|
I think these changes are a nice start.
Blizzard did not want to change the metageme befor hots, but after recent turnaments they had to do something. The fungal range reduction will bring the infestors more in danger of tank fire or collossi lasers. Even emp/snipe or feedback/storm might be more of an option. This should help and also not change the metagame. I'm pretty sure that blizzard will change fungal / infestet terran more with hots.
The change to the eggs are not as important i feel. Most players disengage when to many infestet terrans are droppt, instead of wasteing tons of storm energy. It might help protos if they have to defend their 4th.
The seeker missle change is interesting as well. I'm not sure how it will play out. I don't think it will promote a huge ammount of raven usage, but it might make the transition for late, late game in tvz easier.
|
I'd love to see a build time decrease on carriers too, it is impossbile to transition into Carriers at the moment and they also they way to long to remake when you get run over.
|
Interesting changes, I like how they approached this with a very small nerf.
Not so sure though if the range nerf is a good one, at first glance it doesn't seem to match well with their goal of reducing the infestor role in all matchups, for ZvZ for example it doesn't seem to matter at all.
And the balance arguments are so annoying to read. Filled with misinterpretation of statistics, matchup percentages are misunderstood by practically everyone above.
|
I am a terran player and i think this is to much of a nerf for zerg . They should have reduced fungal and not IT .
|
On December 05 2012 23:56 Decendos wrote:
yeah lets all take 1 tournament instead of a lot. TvZ ist 58% Z favored, PvZ is 51% P favored, TvP is 56% T favored. so stop crying or start crying about TvP too. i let you decide which one you want xD
So lets take bigger sample size than one you are using
http://i.imgur.com/h2Z27.png
Based on that TvZ more imbalanced than any matchup in sc2 history.
|
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 23:51 Solarist wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 05 2012 23:06 Decendos wrote:
[url=http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=385474¤tpage=7#129]http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=385474¤tpage=7#129[/url]
balance before patch:
- T 49%
- P 49%
- Z 52%
so this patch should take away the SIGNIFICANT IMBALANCE of 3%. its just horrible blizzard isnt able to balance the game.
/sarcasm off[/QUOTE]
lol I want to see the statistics of terrans actually winning the late game engagements. Those results take account to the 11/11 raxes that terrans seem to be constantly doing to prevent the zerg from reaching the late game. If we have in accout to the late game resutls in terran vs zerg then I think the numbers would not be anywhere cose to a fifty percent win rate for terran
|
On December 06 2012 00:05 Decendos wrote:oh so 58% is imba, 56% is fine after your argumentation. you are beyond stupid and even more biased. i am out of here. no need to waste my time with stupid or actually no arguments 
1) every terran has problem vs zerg. Code S terrans get owned by foreign zergs.
2) every player in the community is sick from all the infestor play, so they want it nerfed hard or gone --> blizzard nerfed them, and in a way they are still viable, so you should be really happy.
|
On December 05 2012 23:36 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 23:30 Godwrath wrote:On December 05 2012 23:24 Decendos wrote:On December 05 2012 23:21 Godwrath wrote:oh hai tvp has a lot to do with tvz !!! almost the same :D learn to read. these are overall winrates. in PvZ P is even favored and even grubby and nony tweeted that they are surprised to see that P is favored.TvZ is pretty heave Z favored while TvP is pretty heavy T favored. just tested it myself. some people might not understand or havent actually played with or against the new nerfed infestor. the changes are HUGE!!!!! like omfg. range 8 to range 6 stalker/marauder/immortals or even higher ranged tanks/colossus/ghosts/feedbacks?! fungal is nerfed very hard with this. it is SO MUCH easier to kill infestors now. the range from a stalker/immo/marauder to snipe an infestor went from range 3 to range 2. that is so close to attacking range, especially with blinking or stimming just 2-4 units ahead to snnipe infestors. there will be a lot more dead infestors, believe me. IT changes is huge also but i am fine with that one since throwing 240 ITs from 30 infestors shouldnt be viable, so its a nice change vs mass IT play. most people wont get how hard of a nerf these changes are until they see it on top level play with their own eyes. this will make the infestor a lot weaker (not too weak obv). now i like to see a +2 rangeupgrade or sth. like that for the hydra. gogo blizzard! Are you that slow ? I know those are overall winrates. That's why i am laughing my ass off when you are talking about overall winrates like an argument for the current zerg nerf when TvZ winrates are highly zerg favored, hence why i try to recall you about "PvT". You are just whining. you know that these changes also affect PvZ pretty hard where P was already favored? or do you live in your little terran bubble dreamworld? and i havent even said anything against the changes. i like them and we´ll have to see if its okay that way. i am just saying most people that thought Z is completely OP should be quiet since a 3% difference is nothing and this patch will even remove that little 3% difference.
