 'wait-and-see' philosophy from now on, in terms of approach balance 3. The period of Zerg 'dominance'.This is a period that Blizzard waited to see what would happen, and if people figured out how to deal with Zergs. This is also consistent with the aforementioned change in approach. It's unfortunate for the other races for sure, but it's not in any way a result of any pro-Zerg or anti-other race bias from Blizzard. They adopted a change in philosophy, in terms of balancing with patches, and it's entirely coincidental/unintentional that the period after this was one that Zergs were doing extremely well in.
there is too much irony in blizzards actions....wait longer to see how things play out yet dont let changes play out
|
On December 01 2012 11:51 oxxo wrote:
For example Snipe. It was nowhere near as bad as this. It was a soft counter to T3 zerg helping vs tech switches. Games like Mvp vs July were cited as snipe being 'OP'... yet Mvp is and was clearly the superior player at pretty much all points of their SC2 careers, Mvp was already ahead, and July STILL could have killed EVERY GHOST but chose to attack command centers with his ultras (and letting them get sniped to death) instead of just killing 10+ ghosts.
Snipe was nerfed because Blizzard didn't like the idea of it being somewhat effective vs T3 (in their own words). Why they're ok with Infestors being good against pretty much every unit in every situation in the game is beyond me.
Excuse me but no, Snipe wasnt "somewhat effective vs t3", Snipe was a hard counter to the entire Zerg T3, and Ghost+Tank had simply no counter, it was one of the most retarded thing in the history of the game, probably only second to 1 supply roaches
Also, as explained above, it's obvious Infestor is nowhere near like Ghost. Infestor is like the Zerg marine, it's a core unit, it's essential and played in every single matchup, you cant nerf that easily
|
On December 01 2012 12:10 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 12:01 GodTroll wrote:On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. Really? ghost snipe was dominating everything? H'ok, let's say they were coherently broken for the sake of argument. If you think blizzard should take small incremental steps to nerf units, how would that justify nerfing the ghost to oblivion by nerfing snipe to being totally useless, while buffing units that were countered by snipe in a single patch? How about not giving the other races time to adjust instead of sticking with one unit composition? It's been almost a year, and the consensus is- infestors are broken. Period. Blizzard has refused to do anything about them, while nerfing every single terran unit that cycles into the metagame. Either you've yet to realize that Blizzard's logic is flawed, or you're suffering from invincible fallacy and don't want to admit the truth. It wasn't dominating everything, it was an illustrative example. I actually liked what we were seeing with ghost-mech and mass snipe, it was pretty cool to watch and we didn't get to see it get figured out by Zergs. I was more meaning that, in the case of ghost play being a 'problem', the problem itself was visible. It was ONE ability. Thus, Blizzard could nerf that one ability itself. The infestor is a problem because of everything about it, 2 abilities and perhaps its supply cost. It must be nerfed very, very carefully due to this. For want of an analogy, consider if Blizzard gave Protoss Khaydarin Amulet back to 'encourage Templar play' and move us away from the Collosus. This would, in a world where Parting exists probably be entirely, completely fucking broken. However, Blizzard in this instance can also easily fix this, because the problem created by giving us the amulet back is clear to identify - it's Khaydarin Amulet. They can just remove the research, and that particular problem is gone. You cannot apply a catch-all 'solution' to the Infestor like that, at all.
How hard is it to understand the fact that fungal growth is broken. single spell. Nerf it like how Blizz's being doing to Terrans over the last year or so. Simple logic.
Even if what you say is true, it doesn't justify them taking a full year to herp derp and take a small approach to this matter.
|
Northern Ireland25085 Posts
On December 01 2012 12:04 Corrosive wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. because this change does literally nothing.
If the change does nothing, Blizzard will see that it does nothing and look at other ways of tweaking the Infestor. It's not bad to identify this, at all.
@ZAINs and aksfjh
As I see it, they're not saying say, fungal is fine. They're saying the specific changes they were trying didn't work, that they didn't have the desired, proportional change that Blizzard were looking for.
