|
Zerg cost to reach infestation pit + glands : 600/350 (not including extractor or overlord)
Terran cost to reach ghost academy + reactor : 550/250(not including refinery or supply depot)
Protoss cost to reach templar : 600/300 (not including assimilator or pylon)
Protoss cost for high templar tech is similar without an energy upgrade, should look into balancing that cost imo~
Good progressive patch though!
|
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
|
On December 06 2012 02:41 Energizer wrote:
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
what makes you think they dont? The fact they previously said it was pretty balanced? How about the fact they now say these changes are good. You assume the former is true and the latter isnt, and for what reason? *cough cough*
|
On December 06 2012 02:35 theinfamousone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:20 Mariosatr wrote:On December 05 2012 08:18 BigBossX wrote:On December 05 2012 07:54 Mariosatr wrote:On December 05 2012 05:23 iS.Pyre wrote:
Progress but still not a solution. When blizzard nerfed ghosts from 45 damage to biological down to 25, THAT was a real nerf. This is a step in the right direction, but certainly not the answer to all our terran cries. You call it a real nerf, yet I'm sure a lot of people can agree that it just nerfed ghosts completely to the ground (in other words, it went too far). If Infestors were nerfed like that, it could be worse as Zerg is so reliant on Infestors at the minute that it could just make Zerg almost a bad option as a race. Make zerg a bad option as a race, you mean like terran is now? And I disagree, not all zergs are reliant on infestors, only the bad ones, only the patch zergs. Before infestors started raping, zergs were winning with muta ling bling, hell nestea was winning GSLs. Nerfing infestors to the ground will simply weed out the shitty zergs and let the elite shine and stand out. This is what I would LOVE to see. I admit Zerg is OP, but you guys are complaining about how Terran is bad; why make it worse by nerfing Zerg so much that it becomes the bad race option? Two wrongs don't make a right. I assume you're implying Protoss will be too strong now. While Protoss are doing ok (certainly better than terran) at high levels, they're certainly not winning every tournament. GSL, Protoss aren't looking overpowered by a long shot. And IPL5, L....O....L..... Scroll down to the bracket please. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/IGN_ProLeague_Season_5
To his defense, this tourney didn't have the best protoss out there(no Rain, Parting, Hero losing to the GSL champion and Creator losing to the BOMBER), whereas zerg had their best possible line-up. And when Zerg has infestors, protoss have Immortal sentry all-in.
Terrans are rightfully the only ones who should whine about imbalance.
|
On December 06 2012 02:27 CyDe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:20 Mariosatr wrote:On December 05 2012 08:18 BigBossX wrote:On December 05 2012 07:54 Mariosatr wrote:On December 05 2012 05:23 iS.Pyre wrote:
Progress but still not a solution. When blizzard nerfed ghosts from 45 damage to biological down to 25, THAT was a real nerf. This is a step in the right direction, but certainly not the answer to all our terran cries. You call it a real nerf, yet I'm sure a lot of people can agree that it just nerfed ghosts completely to the ground (in other words, it went too far). If Infestors were nerfed like that, it could be worse as Zerg is so reliant on Infestors at the minute that it could just make Zerg almost a bad option as a race. Make zerg a bad option as a race, you mean like terran is now? And I disagree, not all zergs are reliant on infestors, only the bad ones, only the patch zergs. Before infestors started raping, zergs were winning with muta ling bling, hell nestea was winning GSLs. Nerfing infestors to the ground will simply weed out the shitty zergs and let the elite shine and stand out. This is what I would LOVE to see. I admit Zerg is OP, but you guys are complaining about how Terran is bad; why make it worse by nerfing Zerg so much that it becomes the bad race option? Two wrongs don't make a right. I agree with you. It's a really common way that players look at balance in this community. Everyone wants everyone else to undergoe the same struggle they supposedly had to go through from previous patches. It's really frustrating, because it can invalidate anyone who claims that something has been overnerfed and that the inbalance has tipped the other way. I mean, even the pros pull this. It's quite bothersome.
Same. I main protoss, and I realize that's a recipe for an unsatisfying game with little real progress. I think Blizzard does too and that's why they're trying to change things so slowly and carefully, to avert breaking a race.
|
On December 06 2012 02:31 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:19 Ramone wrote:On December 06 2012 02:04 mongoose22 wrote:On December 06 2012 01:48 Ramone wrote:
Newb question regarding infested terran eggs: How does damage done to the eggs carry over to the hatched infested terran?