Balance is not just about looking at percentage win-rates.. Win-rates based on units used is more important. If Z has high win-percentage with a lot of infestors then there might be a problem with them. We don't have access to these kinds of statistics, but I hope blizzard do.. Remember that players, like Parting, are trying to destroy z before they can get to broodfestors.. This means that those win-rates are swayed by a strategy that attempts to negate the strength of the broodfestor combo.
|
On December 05 2012 03:23 ch33psh33p wrote:
Storm is now a viable and extremely effective counter to Infested Terrans!
Yes and no-- it will I think generally help against Infestors spamming IT eggs over a large area, but even in the test map I was noticing some Zerg start to spread out ITs in smaller numbers to prevent them from being hit by a single storm-- in smaller numbers ITs are still straight up energy efficient vs. storms, but this change does help some of the more extreme IT-spam scenarios.
I would have liked to see something like 80 health and zero, or even 1 armor for IT eggs. 2 armor reduces zealot and collosi damage by a pretty incredible amount, since both attack twice. Even if all the IT eggs do is attract fire, 80 health for such a small energy expenditure is pretty decent for tanking-- compare with hallucination.
|
On December 06 2012 00:46 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 23:56 Decendos wrote:
yeah lets all take 1 tournament instead of a lot. TvZ ist 58% Z favored, PvZ is 51% P favored, TvP is 56% T favored. so stop crying or start crying about TvP too. i let you decide which one you want xD So lets take bigger sample size than one you are using http://i.imgur.com/h2Z27.pngBased on that TvZ more imbalanced than any matchup in sc2 history.
And thats even without taking the GSTL zerg domination into the equation.
|
On December 06 2012 00:57 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 03:23 ch33psh33p wrote:
Storm is now a viable and extremely effective counter to Infested Terrans! Yes and no-- it will I think generally help against Infestors spamming IT eggs over a large area, but even in the test map I was noticing some Zerg start to spread out ITs in smaller numbers to prevent them from being hit by a single storm-- in smaller numbers ITs are still straight up energy efficient vs. storms, but this change does help some of the more extreme IT-spam scenarios. I would have liked to see something like 80 health and zero, or even 1 armor for IT eggs. 2 armor reduces zealot and collosi damage by a pretty incredible amount, since both attack twice. Even if all the IT eggs do is attract fire, 80 health for such a small energy expenditure is pretty decent for tanking-- compare with hallucination.
Whenever I see IT being a problem in PvZ, there's always a HUUUUGE spam of it next to Protoss' base causing a lose lose scenario for the Protoss. Storm should fix that. Also, fungal range nerf means that HT are also -more- useful for feedbacks than before.
|
... And we are back on mutaling baneling !!
I have been sick of seeing broodlord infestor in EVERY single tournament game recently (Ipl5, DH, iSquid).
Seriously, nice nerf. But I would have changed FG itself, not the range. I guess I won't use the infestor anymore, just like Terrans have been neglecting ghosts. Waiting for next nerf / buff...
|
On December 05 2012 22:37 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 22:29 Scrubwave wrote:On December 05 2012 22:24 jumai wrote:
I find it weird how many people assume -1 range to fungal won't be impactful when the -2 range to neural parasite completely removed even researching it from the entire zvp gamespan between colossus count hitting 2 and mothership construction. I mean, I know using NP causes a greater window of exposure for the infestors, but that's a *huge* amount of the game that NP got kicked out of. Even an analogous, but much less extreme outcome has room to make significant impact.
Infestors are still good, but we should notice a difference once everyone adjusts. Because NP with range 9 had the same range as colossi, for example? That change made a difference. What difference does -1 range on fungal make? Sigh, exactly, I've been presenting the differences and it just falls on deaf ears. These people cannot even point out -how- it could make a difference theoretically. They just assume it will make a huge difference because it happened with other units, when the other units were functioning on very different principles.
I haven't done a lot of deep thinking on it (I'm sure I'll learn when people do it to me), but off the top of my head it seems like it'll make a bigger difference to fungal's use against whole armies than it will in duels between specialist units. If a few ghosts or high templar are moving in trying to snipe infestors, it's enough to stop the closest 2-3 at the edge of fungal's aoe and move away. However if, say, a toss's stalkers start pushing forward and looking for an aggressive blink, it's important to catch a lot more under the aoe and you lose the luxury of maximum range.