At no point have I seen a Blizzard employee come out since this process started and said 'fungal is fine', or that the infestor is fine overall.
|
The infested terran egg change isn't as big of a deal as the fungal change which was stupid, but I still don't see why the egg change is necessary (I'm kinda "no thumbs" view, maybe somewhat "thumbs down".).
Frankly, I'd really like it if infested terrans were just removed entirely from the game. They're unrealistic to be [infested-]terrans, they are such short duration, and most importantly overlap on the hydralisk's job way too much. It is something that's more relevant for like HotS or LotV when they're out of useful abilities/units that don't overlap with each other.
The fact that hydralisks were useless over the entirety of WoL is just a complete failure by Blizzard to address issues.
If you don't want infestors to be used all the time, how about making some units better? How about making some [useful] units that do jobs the infestor does? How about making another freaking caster for zerg? (I know these are sorta getting done in HotS but WTF took them so long? it's unacceptable to have left the issue hanging for so long; it even existed in the beta when they could have changed abilities/units pretty easily)
People have been asking for a buff of the hydralisk and/or addition of a lurker for ages. If one or both of those things existed, people wouldn't be having to rely on infestors so much, nor would there be much/any complaint about the topic.
Zerg really feels pathetic in SC2.
- Hydralisks are too weak and become vulnerable to opponent's units (hellions, siege tanks, colossus) at the same time or before the zerg can even get any. In BW hydralisks were 1 supply and hence viable at all stages of the game and didn't make zerg wimpy while still keeping them quite vulnerable and swarmy.
- Ultralisks are rather slow, and do terrible damage vs light/non-armored, yet are very vulnerable to nearly all armored units since they are ranged units which deal bonus damage to [armored] ultralisks. [spread] siege tanks counter ultralisks in SC2 which is just ridiculous. In BW ultralisks had a nice niche since they could deal good damage to small units or any unit (like a end-tier unit should be), and they were fast to be useful for zerg instead of kited to death or die to tanks. This ultralisk thing is only mildly related to infestor/fungal, in that broodlords are often the alternative to ultralisks, which require infestor support; if ultralisks were improved in some ways, infestors wouldn't be as necessary.
- Zerg has just real 1 caster in WoL, and one if it's abilities is a complete POS. WTF are you expecting? You're essentially forcing all players of that race to use the only two remaining abilities they have access to whatsoever; it's absolutely ridiculous! In brood war, the zerg queen wasn't the most popular, but personally I loved using it, and won many games at pretty reasonable skill levels with it. I think it's unfair that zerg has such little micro/casting/ability potential in SC2, and it affects the gameplay negatively, such as a focus on only one caster and a lack of diversity in game paths.
I'm not saying SC2 should be brood war, but just giving an example how people weren't complaining much about one same specific unit or how they dislike their race or something. SC2 doesn't need tier 1 hydralisks with 1 supply, they could just be buffed to be more useful.
|
Northern Ireland25085 Posts
On December 01 2012 12:12 c0sm0naut wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 12:05 ZAiNs wrote:On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. "After testing the adjustment to Fungal Growth, we found it to be too big of a change." This. And I agree. Wombat, I'd like to know how the infestor is not like the ghost the ghost was used to counter Ultralisks/Broodlords as well as EMP infestors Infestors are useful against marines, do extra dmg to marauders, can lock hellions to prevent lings from being kited, fungal vikings, ravens and banshees to lock them into place for corruptors or queens, lob infested terran to circumvent the range advantage of siege tanks, use mass infested terran spawning to "nuke" buildings (and killing the infestor doesn't kill all of the IT), can mind control units up to 3 times their supply, can cloak for no energy, etc i really dont think this is the comparison you want to make, haha obviously, there are more "holes" in the zerg race which the infestor is required to fill and terran doesn't need these roles filled by the ghost as much, but I just think your point is pretty weak
Infestor is not like the ghost because it's strength comes from multiple abilities and other aspects of the unit, in addition to the spells.