If damage doesn't carry over, storm isn't going to be THAT great against them.... If eggs have 70 HP and take 5 seconds to hatch, that means that you'd to storm within 1 second after the egg is thrown or you'd end up doing 40 damage to the egg and 20 damage to the infested terran.
Still pretty nice I suppose, at least storm has the CHANCE to kill eggs before they're hatched.
Cheers,
Ramone Damage to the egg carries over as a percentage to the Infested Terran. Example: You do 28 points of damage to an Infested Swarm Egg before it hatches, leaving it with 42 health. That's 42/70 = 60% health remaining. When the Infested Terran hatches, it has 60% health to start, or 50 * 0.60 = 30 health out of the gate (or egg, as it were). So if you do a ton of damage to an egg but not quite enough to kill it, that Infested Terran is still a dead Terran walking when it hatches. Thanks for that. So I guess storm does hard counter infested terran armies: Eggs take 5 seconds to hatch and storm lasts 4 seconds doing 80 damage. So if the egg is hit by: 4 seconds of storm, it dies 3 seconds of storm, the infested terran hatches with 7 HP and dies to the next tick of storm 2 seconds of storm, the infested terran hatches with 21 HP and dies to the remaining 2 seconds of storm 1 second of storm, the infested terran hatches with 35 HP and dies to the next two seconds of storm I think that math is right anyways. Thank god for this change...I actually felt the infested terran were more annoying than the fungals in a lot of ways. Is everyone sure this is how IT works, though?
I guess they changed the mechanic to go with the hp nerf. It's either something new or both my memory and the wiki were wrong. Just tested it myself to confirm.
|
On December 06 2012 02:52 Resistentialism wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 02:31 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On December 06 2012 02:19 Ramone wrote:On December 06 2012 02:04 mongoose22 wrote:On December 06 2012 01:48 Ramone wrote:
Newb question regarding infested terran eggs: How does damage done to the eggs carry over to the hatched infested terran?
If damage doesn't carry over, storm isn't going to be THAT great against them.... If eggs have 70 HP and take 5 seconds to hatch, that means that you'd to storm within 1 second after the egg is thrown or you'd end up doing 40 damage to the egg and 20 damage to the infested terran.
Still pretty nice I suppose, at least storm has the CHANCE to kill eggs before they're hatched.
Cheers,
Ramone Damage to the egg carries over as a percentage to the Infested Terran. Example: You do 28 points of damage to an Infested Swarm Egg before it hatches, leaving it with 42 health. That's 42/70 = 60% health remaining. When the Infested Terran hatches, it has 60% health to start, or 50 * 0.60 = 30 health out of the gate (or egg, as it were). So if you do a ton of damage to an egg but not quite enough to kill it, that Infested Terran is still a dead Terran walking when it hatches. Thanks for that. So I guess storm does hard counter infested terran armies: Eggs take 5 seconds to hatch and storm lasts 4 seconds doing 80 damage. So if the egg is hit by: 4 seconds of storm, it dies 3 seconds of storm, the infested terran hatches with 7 HP and dies to the next tick of storm 2 seconds of storm, the infested terran hatches with 21 HP and dies to the remaining 2 seconds of storm 1 second of storm, the infested terran hatches with 35 HP and dies to the next two seconds of storm I think that math is right anyways. Thank god for this change...I actually felt the infested terran were more annoying than the fungals in a lot of ways. Is everyone sure this is how IT works, though? I guess they changed the mechanic to go with the hp nerf. It's either something new or both my memory and the wiki were wrong. Just tested it myself to confirm.
It's not a new mechanic for infested terrans, but units from some other zerg cocoons do spawn at full health.
|
The infestor changes may seem small, but it is definitely noticeable, especially in ZvP. HT's are now viable as psi storm just obliterates IT's. The fungal range is just enough to make them even more exposed and picked off. This was only through my experience, but I wonder how much it will affect the pro scene.
As for the Raven seeker missile, after talking with one of my high masters terran friend, seems like that won't change anything at all. The removal of the upgrade only saves the player resources, because when they get ravens they have to wait anyways while they store up enough energy to be able to use the missiles. In the meantime they just get the upgrade. So I wonder what reasons they have for removing it. Waiting to see how that changes things.
|
On December 06 2012 03:10 Flannman wrote:
The infestor changes may seem small, but it is definitely noticeable, especially in ZvP. HT's are now viable as psi storm just obliterates IT's. The fungal range is just enough to make them even more exposed and picked off. This was only through my experience, but I wonder how much it will affect the pro scene.