Fungal has radius 2; while that puts the far edge of the aoe 2 units past the spell's range it also puts the inner edge 2 units inside it. In other words, using a whole fungal now requires the closest targets are within range 6, down from 7. Since you seem to be asking for numbers that line up tidily, I could claim that stalkers(/marauders, +1 row of tanks, etc) now return fire on infestors chain fungaling larger clumps of them. However what's probably just as significant is that zergs will now often choose hitting less targets with a fungal over running in for maximum damage. Less of your army getting hit by fungal is basically what everyone was asking for, right?
|
is it live on eu now? i want to ladder again after a break of a couple of weeks
|
On December 05 2012 21:36 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 21:16 Andr3 wrote:
You guys remember how much changed when immortals "ONLY" got a +1 range upgrade?
I think this patch might help a lot, I'm glad Blizzard is making ~small~ adjustments. +1 on immortals made them stop dancing behind other units, +2 on queens made a difference because helions were no longer viable against queens what does -1 on fungal change?
You tell us, you apparently know something no one in this thread is smart enough to figure out. At what range would you like fungal to be nerfed until it reaches the point of suiciding infestors i.e. neural?
|
On December 06 2012 01:00 jumai wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2012 22:37 plogamer wrote:On December 05 2012 22:29 Scrubwave wrote:On December 05 2012 22:24 jumai wrote:
I find it weird how many people assume -1 range to fungal won't be impactful when the -2 range to neural parasite completely removed even researching it from the entire zvp gamespan between colossus count hitting 2 and mothership construction. I mean, I know using NP causes a greater window of exposure for the infestors, but that's a *huge* amount of the game that NP got kicked out of. Even an analogous, but much less extreme outcome has room to make significant impact.
Infestors are still good, but we should notice a difference once everyone adjusts. Because NP with range 9 had the same range as colossi, for example? That change made a difference. What difference does -1 range on fungal make? Sigh, exactly, I've been presenting the differences and it just falls on deaf ears. These people cannot even point out -how- it could make a difference theoretically. They just assume it will make a huge difference because it happened with other units, when the other units were functioning on very different principles. I haven't done a lot of deep thinking on it (I'm sure I'll learn when people do it to me), but off the top of my head it seems like it'll make a bigger difference to fungal's use against whole armies than it will in duels between specialist units. If a few ghosts or high templar are moving in trying to snipe infestors, it's enough to stop the closest 2-3 at the edge of fungal's aoe and move away. However if, say, a toss's stalkers start pushing forward and looking for an aggressive blink, it's important to catch a lot more under the aoe and you lose the luxury of maximum range. Fungal has radius 2; while that puts the far edge of the aoe 2 units past the spell's range it also puts the inner edge 2 units inside it. In other words, using a whole fungal now requires the closest targets are within range 6, down from 7. Since you seem to be asking for numbers that line up tidily, I could claim that stalkers(/marauders, +1 row of tanks, etc) now return fire on infestors chain fungaling larger clumps of them. However what's probably just as significant is that zergs will now often choose hitting less targets with a fungal over running in for maximum damage. Less of your army getting hit by fungal is basically what everyone was asking for, right?
Your argument kind of seems to complain that fungal's radius is too big. First world zerg problem. If you trade a couple of infestors against a huge portion of Terran army, you wouldn't be happy with it? Trust me, units are meant to die in SC2.
Infestors were not only broken in terms of fungal growth and infested terrans. They also had the best retention of all the spell casters in the game. How many times have you seen ghosts die after they emp/snipe? How many HTs evaporate after they land a couple of feedbacks?
And how many times do you see Zergs retain most of their infestors after a big engagement?
|
On December 06 2012 01:00 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 00:57 caradoc wrote:On December 05 2012 03:23 ch33psh33p wrote:
Storm is now a viable and extremely effective counter to Infested Terrans! Yes and no-- it will I think generally help against Infestors spamming IT eggs over a large area, but even in the test map I was noticing some Zerg start to spread out ITs in smaller numbers to prevent them from being hit by a single storm-- in smaller numbers ITs are still straight up energy efficient vs. storms, but this change does help some of the more extreme IT-spam scenarios. I would have liked to see something like 80 health and zero, or even 1 armor for IT eggs. 2 armor reduces zealot and collosi damage by a pretty incredible amount, since both attack twice. Even if all the IT eggs do is attract fire, 80 health for such a small energy expenditure is pretty decent for tanking-- compare with hallucination. Whenever I see IT being a problem in PvZ, there's always a HUUUUGE spam of it next to Protoss' base causing a lose lose scenario for the Protoss. Storm should fix that. Also, fungal range nerf means that HT are also -more- useful for feedbacks than before.
Well, imo and from what I've seen, the egg HP nerf only comes into play if the Zerg tries to spam them all over your army. It makes them easier to kill in those scenarios.