The ghost had a 'catch-all' feel against Zerg tier 3, in that it was very good against both ultras and Broods. In that respect it IS similar to the Infestor, which has a feeling of 'good against everything'. However, it was also easily identifiable and fixable, because that strength was predicated on the strength of the snipe ability. That is ONE ability.
Consider all these differing units of the infestor. The infestor is so good, not just because of its abilities, but the versatility that they have.
1. Fungal. Very, very strong ability, even in terms of pure stats. However it has a lot of other uses bar fungalling bio or whatever. It shuts down medivacs, and indeed is the standard counter to banshee and Protoss void/phoenix play, after a certain point.
2. Infested Terrans. Extremely strong, especially against an army without AoE. Has a lot of other uses such as spamming them to snipe Nexuses, or to deal with Carrier play, or attempts to vortex. Also good against Terran in sniping medivacs, or using them to soak a tank volley to allow Zerglings to flank better.
Now, how the fuck do you balance all these applications of the infestor? You can't just think of a change and throw it out there, you have to strike a balance between making the infestor less 'catch-all', and making the infestor useless.
|
what if nuke just costed energy?
maybe a lot like 125 or 150?
you dont really see nukes landing too often on entire armies and really being OP or anything.
this could become like launching ITs on bases, 3-4 ghosts or w/e it takes to kill a building with nukes could be cool harass.
also could be used to force infestor/BL to back off maybe.
|
stop being so hostile, it takes away from your argument
|
On December 01 2012 12:14 Protosnake wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 11:51 oxxo wrote:
For example Snipe. It was nowhere near as bad as this. It was a soft counter to T3 zerg helping vs tech switches. Games like Mvp vs July were cited as snipe being 'OP'... yet Mvp is and was clearly the superior player at pretty much all points of their SC2 careers, Mvp was already ahead, and July STILL could have killed EVERY GHOST but chose to attack command centers with his ultras (and letting them get sniped to death) instead of just killing 10+ ghosts.
Snipe was nerfed because Blizzard didn't like the idea of it being somewhat effective vs T3 (in their own words). Why they're ok with Infestors being good against pretty much every unit in every situation in the game is beyond me.
Excuse me but no, Snipe wasnt "somewhat effective vs t3", Snipe was a hard counter to the entire Zerg T3, and Ghost+Tank had simply no counter, it was one of the most retarded thing in the history of the game, probably only second to 1 supply roaches Also, as explained above, it's obvious Infestor is nowhere near like Ghost. Infestor is like the Zerg marine, it's a core unit, it's essential and played in every single matchup, you cant nerf that easily
infestor is a spellcaster, not a core unit you need to mass. You can't mass ht/ghost because they're spellcasters. not core units just like you're talking about
|
On December 01 2012 12:22 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 12:12 c0sm0naut wrote:On December 01 2012 12:05 ZAiNs wrote:On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. "After testing the adjustment to Fungal Growth, we found it to be too big of a change." This. And I agree. Wombat, I'd like to know how the infestor is not like the ghost the ghost was used to counter Ultralisks/Broodlords as well as EMP infestors Infestors are useful against marines, do extra dmg to marauders, can lock hellions to prevent lings from being kited, fungal vikings, ravens and banshees to lock them into place for corruptors or queens, lob infested terran to circumvent the range advantage of siege tanks, use mass infested terran spawning to "nuke" buildings (and killing the infestor doesn't kill all of the IT), can mind control units up to 3 times their supply, can cloak for no energy, etc i really dont think this is the comparison you want to make, haha obviously, there are more "holes" in the zerg race which the infestor is required to fill and terran doesn't need these roles filled by the ghost as much, but I just think your point is pretty weak Infestor is not like the ghost because it's strength comes from multiple abilities and other aspects of the unit, in addition to the spells. The ghost had a 'catch-all' feel against Zerg tier 3, in that it was very good against both ultras and Broods. In that respect it IS similar to the Infestor, which has a feeling of 'good against everything'. However, it was also easily identifiable and fixable, because that strength was predicated on the strength of the snipe ability. That is ONE ability. Consider all these differing units of the infestor. The infestor is so good, not just because of its abilities, but the versatility that they have. 1. Fungal. Very, very strong ability, even in terms of pure stats. However it has a lot of other uses bar fungalling bio or whatever. It shuts down medivacs, and indeed is the standard counter to banshee and Protoss void/phoenix play, after a certain point. 2. Infested Terrans. Extremely strong, especially against an army without AoE. Has a lot of other uses such as spamming them to snipe Nexuses, or to deal with Carrier play, or attempts to vortex. Also good against Terran in sniping medivacs, or using them to soak a tank volley to allow Zerglings to flank better. Now, how the fuck do you balance all these applications of the infestor? You can't just think of a change and throw it out there, you have to strike a balance between making the infestor less 'catch-all', and making the infestor useless.