As for the Raven seeker missile, after talking with one of my high masters terran friend, seems like that won't change anything at all. The removal of the upgrade only saves the player resources, because when they get ravens they have to wait anyways while they store up enough energy to be able to use the missiles. In the meantime they just get the upgrade. So I wonder what reasons they have for removing it. Waiting to see how that changes things.
I like the Raven change, just because it should provide a handful of extra Oooo moments over the next few months. Before, getting a Raven was iffy, but spending 150/150 just so one raven could get a missile... totally useless. That's 250/350 for what amounts to 2 shots from a Siege Tank. Now you can get a Raven for detection, and if you happen to save up enough energy, you get a sweet missile! It's nice.
|
|
|
On December 06 2012 03:29 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 01:08 rd wrote:On December 05 2012 21:36 Scrubwave wrote: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? Oh, I wouldn't nerf its range, I'd nerf its effects, like no more holding units in place. Ever thought about that one? No? Yeah, no wonder you're admitting to not being smart enough to figure it out. Show nested quote +
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
Yeah, what were they thinking, giving in to whiners. Now revert tank damage and reapers, since those changes also happened because they gave in to whiners.
Everyone and their grandmother has thought about changing fungals root effect. You're just being a jerk face.
|
|
|
On December 06 2012 03:40 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:29 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 01:08 rd wrote:On December 05 2012 21:36 Scrubwave wrote: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? Oh, I wouldn't nerf its range, I'd nerf its effects, like no more holding units in place. Ever thought about that one? No? Yeah, no wonder you're admitting to not being smart enough to figure it out.
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
Yeah, what were they thinking, giving in to whiners. Now revert tank damage and reapers, since those changes also happened because they gave in to whiners. Everyone and their grandmother has thought about changing fungals root effect. You're just being a jerk face. Apparently the guy I quoted hadn't thought of that.
No, you're just assuming that he hadn't though of it. The discussion was about range, not the effects. You said, (ill quote it for you buddy).
"what does -1 on fungal change?"
He said
"You tell me."
You two were discussing the range effects, not the root effects. You're the one that went off topic and started discussing ways to nerf it all around, when originally the discussion was PURELY about the range change to fungal.
You're still mean =)) and the irony of your statement regarding his intelligence is hilarious.
|
so...what has the patch actually changed? from what i have seen so far its the most minor patch change to date.
|
On December 06 2012 03:43 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 03:40 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:29 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 01:08 rd wrote:On December 05 2012 21:36 Scrubwave wrote: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? Oh, I wouldn't nerf its range, I'd nerf its effects, like no more holding units in place. Ever thought about that one? No? Yeah, no wonder you're admitting to not being smart enough to figure it out.
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
Yeah, what were they thinking, giving in to whiners. Now revert tank damage and reapers, since those changes also happened because they gave in to whiners. Everyone and their grandmother has thought about changing fungals root effect. You're just being a jerk face. Apparently the guy I quoted hadn't thought of that. No, you're just assuming that he hadn't though of it. The discussion was about range, not the effects. You said, (ill quote it for you buddy). "what does -1 on fungal change?" He said "You tell me." You two were discussing the range effects, not the root effects. You're the one that went off topic and started discussing ways to nerf it all around, when originally the discussion was PURELY about the range change to fungal. You're still mean =)) and the irony of your statement regarding his intelligence is hilarious.
Was about to write the same :-)
|
|
|
Sounds like just a bandaid to be honest.
|
On December 06 2012 03:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 03:43 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:40 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:29 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 01:08 rd wrote:On December 05 2012 21:36 Scrubwave wrote: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? Oh, I wouldn't nerf its range, I'd nerf its effects, like no more holding units in place. Ever thought about that one? No? Yeah, no wonder you're admitting to not being smart enough to figure it out.
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
Yeah, what were they thinking, giving in to whiners. Now revert tank damage and reapers, since those changes also happened because they gave in to whiners. Everyone and their grandmother has thought about changing fungals root effect. You're just being a jerk face. Apparently the guy I quoted hadn't thought of that. No, you're just assuming that he hadn't though of it. The discussion was about range, not the effects. You said, (ill quote it for you buddy). "what does -1 on fungal change?" He said "You tell me." You two were discussing the range effects, not the root effects. You're the one that went off topic and started discussing ways to nerf it all around, when originally the discussion was PURELY about the range change to fungal. You're still mean =)) and the irony of your statement regarding his intelligence is hilarious. Was about to write the same :-)
In his defense, the other guy asked him to name the range that fungal should be limited to, and he was stating that the range isn't the right way to go.
