Going forward, we’re going to make a few changes in our approach to the 1v1 ladder map pool. First, we’ve decided to alter the start location rules for Antiga Shipyard and Entombed Valley to match those of popular tournaments. From now on, starting locations on Antiga Shipyard will be locked to cross-positions only, while Entombed Valley will allow players to spawn only in vertical and cross-positions. We’ve held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players. At this point, however, we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map. You will find these changes published during an upcoming server maintenance that will be happening next week. We’re also discussing our direction for the Heart of the Swarm map pool. Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
Balance
We felt the nerfs we made to the Infestor with our most recent balance update did not have as much of an impact as we had hoped. In the Heart of the Swarm beta, we’ve been testing Infested Terrans that do not benefit from weapon or armor upgrades, and feel that bringing this change to Wings will help discourage mass-Infestor play in the late game. We’ve just published a new version of the Antiga Shipyard balance test map to the custom games list under the name (4)AntigaShipyard (1.5.3 Balance v2.0). Please help us test the following change so that we can make another small update to Wings of Liberty balance:
Zerg
Infested Terrans no longer gain weapon and armor upgrades.
We’re looking for feedback on this change that is based on playtesting. After you’ve had a chance to thoroughly test it, please join us in this discussion thread.
Looks like they're going through with the Infestor nerfs much earlier than I expected at least.
Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
Yes! This was probably one of my biggest concerns that went seemingly unaddressed going into HotS!
Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
Yes! This was probably one of my biggest concerns that went seemingly unaddressed going into HotS!
On the other hand... Do you really want to play Arkanoid or Bifrost on ladder? ^^ (I wouldnt actually mind, I think, I would enjoy it... but i can see the whining that would happen, mostly becaues of Arkanoid :D)
Doesn't it seem like there's basically no reason to get range upgrades now for zerg, apart from maybe holding some all-ins with +1? Though even that is questionable.
"We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
On January 12 2013 10:17 Zrana wrote: Doesn't it seem like there's basically no reason to get range upgrades now for zerg, apart from maybe holding some all-ins with +1? Though even that is questionable.
yup cause roaches and hydras dont benefit at all from ranged upgrades. Ofc if you don't use ranged units, there is no reason to get ranged upgrades. Just like is you are terran goin bio, there is no reason to get mech upgrades.....
Cross-only and vertical/cross-only on Antiga and Entombed would have been great several months ago. We're at the point where they shouldn't be in the pool at all.
At least they're finally yielding to the tournaments as the driving force of the maps as we transition into HotS.
Tournaments have done a pretty bad job with maps, too. They need to be talking directly to the map makers as well. If they just use the same sort of maps GSL has added to their pool in 2012, it won't help much.
On January 12 2013 10:31 Gfire wrote: Tournaments have done a pretty bad job with maps, too. They need to be talking directly to the map makers as well. If they just use the same sort of maps GSL has added to their pool in 2012, it won't help much.
Agreed. If Blizzard is going to officially look to the tournaments to drive the map pool then its now a responsibility of the tournaments to add variety and seek new maps as often as reasonably possible to keep from us having a stagnation of the map pool again like we've been having.
Maybe that some time has passed from when SC2 WoL came out, they will start doing stuff that TL wants sooner? I think they were just worried that it would be offputting to a lot of new players that had never heard of SC2 before. Now that they have a bigger pool of people that are more familiar with the game, they might (MIIIGHT) be quicker on somethings?
Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
But not the people who actually make new maps. -_-
YES, I have been looking forward to this for so. fucking. long. TY blizzard for finally realizing that spawns on those maps affect the gameplay...only took over a year. It's K though, they've finally done it.
The maps thing (HotS, not start positions WoL) is the one change I've been most hoping for. It was not really talked about all that much compared to a lot of other wishlist changes, but I honestly think it's the most important thing Blizzard can do to improve the title long-term. It's been kind of quiet because most most players would be arguing against their self-interest if they campaigned too hard for a new system / more maps (someone who is good now can remain so for a long time when their best maps never seem to leave the scene). More frequent and expirimental map changes will cause more of a stir to that kind of status quo system and instead reward the players who can adapt the quickest.
As of now the only frequent complaints with regards to lack of new maps are usually leveled at tournaments. But I can't really blame them, as they are stuck with a lose/lose situation. Outside of the very insular Kespa (and to a lesser extent, GSL/ESF) systems, there would be very little support among players for new maps in every other tourney as they will have a very hard time practicing for them since they won't be on the ladder. So players would either avoid or rebel against tournaments that use brand new maps frequently, or at best the level of play will just not be what people want (because of lack of practice). On the other hand, if they stick with tried & true maps, players may be happy, but fans will end up watching the same games they've seen over and over again throughout the year.
So in the end, it all comes down to Blizzard to provide a better system with their ladder map pool, so that tournaments have at least more options and a more frequent changing of maps to keep things different between tournaments. Unfortunately, up until now Blizzard handled that duty extremely poorly, to the point where people are still complaining about lack of proper starting positions in year+ old maps. That, and their stubborn reliance on their own internal map making team instead of using more community maps, has in turn caused the tourney map scene to stagnate as well. I'm REALLY looking forward to seeing if that wasn't just a throwaway promise and that they are truly making some serious changes when it comes to this issue.
Map pool changes. Love it. WP Blizzard. IT nerf can be ok. They still will be strong mid-late game but will get a lot weaker i veryvery lategame and spamming IT will not bo as viable as it was.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
I did the Picard face-palm when I read this. Give players the benefit of the doubt. Plenty of people in lower leagues watch MLG/GSL/IPL/NASL/Dreamhack/SPL/Homestory/TSL/Iron Squid. They know how games generally go. Mechanics/game decisions are a different story. Glad to finally see this change :D
This is so long over due that I'm hardly even happy its happening. There should be more repercussions for this whole "you have completely neglected your customers for the last 2 years in even the smallest changes, but its OK, because rather late than never". Also, how ironic these changes would take effect only weeks before Blizzard would like to increase interest in the market for the sales of their new release.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Yeah this line makes absolutely no sense at all, and I think they know it. They are just trying to save some face for the decision. Anyone who might have been confused by strange start position rules before will still be confused afterwards. And in the vast majority of cases, newer/worse players won't even notice, they will just play as if all spawns are the available and will live happily ever after not knowing.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Yeah this line makes absolutely no sense at all, and I think they know it. They are just trying to save some face for the decision. Anyone who might have been confused by strange start position rules before will still be confused afterwards. And in the vast majority of cases, newer/worse players won't even notice, they will just play as if all spawns are the available and will live happily ever after not knowing.
Yup. It is not like beginners are tailoring making their builds based on spawn locations. For people that have enough knowledge to vary their builds/strategies due to starting locations, they know about the rules.
Having just watched the PvZs in the TSL vs coL match, I think ITs are weak enough as it is now. It would make them completely useless. Zergs have to cast them before games now and they can just be kited. So perhaps they should move faster on creep or something if they're going to lose their weapon and armor upgrades.
They keep nerfing the infester piece by piece, but they don't seem to want to give anything back to replace it.