So you're justifying that infestors cannot be nerfed because they are way more broken than ghosts?
What? I don't know what kind of games you've seen, but the coherent problem in TvZ had nothing to do with infested terrans.
It's 99.5% fungal growth that Terrans DO NOT have an answer to in late game.
In fact, infestors are exactly like the ghost. Lategame T has no answer to fungal, much like how Z didn't have one to snipe not EMP or cloak or some other complementary spell.
As for the question of how the fuck does one balance infestors? You simply nerf fungal.
The bottom line is, Blizzard's been trigger happy when it came to nerfing Terrans.
Didn't give much time for players to sort it out. Regardless of where the infestor stands today, the inequality that Blizzard is showing by taking a full year before addressing an issue and saying "oh, we'll nerf eggs by 20hp" doesn't do jack about the coherent problem that fungal growth has created as Zergs actually found out how to abuse it.
Let me ask you a question in return. Do you honestly think that by leaving the infestors just because it serves a core role in the Zerg arsenal justifies the game's balance being destroyed by a single unit?
|
On December 01 2012 12:28 SamirDuran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 12:14 Protosnake wrote:On December 01 2012 11:51 oxxo wrote:
For example Snipe. It was nowhere near as bad as this. It was a soft counter to T3 zerg helping vs tech switches. Games like Mvp vs July were cited as snipe being 'OP'... yet Mvp is and was clearly the superior player at pretty much all points of their SC2 careers, Mvp was already ahead, and July STILL could have killed EVERY GHOST but chose to attack command centers with his ultras (and letting them get sniped to death) instead of just killing 10+ ghosts.
Snipe was nerfed because Blizzard didn't like the idea of it being somewhat effective vs T3 (in their own words). Why they're ok with Infestors being good against pretty much every unit in every situation in the game is beyond me.
Excuse me but no, Snipe wasnt "somewhat effective vs t3", Snipe was a hard counter to the entire Zerg T3, and Ghost+Tank had simply no counter, it was one of the most retarded thing in the history of the game, probably only second to 1 supply roaches Also, as explained above, it's obvious Infestor is nowhere near like Ghost. Infestor is like the Zerg marine, it's a core unit, it's essential and played in every single matchup, you cant nerf that easily infestor is a spellcaster, not a core unit you need to mass. You can't mass ht/ghost because they're spellcasters. not core units just like you're talking about
The GSL matching going on right now, Hyun vs Innovation, has shown some excellent series of zerg being effective without infestors.
Proof that you do not need to build infestors to win, it just makes it much easier.
|
On December 01 2012 12:15 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 12:04 Corrosive wrote:On December 01 2012 11:19 Wombat_NI wrote:
I actually cannot believe how retarded people are being about this. I genuinely can't, even posters I normally respect are posting nonsense here.
The reason (most) of us bitch about the infestor isn't due to fungal being too good, or infested terrans being too good, but that they are too good, and too versatile, taking away the infestor being a useful support unit, and making it obligatory.
It's patently, fucking, obvious, that Blizzard are tweaking small things with each of the infestor's abilities to try and figure out to what degree they can nerf each of them, while maintaining the utility of the infestor.
