EPT
Blizzard Plans to Nerf Infestors (WoL) - Page 13
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Brindled
United States508 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On January 12 2013 04:23 Brindled wrote: No he won't. He never uses infestors outside of the extreme lategame, just watch his recent GSL games. Mutas almost every game.NOOOOOO, now Nestea will have less of a chance to win his 4th GSL before the end of WOL era!!! | ||
|
convention
United States622 Posts
On January 12 2013 04:23 Brindled wrote: NOOOOOO, now Nestea will have less of a chance to win his 4th GSL before the end of WOL era!!! I think it was in his last Code A game that he lost, the TL writers (in his UnD preview) questioned why he never built infestors. I love nestea for it though. | ||
|
honkeybeef
United States143 Posts
| ||
|
Brindled
United States508 Posts
On January 12 2013 04:37 Ben... wrote: No he won't. He never uses infestors outside of the extreme lategame, just watch his recent GSL games. Mutas almost every game. I guess the emoticon didn't convey the message that I was being facetious. :D | ||
|
DavoS
United States4605 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On January 12 2013 06:20 Brindled wrote: Jokes don't always go across correctly on the internet. I get what you are saying now. We are both on the same page.I guess the emoticon didn't convey the message that I was being facetious. :D | ||
|
Jotoco
Brazil1342 Posts
IE: You can't marine split, because they are glued together and can only move, slowly, in the same direction. | ||
|
Rowrin
United States280 Posts
Look at any other strategy game and try to find a 4 second root that isn't on a long cooldown/expensive to use. Then try and find a 4 second root that does significant damage. There just aren't many (if any) because they are extremely difficult to balance. In most competative games the average root is something like 1.5-2 seconds and even those are on cooldown/cant be chained. There are just so many problems with fungal and the infestor in general that make it difficult to balance. For example: -if you put a cooldown on fungal, if the cooldown is relatively short, zerg masses enough infestors anyway to still chain it; if the cooldown is long, then teching to infestors makes zerg extremely vulnerable since they would only have a handful of fungals initially. -you can make it a slow projectile, but then it would likely be as bad a seeker missle is in WoL. If it is too hard to land, people just wont use it. It would be very hit or miss. -you could increase the cost of fungal, but again that would ruin the ability for zerg to defend early on when they have only a few infestors. -you could limit the duration, but then the dps would be too high. Even if the dps is also lowered, the spell can still be chained and essentially you've just done the same as increasing the cost. If fungal is to remain easily chainable it just cannot be a root; if it is chainable, it does not root. IMO: -if fungal is going to be chainable, it must be a snare/slow. At the moment, if your army is caught by 1 good fungal, your army is caught by 2*(#infestors) good fungals and there is nothing you can do, cept maybe get a drink. -there is also the option for diminishing returns, where units that are fungaled or recently have been recently fungaled recieve a reduced effect (100%, 66%, 33%, immune etc). So say that the DR time is 6 seconds, fungal lasts 4. If zerg fungals the same unit within 2 seconds after the first fungal, that unit recieves a reduced fungal (say 2.6 seconds). If zerg again fungals within 3.4 seconds (6-2.4) then those units affected recieved an even more reduced affect (in this case 1.3 sec) until they are immune or zerg resets the DR time by not fungaling those units. In this case, 2 things happen: (1.) Units that are fungaled repeatedly have a longer time of immunity. For example, if a unit is fungaled 3 times, it recieves 4.7 seconds of immunity to fungal, whereas a unit that is fungaled once will recieve a reduced effect for only 2 seconds. (2.) because of reason (1.) It may be to zergs advantage to either fungal only once, or fungal multiple times if they think they can kill off the unit. If zerg fungals once, then in 2 seconds after they can fungal again for full effect, and if they fungal too many times and dont kill the unit then they have the issue of the unit being immune for 4.7 seconds. This adds more strategy to the decision of whether or not to chain the fungal since atm it is a no brainer. | ||
|
GodZo
Italy224 Posts
| ||
|
bankobauss
204 Posts
I feel neural parasite should no longer target massive, BUT it should cost 50 energy and have 10 range and no longer require an upgrade. Thus it could become very useful but then massive units would become a soft counter to infestors because they are resistant to fungal/NP compared to small units | ||
|
nailertn
48 Posts
| ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
| ||
|
Sabu113
United States11070 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:11 nailertn wrote: Blizzard is stalling for HotS. Even if they removed IT from the game terrans would still get butchered by fungal. Will be "fun" watching zerg armies melt in end game pvz. yes but without fungal zergs have no way to do guaranteed damage. Marine balls make banelings look fairly worthless unlike some sort of zerg siegetank... | ||
|
PRESIZirox
France20 Posts
TvZ : 51.61% for Terran. We can say balance. PvZ : 58.06% for Protoss. We can say unbalance. (source : http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012-2013_Proleague/Statistics#Map_Statistics) Why nerf ? Sorry, i don t understand. | ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On January 12 2013 06:54 GodZo wrote: I think Zealot should be buffed. They should just bring back zealot legs as an upgrade. On January 12 2013 07:29 PRESIZirox wrote: For example : in Proleague TvZ : 51.61% for Terran. We can say balance. PvZ : 58.06% for Protoss. We can say unbalance. (source : http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012-2013_Proleague/Statistics#Map_Statistics) Why nerf ? Sorry, i don t understand. This may have something to do with maps also, not just unit balance... | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:29 PRESIZirox wrote: For example : in Proleague TvZ : 51.61% for Terran. We can say balance. PvZ : 58.06% for Protoss. We can say unbalance. (source : http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012-2013_Proleague/Statistics#Map_Statistics) Why nerf ? Sorry, i don t understand. Proleague stats when there are a lot of maps which are not what most people actually play. Maps change everything. Hell many of the terran nerfs could had been fixed by maps at release instead. | ||
|
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
On January 12 2013 07:29 PRESIZirox wrote: For example : in Proleague TvZ : 51.61% for Terran. We can say balance. PvZ : 58.06% for Protoss. We can say unbalance. (source : http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2012-2013_Proleague/Statistics#Map_Statistics) Why nerf ? Sorry, i don t understand. Because the PL map pool is not used by most tournaments. The maps actually make a pretty big difference. Maps like abyssal, whirlwind , Belshir Vestige aren't helping in the GSL. | ||
|
Fjodorov
5007 Posts
| ||
|
KillingVector
United States96 Posts
On January 12 2013 01:26 wangstra wrote: I understand the reasons but I don't like the implementation behind it. I was under the impression that Blizzard was striving to continually refine the game and improve clarity yet that vision has been compromised over and over in WoL. Clear and purposeful design will dictate that if you apply an upgrade, units benefit from it. Now a new player can no longer expect that. He/she has to be aware and learn that infested terrans don't benefit from upgrades while something like broodlings can. What about locusts, are they an exception as well? This is inconsistent design that betrays a lack of focus and an attempt to correct errors in a hacked manner. The game shouldn't be about learning exceptions. I agree. IT's not receiving upgrades is kind of ad hoc and sort of a band-aid fix, but it hasn't stopped them before. Preventing warp-ins on ramps sort of falls into this category of fixes as well. It is a little sad to see them break away from their original concept of solid game design. | ||
| ||