Happy if they change maps more often. It's insulting to the lower level players if they think they can't figure out spawn positions. People aren't actually licking their keyboard buttons when they play you know Blizzard, stop treating us like retards. Lower level players would actually prefer larger maps, because then they can't be rushed as quickly and can have long base building matches or whatever. Blizzard actually have it backwards regarding low level map design.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Yeah this line makes absolutely no sense at all, and I think they know it. They are just trying to save some face for the decision. Anyone who might have been confused by strange start position rules before will still be confused afterwards. And in the vast majority of cases, newer/worse players won't even notice, they will just play as if all spawns are the available and will live happily ever after not knowing.
The best part was they already had Shakuras in the mappool which had spawn exceptions LOL.
Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
Yes! This was probably one of my biggest concerns that went seemingly unaddressed going into HotS!
YES. That is the best news I have read from blizzard since patch 7 of hots. So happy for a better map pool
On January 12 2013 11:10 Garnet wrote: They should have a warning or smt during the loading screen about cross-spawn only. Not everyone read TL or Bnet.
On January 12 2013 11:33 Highways wrote: Why don't they just remove to root on fungal..
I agree, that is the bigger problem. Have it do more damage over time and remove the snare or keep the damage as it is and have it slow the targets instead (by 20% or something but not too much otherwise you're back to the same problem).
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Blizzard team thinking everyone are nubs.
Also similar to the Diablo III phenomenon known as "why we even have an 'Elective Mode'" or "we can't give players choice because what if they tried using three armors or four mantras at once!!!!111 (despite tooltip clearly stating you can't!)" >.>.
Couldn't they just put in simple icons on the minimap at the start of the game indicating where you opponent can spawn? They could be removed after youve cleared the fog in the area.
If they do this infested terran change, Blizzard, I implore you - lower the base damage/armor of IT and let the upgrades max out to the current non-upgraded one. I can't advocate having only one unit in the game not be affected by upgrades > . >
god damnit, dont they realize TvZ matchup was near perfect before the great idea of adding 2 range to queens and AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME buffing +25% speed to overlord?
What happened with Blizzard today? Why are they releasing all of these mini-announcements?
I'm nervous and somewhat scared by this... It seems very "un-Blizzard-like"... And doesn't something bad seem to always follow these slight happy times?
pretty late regarding the map changes, but still appreciated nonetheless. good to see them interacting more and listening to the community in recent weeks
On January 12 2013 12:29 ( bush wrote: god damnit, dont they realize TvZ matchup was near perfect before the great idea of adding 2 range to queens and AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME buffing +25% speed to overlord?
the "buff" for the Z were meant to address issues with PvZ according to them and they did not realize it completely DESTROYED the TvZ match up which I believe, at the time of the patch was about at 50% so perfectly balanced..
I agree that there needs to be infestor nerfs because people started abusing it and massing it, but you are correct.. a good idea is to bring back the original queen range and remove overlord speed.
also, I'd like to point out.. does anyone remember the good old times when creep spread was actually something that only top notch zerg could do ? and there was artosis going crazy about the beautiful creep spread. now, the average random master Z in my division has creep spread at my natural at the 13 min mark.. takes no skill to spread creep cause Z are all going 4/5/6 queens. Another minor nerf idea should be to reduce the radius of the creep spreading and as well that creeps to recedes faster when overlord/creep tumor are being killed..
Blizzard's "must keep casuals happy" policy is really obnoxious at times. They prefer having the ladder unplayable over adding the slightest complexity to the game. And well, easiest thing in the world to add: "close spawning positions disabled" as a tip during the loading of the map. Or they could add two new maps and two new vetos if you get to diamond league or higher, so that they can add more tournament maps for the people that care.
I hope that with their new focus on adding in tournament maps in HotS, they also are open to keeping more of their special "innovations" in the ladder versions, such as 6m1g bases, neutral creep blockers, and other interesting features. For example, maps like Tal'Darim and Daybreak were changed when they became ladder maps, arguably for the worse by changing 6m1g expansions into 8m2g expos and adding rocks to thirds.
On January 12 2013 12:43 NKexquisite wrote: What happened with Blizzard today? Why are they releasing all of these mini-announcements?
I'm nervous and somewhat scared by this... It seems very "un-Blizzard-like"... And doesn't something bad seem to always follow these slight happy times?
Hmmmmm
Picture it like a congressman that wants to be elected. As soon as elections start to come closer, they start fixing things making speeches, doing things here and there. HOTS is about to be released in a few months, Blizzard wants to look like a good company so people will buy their products.
I hate that people always say TvZ was perfect before queen patch. Just because the win ratio is 50/50 doesn't mean the matchup is perfect. Terran had a huge early game advantage and if Zerg made it to late game they had advantage. The matchup at its current pace although 50/50 on percent would have been a total T wins early Z wins late.
The problem is that they buffed Zerg early game but then didn't do anything for T late game and that's really the issue. All they had to do was make snipe + damage to massive and we'd probably be back in a pretty good TvZ place.
I'd rather see a -1 damage on Infested terrans, so that they still benefit from upgrades later, as well as giving auto-turrets attack upgrades (+1/2/3).
The news about maps is very good, though I hope that mapmakers get away from giving a ton of hidey spots for overlords on every map.
On January 12 2013 14:01 Ansinjunger wrote: I'd rather see a -1 damage on Infested terrans, so that they still benefit from upgrades later, as well as giving auto-turrets attack upgrades (+1/2/3).
The news about maps is very good, though I hope that mapmakers get away from giving a ton of hidey spots for overlords on every map.
This seems nice. I think Ranged pretty much becomes pointless now. It's almost always gonna be better (except in ZvZ i guess) to just get melee upgrades
Refresh map pool more frequently in HOTS? So more than once a year?
In all seriousness, I am glad they are redoing the map pool in HOTS, some of the current maps are pretty terrible. Hopefully they change up the WOL pool to send it off but I doubt that will happen.
On January 12 2013 12:29 ( bush wrote: god damnit, dont they realize TvZ matchup was near perfect before the great idea of adding 2 range to queens and AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME buffing +25% speed to overlord?
the "buff" for the Z were meant to address issues with PvZ according to them
Where did you read that? I'm pretty sure the queen and overlord buff were mainly to deal with early terran pressure/all-ins in TvZ which they felt were too strong.
I think it's pretty stupid that they would fuck up ZvP even more when it should be obvious to everyone that the issue in TvZ is the queen, just lower the range to 4
As a zerg player I actually really like this infestor change. This change actually makes sense and I think it's a clever solution to the infested terran situation.
I know these are small steps, but still if Blizzard shows that they can listen to the community more and react to the feedback we're giving them, then these are steps that are going in the right direction.
Next update let's hope they fix custom games (Arcade e.e..)
They keep nerfing the infester piece by piece, but they don't seem to want to give anything back to replace it
They could of changed fungal to a slow that prevents things like blink...and it would of solved a lot of problems outright. That or given some love to lesser used units like the hydra (things as simple as the speed upgrade which is in hots) and then they could of done what they wished with the infestor a lot earlier.