If the infestor was like the ghost, when snipe was dominating everything, they WOULD nerf that one ability, 100%. I am convinced of this. However, the infestor being 'overpowered' is in relation to both of its abilities, either that they're too good individually, or too good for one caster to have both, in its current form.
Blizzard are obviously trying to isolate the two spells in these testing maps, and trying to find values that balance them, independently. They aren't retarded, they know that they could straight up nerf the infestor, and how they could do that. They are merely trying to think about how this is done, and to what degree this is done through testing out a multitude of ideas.
Imagine if the marine was thought of as overpowered, in that the community overwhelming thought so, and demanded action. Any kind of nerf would be enormously complex because the marine affects every single Terran matchup, and close to every single Terran composition. Thus it would have to be a careful, considered process of balancing due to the HUGE impact that getting it wrong would have.
Why is this a bad approach? Can somebody please tell me why? I am genuinely curious. because this change does literally nothing. If the change does nothing, Blizzard will see that it does nothing and look at other ways of tweaking the Infestor. It's not bad to identify this, at all. @ZAINs and aksfjh As I see it, they're not saying say, fungal is fine. They're saying the specific changes they were trying didn't work, that they didn't have the desired, proportional change that Blizzard were looking for. At no point have I seen a Blizzard employee come out since this process started and said 'fungal is fine', or that the infestor is fine overall.
It's implicit. In the past, the timetable has been:
1) Something looks broken, and the community complains
2) We wait for Blizzard acknowledgement, sometimes it takes more than 6 months
3) Blizzard notes that they're looking at it, sometimes offers a general direction of their response
4) Blizzard comes out with a test map (or PTR long ago)
5) If needed, Blizzard comes up with a revised test map that reverts or adds changes
6) Blizzard releases patch
We have yet to see an "isolated" approach to balance. It has always been direct changes, and iterative changes. By taking out the fungal change and only going back to IT, they have implicitly decided that fungal isn't the problem, nor is the infestor as a whole.
|
On December 01 2012 12:28 SamirDuran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 12:14 Protosnake wrote:On December 01 2012 11:51 oxxo wrote:
For example Snipe. It was nowhere near as bad as this. It was a soft counter to T3 zerg helping vs tech switches. Games like Mvp vs July were cited as snipe being 'OP'... yet Mvp is and was clearly the superior player at pretty much all points of their SC2 careers, Mvp was already ahead, and July STILL could have killed EVERY GHOST but chose to attack command centers with his ultras (and letting them get sniped to death) instead of just killing 10+ ghosts.
Snipe was nerfed because Blizzard didn't like the idea of it being somewhat effective vs T3 (in their own words). Why they're ok with Infestors being good against pretty much every unit in every situation in the game is beyond me.
Excuse me but no, Snipe wasnt "somewhat effective vs t3", Snipe was a hard counter to the entire Zerg T3, and Ghost+Tank had simply no counter, it was one of the most retarded thing in the history of the game, probably only second to 1 supply roaches Also, as explained above, it's obvious Infestor is nowhere near like Ghost. Infestor is like the Zerg marine, it's a core unit, it's essential and played in every single matchup, you cant nerf that easily infestor is a spellcaster, not a core unit you need to mass. You can't mass ht/ghost because they're spellcasters. not core units just like you're talking about
It's both, it fill a core role that the other unit fail to do, such as basic AA, denying harass and dealing with bio
Also, one of the biggest reason of the infestor succes is because it fit a defensive playstyle and Zerg turned out to be all about defense, every zerg dont go Broodlord/infestor because "its just that good", it's because they have pretty much no reliable midgame aggression, hence why the constant heavy turtle, nerfing infestor wont change anything to that
|
On December 01 2012 12:34 Monochromatic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2012 12:28 SamirDuran wrote:On December 01 2012 12:14 Protosnake wrote:On December 01 2012 11:51 oxxo wrote:
For example Snipe. It was nowhere near as bad as this. It was a soft counter to T3 zerg helping vs tech switches. Games like Mvp vs July were cited as snipe being 'OP'... yet Mvp is and was clearly the superior player at pretty much all points of their SC2 careers, Mvp was already ahead, and July STILL could have killed EVERY GHOST but chose to attack command centers with his ultras (and letting them get sniped to death) instead of just killing 10+ ghosts.