To answer the question: " At what range would you like fungal to be nerfed until it reaches the point of suiciding infestors i.e. neural?" I think the main thing Terran players in general will be upset about with the fungal range is it still out-ranges the raven's seeker missle. If the seeker missle is supposed to be viable against late-game zerg, the raven needs to actually be able to use it, something that infestors prevent because they are both faster and have longer range.
This doesn't mean we should lower the range of fungal to match the raven's (that would be pretty lame, tanks and colossi would eat infestors alive if that were the case.) Rather, we should increase the range of the seeker missle to be higher than that of the infestor (or match it, at the very least!) This change would at least make the Raven a reliable unit, which is something Terran desperately needs in the late game.
|
On December 06 2012 03:52 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 03:43 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:40 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:29 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 01:08 rd wrote:On December 05 2012 21:36 Scrubwave wrote: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? Oh, I wouldn't nerf its range, I'd nerf its effects, like no more holding units in place. Ever thought about that one? No? Yeah, no wonder you're admitting to not being smart enough to figure it out.
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
Yeah, what were they thinking, giving in to whiners. Now revert tank damage and reapers, since those changes also happened because they gave in to whiners. Everyone and their grandmother has thought about changing fungals root effect. You're just being a jerk face. Apparently the guy I quoted hadn't thought of that. No, you're just assuming that he hadn't though of it. The discussion was about range, not the effects. You said, (ill quote it for you buddy). "what does -1 on fungal change?" He said "You tell me." You two were discussing the range effects, not the root effects. You're still mean =)) Yes, I asked him a simple question how -1 range changes anything. The discussion was how this fungal nerf would affect the game, my main concern is tvz and my position is that it won't change a damn thing. The answer I got was "lol dunno you tell me". And another fun fact: I only admitted his concern " you apparently know something no one in this thread is smart enough to figure out." I've seen many zerg apologists say that this nerf is HUGE and will change the game in ways we can't even comprehend but so far no one elaborated how, so sad. Think maybe you and your buddy J can do something about it?
In ZvT I am not sure how much change will occur. The range reduction may allow for some ghost usage, but then they only have +1 range advantage. The ghost control would have to be superb. Maybe Blizzard's direction is more ghost usage to counter infestors? I am not sure.
|
On December 06 2012 03:52 Scrubwave wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 03:43 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:40 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 03:32 PanN wrote:On December 06 2012 03:29 Scrubwave wrote:On December 06 2012 01:08 rd wrote:On December 05 2012 21:36 Scrubwave wrote: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? Oh, I wouldn't nerf its range, I'd nerf its effects, like no more holding units in place. Ever thought about that one? No? Yeah, no wonder you're admitting to not being smart enough to figure it out.
le sigh.... so blizzard gives in to the whiners even though they themselves dont believe in the patch.
Yeah, what were they thinking, giving in to whiners. Now revert tank damage and reapers, since those changes also happened because they gave in to whiners. Everyone and their grandmother has thought about changing fungals root effect. You're just being a jerk face. Apparently the guy I quoted hadn't thought of that. No, you're just assuming that he hadn't though of it. The discussion was about range, not the effects. You said, (ill quote it for you buddy). "what does -1 on fungal change?" He said "You tell me." You two were discussing the range effects, not the root effects. You're still mean =)) Yes, I asked him a simple question how -1 range changes anything. The discussion was how this fungal nerf would affect the game, my main concern is tvz and my position is that it won't change a damn thing. The answer I got was "lol dunno you tell me". And another fun fact: I only admitted his concern " you apparently know something no one in this thread is smart enough to figure out." I've seen many zerg apologists say that this nerf is HUGE and will change the game in ways we can't even comprehend but so far no one elaborated how, so sad. Think maybe you and your buddy J can do something about it?
Why are you asking if me and somebody named J can do something about it exactly? I feel like your reading comprehension is a bit off. I was never discussing the infestor change, I was simply pointing out how you looked like a fool going off topic from range nerfs to general infestor nerfs whilst not only simultaneously implying that someones an idiot, but suggesting a change that everyone has already considered, making your suggestion double useless.
Talking about said change, I completely agree with you. Having it as a root is something I never wanted, and I've been playing Z since beta. I don't feel the range nerf is enough of a change, but I also don't care at this moment in time. It's obvious that its a bandaid type patch as said before, and it even implicitly states in the original post that they'll look at nerfing it more when march rolls around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
129
67
EPT