That aside my only 'concern' would be they go overboard and make fungal or IT's as useless as NP became when they nerfd it into the ground when Ling/Infestor ZvP was popular.
Map bit was a good thing to hear though after the terrible season 1 map choices/showings
On January 12 2013 14:50 Protosnake wrote: I think it's pretty stupid that they would fuck up ZvP even more when it should be obvious to everyone that the issue in TvZ is the queen, just lower the range to 4
'Fuck up ZvP even more'? What do you mean? This patch is trying to address the fact the infested terran span from 20+ infestors is way too strong in ZvP as well as ZvT when terran is meching.
I'd love to see blizzard offer incentives for the community to create maps so we can enjoy a wider variety, like some sort of monthly map making tournament and the winner gets his map featured on the ladder for a while, because I think we can all agree that while daybreak, antiga shipyard, entombed valley and cloud kingdom are excellent maps and have produced lots of epic games, it's time to spice things up a bit more.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
(In the past) We've held off on these changes until now... At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding...
We’re also discussing our direction for the Heart of the Swarm map pool. Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
Ah...how refreshing...none of these things have ever before been promised.
I guess nerfing infested terran will help protoss in the late game but I don't think this does anything substantial for terran. The biggest problem with infestor, balance and design wise, is fungal. It roots, it deals damage, it can be chain used making it too unforgiving for the opponent, it hits air&ground etc. And all that from a unit that costs only 2 supply.
But nerfing fungal would require buffs in other areas, probably hydras etc. and it is too much work for Blizzard so they will never do it.
I dont understand how, in 2 years of wol, they never put effort to at least remove root ability and play around buffing hydra movement speed, or range etc.
I just hope they eventually change fungal in Hots since zerg gets new units and with proper nerfs to fungal and buffs to zerg in other places, it could make game more balanced and interesting than wol ever was.
Interesting, but is it too late, considering that there is only 2 more months before HOTS? It will certainly make Protoss especially stronger in lategame PvZ
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll take the serious' one : maps like shakuras and metalopolis comes to mind when they had 3 starting position instead of 4 (Shakuras is horizontal spawns only, Metalo it was either in your side or cross position, both never had the closest spawning positions (except on the very first seasons)).
We’re also discussing our direction for the Heart of the Swarm map pool. Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
Ah...how refreshing...none of these things have ever before been promised.
Well it's true though they have never said they would put in more tournament maps or anything. Now I could be wrong but you make it sound like they have promised this before when they haven't. I could just be mis-understanding and you might be serious, just seems sarcastic to me.
I am confident that blizzard is going to be changing the map pool more and working with tournament organizers. Really happy about this
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll take the serious' one : maps like shakuras and metalopolis comes to mind when they had 3 starting position instead of 4 (Shakuras is horizontal spawns only, Metalo it was either in your side or cross position, both never had the closest spawning positions (except on the very first seasons)).
I think he was talking about the fact that they held it back because they thought it was too complicated for newer players... Why didn't they just put a description of where your opponent can spawn on the loading screen?!
On January 12 2013 10:17 Zrana wrote: Doesn't it seem like there's basically no reason to get range upgrades now for zerg, apart from maybe holding some all-ins with +1? Though even that is questionable.
If you only played infestor armies... sure. But that's the whole problem and what they are trying to fix in the first place.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll take the serious' one : maps like shakuras and metalopolis comes to mind when they had 3 starting position instead of 4 (Shakuras is horizontal spawns only, Metalo it was either in your side or cross position, both never had the closest spawning positions (except on the very first seasons)).
You Can CLEARLY MARK The starting positions On the loading screen
Or even write something like "Cross position only"
It's one of the many jokes SCII players have to take, along with "we're nerfing infestors eggs to make things fair" and so on. How do upgrades on infested terrans help me when Z has overlord spots on the whole map, can scout anything, can react to anything, and if I don't immediately take map control, there's creep spread in my base and I can never take a third?
On January 12 2013 10:17 Zrana wrote: Doesn't it seem like there's basically no reason to get range upgrades now for zerg, apart from maybe holding some all-ins with +1? Though even that is questionable.
If you only played infestor armies... sure. But that's the whole problem and what they are trying to fix in the first place.
Well the problem is going roach/hydra is asking to be faceraped by any kind of splash damage or any T or P army over 150 supply.
If roach/hydra was more supply efficient it would be worth getting ranged ups because you'd know you could do ok in the lategame. The patch does nothing to address the issue that the broodlord, infestor and zerglings are the only supply-efficient units zerg has so we are still pigeonholed into the same lategame comp which everyone has been complaining about for the past year. Ofc it's np if you can keep both you and your opponent's supply low with trading but that relies on timing attacks which can be figured out and defended, it can never be solid macro play.
I'll take nerfed infested Terran for more accurate blind guessing with my Overlord scout. As long as we're adjusting the infestor though, just take out neural parasite now too! No reason that only the HotS beta should have this luxury
On January 12 2013 10:17 Zrana wrote: Doesn't it seem like there's basically no reason to get range upgrades now for zerg, apart from maybe holding some all-ins with +1? Though even that is questionable.
If you only played infestor armies... sure. But that's the whole problem and what they are trying to fix in the first place.
Well the problem is going roach/hydra is asking to be faceraped by any kind of splash damage or any T or P army over 150 supply.
If roach/hydra was more supply efficient it would be worth getting ranged ups because you'd know you could do ok in the lategame. The patch does nothing to address the issue that the broodlord, infestor and zerglings are the only supply-efficient units zerg has so we are still pigeonholed into the same lategame comp which everyone has been complaining about for the past year. Ofc it's np if you can keep both you and your opponent's supply low with trading but that relies on timing attacks which can be figured out and defended, it can never be solid macro play.
With the current metagame though it gives another option vs Terran who are expecting you to have infestors and nothing to back them up before brood lords. Early roaches allow you to be a bit more aggressive, and vs bio you can have fewer infestors because after you fungal bio units hydras outrange them, It's pretty valid. Plus it makes defending with queens early on better, and it'll probably inadvertently encourage creep spread instead of heavy turtling. Basically it just opens different options, which makes matches less predictable
On January 12 2013 10:17 Zrana wrote: Doesn't it seem like there's basically no reason to get range upgrades now for zerg, apart from maybe holding some all-ins with +1? Though even that is questionable.
If you only played infestor armies... sure. But that's the whole problem and what they are trying to fix in the first place.
Well the problem is going roach/hydra is asking to be faceraped by any kind of splash damage or any T or P army over 150 supply.
If roach/hydra was more supply efficient it would be worth getting ranged ups because you'd know you could do ok in the lategame. The patch does nothing to address the issue that the broodlord, infestor and zerglings are the only supply-efficient units zerg has so we are still pigeonholed into the same lategame comp which everyone has been complaining about for the past year. Ofc it's np if you can keep both you and your opponent's supply low with trading but that relies on timing attacks which can be figured out and defended, it can never be solid macro play.