The thing is, let's say you are playing a PvZ and you have psi storm. In order for you to feel the effects of this egg HP nerf, you have to always have a templar in range of the eggs ready to storm immediately, or the Zerg has to have thrown them on top of your army in a clump.
In that scenario a storm or collosus can take out the eggs and it'll feel like a good difference.
But now here is the other scenario. The Zerg player throws out eggs near the engagement but closer to their own army so that the eggs hatch before the Protoss ever touches them. In this scenario, the unit interactions are 100% the same as pre-patch because hatched infested terrans have the same amount of HP as they did pre-patch.
So infested terrans were not actually nerfed per se. What was nerfed is when you throw them on top of or right next to the opponent's army. In every other situation they remain the exact same as pre-patch.
As for fungal, the -1 range seems to mean that you lose more infestors if you are not careful with them or don't send other units forward first. Now instead of losing 1-2 infestor from a bad engagement you'll be losing 3-4 because you have to remember infestors size is sorta big, so the infestor in front gets the fungal off but the infestors in the back have to get closer to get their fungals off, meaning you end up moving closer to siege tanks or collosus/stalkers.
They are good nerfs, but I think what is debatable is this: can zerg still just opt to mass infestor broodlord every single game? I think we'll still be seeing infestor broodlord virtually every game to be honest.
As for the raven change, i'm surprised at how people keep saying or believing this is a buff when it does not do anything for lategame TvZ. You can still make ravens and when they pop out they do nothing until almost 2 minutes later. It's bad.
|
On December 06 2012 01:07 SpikeStarcraft wrote:
is it live on eu now? i want to ladder again after a break of a couple of weeks
Yes its live. I just did a two base marine raven all-in vs protoss, and it felt very strong. Helped that the other guy made dt's though!
|
|
|
On December 06 2012 01:09 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 01:00 plogamer wrote:On December 06 2012 00:57 caradoc wrote:On December 05 2012 03:23 ch33psh33p wrote:
Storm is now a viable and extremely effective counter to Infested Terrans! Yes and no-- it will I think generally help against Infestors spamming IT eggs over a large area, but even in the test map I was noticing some Zerg start to spread out ITs in smaller numbers to prevent them from being hit by a single storm-- in smaller numbers ITs are still straight up energy efficient vs. storms, but this change does help some of the more extreme IT-spam scenarios. I would have liked to see something like 80 health and zero, or even 1 armor for IT eggs. 2 armor reduces zealot and collosi damage by a pretty incredible amount, since both attack twice. Even if all the IT eggs do is attract fire, 80 health for such a small energy expenditure is pretty decent for tanking-- compare with hallucination. Whenever I see IT being a problem in PvZ, there's always a HUUUUGE spam of it next to Protoss' base causing a lose lose scenario for the Protoss. Storm should fix that. Also, fungal range nerf means that HT are also -more- useful for feedbacks than before. Well, imo and from what I've seen, the egg HP nerf only comes into play if the Zerg tries to spam them all over your army. It makes them easier to kill in those scenarios. The thing is, let's say you are playing a PvZ and you have psi storm. In order for you to feel the effects of this egg HP nerf, you have to always have a templar in range of the eggs ready to storm immediately, or the Zerg has to have thrown them on top of your army in a clump. In that scenario a storm or collosus can take out the eggs and it'll feel like a good difference. But now here is the other scenario. The Zerg player throws out eggs near the engagement but closer to their own army so that the eggs hatch before the Protoss ever touches them. In this scenario, the unit interactions are 100% the same as pre-patch because hatched infested terrans have the same amount of HP as they did pre-patch. So infested terrans were not actually nerfed per se. What was nerfed is when you throw them on top of or right next to the opponent's army. In every other situation they remain the exact same as pre-patch. As for fungal, the -1 range seems to mean that you lose more infestors if you are not careful with them or don't send other units forward first. Now instead of losing 1-2 infestor from a bad engagement you'll be losing 3-4 because you have to remember infestors size is sorta big, so the infestor in front gets the fungal off but the infestors in the back have to get closer to get their fungals off, meaning you end up moving closer to siege tanks or collosus/stalkers. They are good nerfs, but I think what is debatable is this: can zerg still just opt to mass infestor broodlord every single game? I think we'll still be seeing infestor broodlord virtually every game to be honest. As for the raven change, i'm surprised at how people keep saying or believing this is a buff when it does not do anything for lategame TvZ. You can still make ravens and when they pop out they do nothing until almost 2 minutes later. It's bad.
It's not even up for debate, as Blizzard said they're breaking mass infestor in HotS. I don't think they're going to flip the metagame again in WoL trying to re-adjust zerg's options. These nerfs do nothing (nor were they intended) to remove the viability of the composition anyways, just makes it little more engageable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