Snipe was nerfed because Blizzard didn't like the idea of it being somewhat effective vs T3 (in their own words). Why they're ok with Infestors being good against pretty much every unit in every situation in the game is beyond me.
Excuse me but no, Snipe wasnt "somewhat effective vs t3", Snipe was a hard counter to the entire Zerg T3, and Ghost+Tank had simply no counter, it was one of the most retarded thing in the history of the game, probably only second to 1 supply roaches Also, as explained above, it's obvious Infestor is nowhere near like Ghost. Infestor is like the Zerg marine, it's a core unit, it's essential and played in every single matchup, you cant nerf that easily infestor is a spellcaster, not a core unit you need to mass. You can't mass ht/ghost because they're spellcasters. not core units just like you're talking about The GSL matching going on right now, Hyun vs Innovation, has shown some excellent series of zerg being effective without infestors. Proof that you do not need to build infestors to win, it just makes it much easier.
what are you watching?
|
On December 01 2012 04:21 Swords wrote:
Blizzard has a unit that:
1. cloaks
2. does AOE Damage
3. Stuns/freezes all units, massive, air, etc
4. Reveals cloak
5. Spawns free units that do tremendous dps and only cost energy
6. Defends well
7. Harasses well
8. Costs 2 supply (you can make a ton of them)
9. Can take control of any enemy unit.
and they decide the best fix is to mess around with how much hp the free units have.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
|
On December 01 2012 12:14 Protosnake wrote:
Excuse me but no, Snipe wasnt "somewhat effective vs t3", Snipe was a hard counter to the entire Zerg T3, and Ghost+Tank had simply no counter, it was one of the most retarded thing in the history of the game, probably only second to 1 supply roaches
This kind of peremptory statement always makes me laugh considering a huge part of the small Snipe data comes from Mvp crushing inferior Zergs, most of the time after vastly outplaying by midgame.
On December 01 2012 12:19 Xapti wrote:
- Ultralisks are rather slow, and do terrible damage vs light/non-armored, yet are very vulnerable to nearly all armored units since they are ranged units which deal bonus damage to [armored] ultralisks. [spread] siege tanks counter ultralisks in SC2 which is just ridiculous.
What? Sieged Tanks are rather horrible against Ultralisks, Marauders (for biomech) or Thors (for mech) are the real damage dealers against them. Ultralisks are fine against Terran. (And 2.95/3.84 movespeed isn't slow at all, don't know what you're talking about.)
On December 01 2012 12:39 Protosnake wrote:
Also, one of the biggest reason of the infestor succes is because it fit a defensive playstyle and Zerg turned out to be all about defense, every zerg dont go Broodlord/infestor because "its just that good", it's because they have pretty much no reliable midgame aggression
This is so painfully wrong. Mutalisks, Zerglings raids, Roaches attacks/drops, etc., are perfectly viable as an agressive midgame play.
|
The real question is, will eggs become the new bunkers?
|
This kind of peremptory statement always makes me laugh considering a huge part of the small Snipe data comes from Mvp crushing inferior Zergs, most of the time after vastly outplaying by midgame.
You know this lasted more than a night and was live on ladder right ? Plenty of people played and watched matchs where Terran just massed Ghost and couldnt lose, the funniest part was that even before Terran discovering that, matchup was already favoring them at 60%, so yes, like you said, it was hilarious.
This is so painfully wrong. Mutalisks, Zerglings raids, Roaches attacks/drops, etc., are perfectly viable as an agressive midgame play.
They are not viable, they are situational, you see the occasional game where Zerg punish a greedy opponent by doing that, what usually oppen is the 200 supply Zerg army impale itself on a line of Tank/forcefield and die in a horribly cost effective way,
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