I disagree. For one, roach/hydra isnt that bad vs Z and even vs certain T compositions. And you can base a playstyle upon timing qttacks. Even more, noone forces you to go ranged and not play a timing. It's like a terran who masses pure MMM and never moves out.
Sure it sucks that ranged upgrades are really bad for hydras (8%) and roaches do have a basic supplyinefficiency problem, but thats how it is for WoL. that doesnt mean upgrading 3-3 is a bad choice for when you do go ranged.
They do shit they should have done 1 and a half years ago, wooooo. Also the infestor change is a pretty big joke, but ah well atleast they try. Last time they said they wanted to make the map pool more based upon popular tournament maps we got daybreak/cloud/ohana and that was it...
Way to go blizzard!! Of course this could all have been seen and done earlier, but at least it's all good changes that will improve for all of us :D
Now I'm just hoping to see a change to fungal to make it more of a skill based spell (projectile or some change to root or chain fungal) and we're gonna be all good.
- For every possible starting location for your opponent there is an icon in-game on the minimap. - If you scout one of these icons, the icon disappears. - This can be enabled and disabled in settings.
I think this is more elegant than tooltips while starting.
So many people pissed off... when it's just another balance map test which won't change anything because by the time they "have had considered" all the feedback HotS will be released.
New maps are always fun to play in. I guess the cross spawn locations make it easier to scout, but I actually found I get cheesed alot less when there more than one possible spawn loaction.
On January 13 2013 01:30 Grumbels wrote: What does everyone think of this idea?
- For every possible starting location for your opponent there is an icon in-game on the minimap. - If you scout one of these icons, the icon disappears. - This can be enabled and disabled in settings.
I think this is more elegant than tooltips while starting.
Never liked the icons for creeps in WC3... I think the map should only show "real" objects. Just mark your own spawning spot in the loading screen. And put markers at each location your opponent could start in.
On January 12 2013 14:50 Protosnake wrote: I think it's pretty stupid that they would fuck up ZvP even more when it should be obvious to everyone that the issue in TvZ is the queen, just lower the range to 4
'Fuck up ZvP even more'? What do you mean? This patch is trying to address the fact the infested terran span from 20+ infestors is way too strong in ZvP as well as ZvT when terran is meching.
Because ZvP is already P favored It's T that need help, and since Z rarely ever search +1 range in ZvT this patch doesnt help them at all
"We’ve held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players. At this point, however, we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map"
Worst excuse ever, but I can't really complain. I have wanted cross spawn for..years now.
On January 12 2013 14:50 Protosnake wrote: I think it's pretty stupid that they would fuck up ZvP even more when it should be obvious to everyone that the issue in TvZ is the queen, just lower the range to 4
'Fuck up ZvP even more'? What do you mean? This patch is trying to address the fact the infested terran span from 20+ infestors is way too strong in ZvP as well as ZvT when terran is meching.
Because ZvP is already P favored It's T that need help, and since Z rarely ever search +1 range in ZvT this patch doesnt help them at all
How is it P favoured? Outside of immortal all in which is specifically designed to punish greedy zergs (which can be devastating for both players), Protoss is usually at a disadvantage, especially late game against broodlord/infestor comps. With fungals, brood-lords reign free and upgraded ITs adds to the problem. Also, the coin-flippy nature of vortex makes or breaks the engagement which usually means decent trade or utter annihilation of the P army. Just because certain players have perfected a certain build that is high risk high reward accompanied by near impeccable micro, doesn't mean a particular match up is fine, since such a strategy is for all intents and purposes, prevents PvZ late game from occurring.
On January 12 2013 14:50 Protosnake wrote: I think it's pretty stupid that they would fuck up ZvP even more when it should be obvious to everyone that the issue in TvZ is the queen, just lower the range to 4
'Fuck up ZvP even more'? What do you mean? This patch is trying to address the fact the infested terran span from 20+ infestors is way too strong in ZvP as well as ZvT when terran is meching.
Because ZvP is already P favored It's T that need help, and since Z rarely ever search +1 range in ZvT this patch doesnt help them at all
How is it P favoured? Outside of immortal all in which is specifically designed to punish greedy zergs (which can be devastating for both players), Protoss is usually at a disadvantage, especially late game against broodlord/infestor comps. With fungals, brood-lords reign free and upgraded ITs adds to the problem. Also, the coin-flippy nature of vortex makes or breaks the engagement which usually means decent trade or utter annihilation of the P army. Just because certain players have perfected a certain build that is high risk high reward accompanied by near impeccable micro, doesn't mean a particular match up is fine, since such a strategy is for all intents and purposes, prevents PvZ late game from occurring.
But we're not outside Immortal all-in. This is a legit part of the game and statistics favor protoss in that matchup. I'd really love if immortal sentry all-in was removed and lategame PvZ made less stupid but this is just not happening right now.
On January 12 2013 14:50 Protosnake wrote: I think it's pretty stupid that they would fuck up ZvP even more when it should be obvious to everyone that the issue in TvZ is the queen, just lower the range to 4
'Fuck up ZvP even more'? What do you mean? This patch is trying to address the fact the infested terran span from 20+ infestors is way too strong in ZvP as well as ZvT when terran is meching.
Because ZvP is already P favored It's T that need help, and since Z rarely ever search +1 range in ZvT this patch doesnt help them at all
How is it P favoured? Outside of immortal all in which is specifically designed to punish greedy zergs (which can be devastating for both players), Protoss is usually at a disadvantage, especially late game against broodlord/infestor comps. With fungals, brood-lords reign free and upgraded ITs adds to the problem. Also, the coin-flippy nature of vortex makes or breaks the engagement which usually means decent trade or utter annihilation of the P army. Just because certain players have perfected a certain build that is high risk high reward accompanied by near impeccable micro, doesn't mean a particular match up is fine, since such a strategy is for all intents and purposes, prevents PvZ late game from occurring.
But we're not outside Immortal all-in. This is a legit part of the game and statistics favor protoss in that matchup. I'd really love if immortal sentry all-in was removed and lategame PvZ made less stupid but this is just not happening right now.
Immortal/Sentry all-ins appear to have been figured out at the pro level. As far as I can tell, it had a losing winrate at the last GSL. The only player who consistently wins doing it is Parting, and even he got knocked out the GSL doing it. Nobody else in Korea has some super high PvZ winrate because of Immortal all-ins.
We’ve held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players. At this point, however, we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map.
What the hell, this makes no sense, they decided not to do anything until now because of this reason?
There are tons of hidden or secret rules you have to discover in order to become better at this game but the map locations sure as hell isn't one of them.
I seriously want to post a big damn facepalm picture here but I'm gonna refrain from doing so to save work for the TL.Mods since its not their fault for Blizzard fucking up.
EDIT: i'll just post a descriptive facepalm picture, mods can feel free to give me a descriptive warning/ban if they wish **Facepalm picture**
I sure hope that is just some excuse, because it always sounds like Blizzard is catering to 5 year olds or think the majority of their customer base is really really stupid.
On January 12 2013 10:17 Zrana wrote: Doesn't it seem like there's basically no reason to get range upgrades now for zerg, apart from maybe holding some all-ins with +1? Though even that is questionable.
If you only played infestor armies... sure. But that's the whole problem and what they are trying to fix in the first place.
Well the problem is going roach/hydra is asking to be faceraped by any kind of splash damage or any T or P army over 150 supply.
If roach/hydra was more supply efficient it would be worth getting ranged ups because you'd know you could do ok in the lategame. The patch does nothing to address the issue that the broodlord, infestor and zerglings are the only supply-efficient units zerg has so we are still pigeonholed into the same lategame comp which everyone has been complaining about for the past year. Ofc it's np if you can keep both you and your opponent's supply low with trading but that relies on timing attacks which can be figured out and defended, it can never be solid macro play.
Yeah DRG never figured out how to make Muta/Bane/Ling/Infestor cost efficient... oh wait. Seemed to work out just fine for DRG.
There is clearly a double standard with how Blizz deals with Zerg in comparison to other races. Look how carefully they are trying to fix infestors and how long they are taking, whereas Blizzard just nerfed the fuck out of ghosts and never came back to them.
Blizzards arguments for why it is confusing for lower level players simply does not make sense, Shakuras Plateau always had "weird" spawn positions, that was not really confusing for anyone was it? Also they do not seem to realise that the problem with IT is vs Mech, where ranged upgrades does not really matter. Once again they seem incompetent.
On January 13 2013 03:19 Esk23 wrote: There is clearly a double standard with how Blizz deals with Zerg in comparison to other races. Look how carefully they are trying to fix infestors and how long they are taking, whereas Blizzard just nerfed the fuck out of ghosts and never came back to them.
Ghost: 4patches (3nerfs+1buff/change) since release Infestor: 4patches (3nerfs+1buff/change) and one more incoming
And if you say snipe was nerfed way harder, I'll say that NP which dominated all matchups was nerfed at least equally hard
Cap infestor count at 12 or something, I dont see the "16 High Templar build after loosing my whole fucking base" coming back any time soon so no biggie we should be fine with a spellcaster cap. The problem isnt about infestors, its about mass infestors, fungal is needed, just like forcefields, no nubcakes, fungal isnt the reason you're loosing, you played poorly sorry. Mass infestor is kind of a problem (and not as big as the QQ Train says), it was kind of obvious that an overall good spellcaster that can escape easily and pop temporary armies cant work on a balance level if there 30 of them. But still, they are needed, because the balance was built around it, make the fungal a slow? Alright, remove forcefields then, and make tanks 6 range, because zerg has NO, 0 control without fungal, making it projectile wouldnt work too well, maybe a slight nerf of the damage, but mostly, really, from what I'm seing in the pro scene and on ladder, really? Wake the fuck up and start changing the way you play, brood infestor ZvP got so many timings, and weaknesses, speed prism are impossible to catch on some maps, and if it's not Stephano or Leenock defending there is a lot of damage to be done to so many camping zergs. I'm just really amazed that most of this community didnt look for solutions and instead went to a WHIIIINE WAAAAVE, I mean, I didnt see that since speed reapers on Lost Temple close positions, and even then you'd find people to tell you "no zerg is fine, work harder, no imbalance, you'll see there wont be a patch", well, it was obviously imbalanced then, and it's absolutely not obviously imbalanced now, but the fact is, Blizzard is listening to the whine in both cases, so for all of you gold to high masters protoss and terran, congratulations, good for you, You Now Have A Great Excuse When You Lose!
i recall those glory days of SC2 when xelnaga caverns was the only 2 player map and everyone thinks it's imbalanced
nowadays every single 4 player map gets whined at by seemingly the entire community because they're imbalanced unless you make them de facto 2 player maps. how times change.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
On January 13 2013 01:35 Terranist wrote: what's so hard for the balance team to recognize? fungal is the real problem and it makes the game boring to play and even more boring to watch.
As a Zerg I completely agree with this. I actually stopped playing WoL and switched to HotS because I was so sick of fungeling everything to death but I've stopped playing it too after they buffed the fungal speed like this. Chain fungals are so dumb I hate it and probably going to quit SC2 if they don't do major changes to the Infestor in HotS...
On January 13 2013 03:45 mahO wrote: Cap infestor count at 12 or something, I dont see the "16 High Templar build after loosing my whole fucking base" coming back any time soon so no biggie we should be fine with a spellcaster cap. The problem isnt about infestors, its about mass infestors, fungal is needed, just like forcefields, no nubcakes, fungal isnt the reason you're loosing, you played poorly sorry. Mass infestor is kind of a problem (and not as big as the QQ Train says), it was kind of obvious that an overall good spellcaster that can escape easily and pop temporary armies cant work on a balance level if there 30 of them. But still, they are needed, because the balance was built around it, make the fungal a slow? Alright, remove forcefields then, and make tanks 6 range, because zerg has NO, 0 control without fungal, making it projectile wouldnt work too well, maybe a slight nerf of the damage, but mostly, really, from what I'm seing in the pro scene and on ladder, really? Wake the fuck up and start changing the way you play, brood infestor ZvP got so many timings, and weaknesses, speed prism are impossible to catch on some maps, and if it's not Stephano or Leenock defending there is a lot of damage to be done to so many camping zergs. I'm just really amazed that most of this community didnt look for solutions and instead went to a WHIIIINE WAAAAVE, I mean, I didnt see that since speed reapers on Lost Temple close positions, and even then you'd find people to tell you "no zerg is fine, work harder, no imbalance, you'll see there wont be a patch", well, it was obviously imbalanced then, and it's absolutely not obviously imbalanced now, but the fact is, Blizzard is listening to the whine in both cases, so for all of you gold to high masters protoss and terran, congratulations, good for you, You Now Have A Great Excuse When You Lose!
i do agree with you that the amount of whiners about nowdays is really terrible and a real eye-sore to read, but changing the game so you can only make 'x' amount of infestors/spellcasters? That's got to be the most retarded idea I've ever read, it's bad enough that they have the stupid 'hero unit' mothership. Make it so you can only build 12 of a certain unit? Terrible terrible idea.
Sweet changes. An ever-changing map pool that takes popular tournament maps into consideration seems like a lot of fun. I'd love to play some nutty KeSPA maps on ladder.
As for the infestor changes, I hope it does something to make the ZvX matchup more interesting. Right now I am only playing HotS, so it doesn't really matter for me that much, but maybe these last few tournaments in WoL will be more exciting to watch!
Though we will go into further detail at a later date, we are currently planning to make heavier use of popular tournament maps, refresh the map pool more frequently than we did in Wings of Liberty, and work closely with tournament organizations around the world in order to collaborate on map development.
Yes! This was probably one of my biggest concerns that went seemingly unaddressed going into HotS!
On the other hand... Do you really want to play Arkanoid or Bifrost on ladder? ^^ (I wouldnt actually mind, I think, I would enjoy it... but i can see the whining that would happen, mostly becaues of Arkanoid :D)
You can veto maps. So HELL YES ! We need some experimental maps on the ladder. Maybe not as extreme as arkanoid, though. And not too much, so you could veto them if needed.
Hell it's about time ! Seriously, I found myself so many times sighing because of this ... (esp. on Antiga, I mean, we have this map in the ladder for so long, and still not cross positions...).
As for the Infestor nerf, I'm glad they bring the test to WoL, though I can't see how nerfing IT will adress the real problem (in my humble opinion) that is fungal, not especially balance wise (I wouldn't pretend to judge that with my platin level), but rather in terms of fun... I still can't find fungal'ing funny when I play Z, and I'm rather bored of being fungal as T....
It's funny. They describe "lower league" or "new players" as if they were mentally challenged or a child. Seriously? No cross spawn until now because "lower league" players might be confused?
Excellent step. But the maps still suck compared to what we could be playing on! I hope they do work closely with tournaments to introduce new maps regularly.
On January 13 2013 04:11 SNSDBWooger wrote: One year later, they finally nerf zerg. Nice.
One year..?
That's how it felt for some people.
By the way, why is still there people jumping into the bandwaggon of "fuck yeah". This is going to be a balance test map. You know, like all the freaking other balance test maps since september. Buying time till HotS is out.
I'm so ready for these spawn positions oh my god. It seems like on Entombed Valley especially it's 100% close for me. I'd really like some neutral depots too, though, so I don't have to "practice" against 3 pylon walls.
Not a fan of how they are catering so highly to the low level players... If you claim your building a game for esports your first priority should be the pros.. But hey, $ is $.
i like the part where they said they made hidden spawn locations on purpose to make lower level players confused, and they wonder why they scare off new people :/
*sigh* wish they weren't changing IT but fungal instead. IT actually adds a lot to the game relative to fungal, in terms of harassment options, ability to draw initial fire, ability to use them as walls, promoting detection vs Zerg, and the decision making required to engage or let the timer draw out.
Imo fungal should be nerfed instead. And something I really wish they'd change would be Broodlord damage (not broodlings). Broodlings are what make the Broodlord so fucking strong, there's no reason their initial shot should deal 40 damage on top of that with each subsequent attack dealing 20 :S. Make the attack itself just do 10 dmg, they'd still be used and they'd still be strong.
Seems like Blizzard is doing a lot of responding to problems to try and show that they are listening to fans - map fixes/cross spawns, name change... And right before the release of HOTS, what a coincidence
Now, while we are talking maps, how about those neutral depots?
On January 13 2013 05:44 jakethesnake wrote: Seems like Blizzard is doing a lot of responding to problems to try and show that they are listening to fans - map fixes/cross spawns, name change... And right before the release of HOTS, what a coincidence
Now, while we are talking maps, how about those neutral depots?
They've added unbuildable locations in HOTS at the very least.
On January 13 2013 05:16 brieN wrote: i like the part where they said they made hidden spawn locations on purpose to make lower level players confused, and they wonder why they scare off new people :/
Honestly for Entombed Valley I would have preferred if they removed the destructible rocks in the center 2 mining bases and allow for any spawn positions. Then change the distance between the 3rd bases. I like it better when a map is well-made and can stand alone without editing the 'standards' of the game-- including spawn positions.
On January 13 2013 05:27 FabledIntegral wrote: *sigh* wish they weren't changing IT but fungal instead. IT actually adds a lot to the game relative to fungal, in terms of harassment options, ability to draw initial fire, ability to use them as walls, promoting detection vs Zerg, and the decision making required to engage or let the timer draw out.
Imo fungal should be nerfed instead. And something I really wish they'd change would be Broodlord damage (not broodlings). Broodlings are what make the Broodlord so fucking strong, there's no reason their initial shot should deal 40 damage on top of that with each subsequent attack dealing 20 :S. Make the attack itself just do 10 dmg, they'd still be used and they'd still be strong.
The trouble is (and nobody should be able to deny this), they're too good currently. What's the point in having attacking units if you have a free army which matches most armies head to head?
Good change, but imo the fungals need to be nerfed so when applied to Flying Units instead of immobilizing them make them slower with the same damage effect.
On January 13 2013 05:27 FabledIntegral wrote: *sigh* wish they weren't changing IT but fungal instead. IT actually adds a lot to the game relative to fungal, in terms of harassment options, ability to draw initial fire, ability to use them as walls, promoting detection vs Zerg, and the decision making required to engage or let the timer draw out.
Imo fungal should be nerfed instead. And something I really wish they'd change would be Broodlord damage (not broodlings). Broodlings are what make the Broodlord so fucking strong, there's no reason their initial shot should deal 40 damage on top of that with each subsequent attack dealing 20 :S. Make the attack itself just do 10 dmg, they'd still be used and they'd still be strong.
The trouble is (and nobody should be able to deny this), they're too good currently. What's the point in having attacking units if you have a free army which matches most armies head to head?
Because you can have units that are "too good" in a sense. It'd just be one of the better spells in the game. Doesn't mean it's imba, and I don't think it is if you nerf BL and fungal. Without a strong fungal, infestors would not be used. Fungal is the reason that infestor/BL is so strong, not IT.
I just read the paid name change thread and now back to rereading this.
Blizzard is a company with very talented employees and they make great games and there's no doubt that they are loved all around the world - but my fuck - as a company they're plain ignorant, deaf, and greedy.
On January 13 2013 04:55 evanthebouncy! wrote: lol too late. iono how many people stick around for that long. TL maybe more ppl but in general?
Pretty much my thoughts as well. I stopped playing last year and stopped watching SC2 for the most part at the start of this year. Bnet 2.0 lost me as a player and the repetitive infestor/broodlord vs mothership/timing push lost me as a viewer.
My friends who aren't as TL hardcore as me were lost well before that.
Too late Blizzard. This junk needed to be fixed last year, not this year.
On January 13 2013 05:27 FabledIntegral wrote: *sigh* wish they weren't changing IT but fungal instead. IT actually adds a lot to the game relative to fungal, in terms of harassment options, ability to draw initial fire, ability to use them as walls, promoting detection vs Zerg, and the decision making required to engage or let the timer draw out.
Imo fungal should be nerfed instead. And something I really wish they'd change would be Broodlord damage (not broodlings). Broodlings are what make the Broodlord so fucking strong, there's no reason their initial shot should deal 40 damage on top of that with each subsequent attack dealing 20 :S. Make the attack itself just do 10 dmg, they'd still be used and they'd still be strong.
The trouble is (and nobody should be able to deny this), they're too good currently. What's the point in having attacking units if you have a free army which matches most armies head to head?
Because you can have units that are "too good" in a sense. It'd just be one of the better spells in the game. Doesn't mean it's imba, and I don't think it is if you nerf BL and fungal. Without a strong fungal, infestors would not be used. Fungal is the reason that infestor/BL is so strong, not IT.
The reason why they are massed are IT's, not fungal, you can fungal with 6-8 infestors just fine. Not like i disagree with what you are trying to imply, but i honestly thing the unit needs a complete overhaul.
Fungal needs to be changed to a slow down not stop movement. Then broodlord infestor still retains most of its late game power but gives the opponent a better chance to actually move and save their units. And im a zerg player. I dont use mass infestors to begin with though.
Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
On January 13 2013 05:27 FabledIntegral wrote: *sigh* wish they weren't changing IT but fungal instead. IT actually adds a lot to the game relative to fungal, in terms of harassment options, ability to draw initial fire, ability to use them as walls, promoting detection vs Zerg, and the decision making required to engage or let the timer draw out.
Imo fungal should be nerfed instead. And something I really wish they'd change would be Broodlord damage (not broodlings). Broodlings are what make the Broodlord so fucking strong, there's no reason their initial shot should deal 40 damage on top of that with each subsequent attack dealing 20 :S. Make the attack itself just do 10 dmg, they'd still be used and they'd still be strong.
The trouble is (and nobody should be able to deny this), they're too good currently. What's the point in having attacking units if you have a free army which matches most armies head to head?
Because you can have units that are "too good" in a sense. It'd just be one of the better spells in the game. Doesn't mean it's imba, and I don't think it is if you nerf BL and fungal. Without a strong fungal, infestors would not be used. Fungal is the reason that infestor/BL is so strong, not IT.
The reason why they are massed are IT's, not fungal, you can fungal with 6-8 infestors just fine. Not like i disagree with what you are trying to imply, but i honestly thing the unit needs a complete overhaul.
If fungal didn't root you could run away from the IT. IT is only strong because fungal pins.
Buff snipe v massive Fungal slows just like time warp but damages Hydra buffed - start with range upgrade + speed off creep Ultra buff Brood damage nerf Cattle bruiser speed increase Carrier buff Raven HSM replaced with something good Collosi replaced with something interesting
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
Like I said, infestor/BL are the strongest end game comp for sure. But we have seen roach/hydra ZvT from Stephano, ling bling ultra from Symbol, mass mutas from Shine (PL). In your example, the Zerg was behind and needed infestor/BL. But zergs only get behind if they take a poor engagements. If you see the top zergs play now, they are almost never behind and pretty much dictate everything their opponent does.
It just doesn't make sense for the race that can adapt their comp the fastest to have the best early game scouting, map control, map vision.
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
Like I said, infestor/BL are the strongest end game comp for sure. But we have seen roach/hydra ZvT from Stephano, ling bling ultra from Symbol, mass mutas from Shine (PL). In your example, the Zerg was behind and needed infestor/BL. But zergs only get behind if they take a poor engagements. If you see the top zergs play now, they are almost never behind and pretty much dictate everything their opponent does.
It just doesn't make sense for the race that can adapt their comp the fastest to have the best early game scouting, map control, map vision.
You can't switch between roach/hydra and something else though. It's not easy to switch out of mass muta either. I mean, the production is easy, but the viability isn't there. I don't see anything wrong with what you mentioned. We saw Stephano win with Roach/Hydra... so what? Are you saying that he shouldn't have won that game? Are you saying that Zergs shouldn't win with ling/bling/ultra?
I understand what you're saying midgame - but the other races can still hold their own. The issue is that the other races cannot hold their own vs Infestor/BL.
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
That's complete bullshit. Give me equal amount of bases and an even economy/infrastructure progression, and I don't give a fork about how many infestors/broodlords you make. Shittiest viking/bio composition is decent in a good position, mech is straightup solid, and the more air you have the better you'll do.
Problem is, 95%, zerg's ease of scouting, ease of reacting, and ease of defense. Add to this the "creep-minigame" that also gives zerg inevitability for no real reason OR cost, outside of people having to admit "yeah, when we said some things, we were wrong as shit".
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
Like I said, infestor/BL are the strongest end game comp for sure. But we have seen roach/hydra ZvT from Stephano, ling bling ultra from Symbol, mass mutas from Shine (PL). In your example, the Zerg was behind and needed infestor/BL. But zergs only get behind if they take a poor engagements. If you see the top zergs play now, they are almost never behind and pretty much dictate everything their opponent does.
It just doesn't make sense for the race that can adapt their comp the fastest to have the best early game scouting, map control, map vision.
You can't switch between roach/hydra and something else though. It's not easy to switch out of mass muta either. I mean, the production is easy, but the viability isn't there. I don't see anything wrong with what you mentioned. We saw Stephano win with Roach/Hydra... so what? Are you saying that he shouldn't have won that game? Are you saying that Zergs shouldn't win with ling/bling/ultra?
I understand what you're saying midgame - but the other races can still hold their own. The issue is that the other races cannot hold their own vs Infestor/BL.
What I am trying to say is that if both sides don't make big mistakes, zergs almost always come out ahead in the mid game. And I used the Stephano/Symbol/muta example because zergs have been saying they NEED infestors in the late game when that might not be the case at all.
And no, I don't think Terrans hold their own against Zerg in the mid game (top Terran vs top Zerg). They SURVIVE in the mid game but can't even put on pressure. I have seen countless sieged positions get taken out with equal sized armies. Basically, if the Terran is caught unsieged, he is just screwed and will lose the game. If the Terran is sieged, the trades are about even. Isn't there something wrong with that?
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
That's complete bullshit. Give me equal amount of bases and an even economy/infrastructure progression, and I don't give a fork about how many infestors/broodlords you make. Shittiest viking/bio composition is decent in a good position, mech is straightup solid, and the more air you have the better you'll do.
Problem is, 95%, zerg's ease of scouting, ease of reacting, and ease of defense. Add to this the "creep-minigame" that also gives zerg inevitability for no real reason OR cost, outside of people having to admit "yeah, when we said some things, we were wrong as shit".
Then you're one of the only. Most top tier Terrans will fall on equal bases to BL/Infestor.
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
Like I said, infestor/BL are the strongest end game comp for sure. But we have seen roach/hydra ZvT from Stephano, ling bling ultra from Symbol, mass mutas from Shine (PL). In your example, the Zerg was behind and needed infestor/BL. But zergs only get behind if they take a poor engagements. If you see the top zergs play now, they are almost never behind and pretty much dictate everything their opponent does.
It just doesn't make sense for the race that can adapt their comp the fastest to have the best early game scouting, map control, map vision.
You can't switch between roach/hydra and something else though. It's not easy to switch out of mass muta either. I mean, the production is easy, but the viability isn't there. I don't see anything wrong with what you mentioned. We saw Stephano win with Roach/Hydra... so what? Are you saying that he shouldn't have won that game? Are you saying that Zergs shouldn't win with ling/bling/ultra?
I understand what you're saying midgame - but the other races can still hold their own. The issue is that the other races cannot hold their own vs Infestor/BL.
What I am trying to say is that if both sides don't make big mistakes, zergs almost always come out ahead in the mid game. And I used the Stephano/Symbol/muta example because zergs have been saying they NEED infestors in the late game when that might not be the case at all.
And no, I don't think Terrans hold their own against Zerg in the mid game (top Terran vs top Zerg). They SURVIVE in the mid game but can't even put on pressure. I have seen countless sieged positions get taken out with equal sized armies. Basically, if the Terran is caught unsieged, he is just screwed and will lose the game. If the Terran is sieged, the trades are about even. Isn't there something wrong with that?
Oh ok, I've never believed that Zergs would be crippled w/o infestors, so maybe that's where the confusion is.
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
On January 13 2013 07:13 Mavvie wrote: No close positions entombed and antiga?
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
lol I think that vertical positions in ZvT is significantly better for Zerg than cross :S. Cross favors Terran imo. :S.
I wish they would only make fungal root on creep. That way zerg maintains defensive capacity, avoids zvz mutawar while especially terran doesnt have to babysit the army all the damn time or its gg.
It's good to think about ways to solve problems, but it's also good to sometimes try to figure out the reasons why they appeared. A lot of people mentionned the Queen range buff. I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
They are a lot of other Zerg myths as well, like the inability of putting pressure on Terran/Protoss, the lack of all-ins... Pretty much all of them have been made up and propagated by horrible Zerg foreigners of the past.
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: It's good to think about ways to solve problems, but it's also good to sometimes try to figure out the reasons why they appeared. A lot of people mentionned the Queen range buff. I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
Yup, I don't think the units are the core problem (unless you make Zerg late game super weak). The problem is that zergs can cut all the corners while punishing the Terran or Protoss cutting corners. They just have too much info (while denying info) in the early mid game.
They can always build the optimal amount of units/drones. That is why the sentry immortal is so good. Because there is no composition from Zerg that just crushes it with ease. It comes down to execution (and maps play a role).
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
That's complete bullshit. Give me equal amount of bases and an even economy/infrastructure progression, and I don't give a fork about how many infestors/broodlords you make. Shittiest viking/bio composition is decent in a good position, mech is straightup solid, and the more air you have the better you'll do.
Problem is, 95%, zerg's ease of scouting, ease of reacting, and ease of defense. Add to this the "creep-minigame" that also gives zerg inevitability for no real reason OR cost, outside of people having to admit "yeah, when we said some things, we were wrong as shit".
Then you're one of the only. Most top tier Terrans will fall on equal bases to BL/Infestor.
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
Like I said, infestor/BL are the strongest end game comp for sure. But we have seen roach/hydra ZvT from Stephano, ling bling ultra from Symbol, mass mutas from Shine (PL). In your example, the Zerg was behind and needed infestor/BL. But zergs only get behind if they take a poor engagements. If you see the top zergs play now, they are almost never behind and pretty much dictate everything their opponent does.
It just doesn't make sense for the race that can adapt their comp the fastest to have the best early game scouting, map control, map vision.
You can't switch between roach/hydra and something else though. It's not easy to switch out of mass muta either. I mean, the production is easy, but the viability isn't there. I don't see anything wrong with what you mentioned. We saw Stephano win with Roach/Hydra... so what? Are you saying that he shouldn't have won that game? Are you saying that Zergs shouldn't win with ling/bling/ultra?
I understand what you're saying midgame - but the other races can still hold their own. The issue is that the other races cannot hold their own vs Infestor/BL.
What I am trying to say is that if both sides don't make big mistakes, zergs almost always come out ahead in the mid game. And I used the Stephano/Symbol/muta example because zergs have been saying they NEED infestors in the late game when that might not be the case at all.
And no, I don't think Terrans hold their own against Zerg in the mid game (top Terran vs top Zerg). They SURVIVE in the mid game but can't even put on pressure. I have seen countless sieged positions get taken out with equal sized armies. Basically, if the Terran is caught unsieged, he is just screwed and will lose the game. If the Terran is sieged, the trades are about even. Isn't there something wrong with that?
Oh ok, I've never believed that Zergs would be crippled w/o infestors, so maybe that's where the confusion is.
My point was, if SCVs were to mine 3 times more gas and minerals and you would lose to mass battlecruisers on 2-bases, the problem wouldn't be that you can't deal with battlecruisers and they need to be nerfed.
On January 13 2013 07:13 Mavvie wrote: No close positions entombed and antiga?
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
lol I think that vertical positions in ZvT is significantly better for Zerg than cross :S. Cross favors Terran imo. :S.
True, I honestly don't mind Antiga that much. Just when you spawn counterclockwise you might as well leave the game, toss don't even need to secure a proxy pylon, and Terrans can siege your third from their main. But again, my winrate's decent on the map so I can't really complain. More about entombed, hate that map with close by ground spawns so much >_>
In fact, I lost to the worst sentry/immortal push ever because he was basically in a choke from when he left his base to when he killed mine.
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: It's good to think about ways to solve problems, but it's also good to sometimes try to figure out the reasons why they appeared. A lot of people mentionned the Queen range buff. I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
Yup, I don't think the units are the core problem (unless you make Zerg late game super weak). The problem is that zergs can cut all the corners while punishing the Terran or Protoss cutting corners. They just have too much info (while denying info) in the early mid game.
They can always build the optimal amount of units/drones. That is why the sentry immortal is so good. Because there is no composition from Zerg that just crushes it with ease. It comes down to execution (and maps play a role).
That also has to do with the maps. I still don't know why the fuck every many maps have free scout ledges for zerg. It just doesn't make sense.
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
That's complete bullshit. Give me equal amount of bases and an even economy/infrastructure progression, and I don't give a fork about how many infestors/broodlords you make. Shittiest viking/bio composition is decent in a good position, mech is straightup solid, and the more air you have the better you'll do.
Problem is, 95%, zerg's ease of scouting, ease of reacting, and ease of defense. Add to this the "creep-minigame" that also gives zerg inevitability for no real reason OR cost, outside of people having to admit "yeah, when we said some things, we were wrong as shit".
Then you're one of the only. Most top tier Terrans will fall on equal bases to BL/Infestor.
On January 13 2013 07:04 vthree wrote:
On January 13 2013 06:57 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 13 2013 06:43 vthree wrote:
On January 13 2013 06:37 FabledIntegral wrote:
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
No, infestor/BL is definitely the issue. It doesn't have to do with ease, it has to do with effectiveness. Because Zergs, if they can get to infestor/BL even if they were at a massive disadvantage early/mid game, can still win. I've seen engagements where maxed armies engage, and the Terran didn't kill a SINGLE UNIT that cost minerals from the Zerg. It was at a LAN I was at and it happened to Select, where he couldn't do shit. We've seen COUNTLESS times where a Zerg who's been behind can survive til that composition, then roll the other side.
There's no question that infestor/BL is the biggest issue tbh.
Like I said, infestor/BL are the strongest end game comp for sure. But we have seen roach/hydra ZvT from Stephano, ling bling ultra from Symbol, mass mutas from Shine (PL). In your example, the Zerg was behind and needed infestor/BL. But zergs only get behind if they take a poor engagements. If you see the top zergs play now, they are almost never behind and pretty much dictate everything their opponent does.
It just doesn't make sense for the race that can adapt their comp the fastest to have the best early game scouting, map control, map vision.
You can't switch between roach/hydra and something else though. It's not easy to switch out of mass muta either. I mean, the production is easy, but the viability isn't there. I don't see anything wrong with what you mentioned. We saw Stephano win with Roach/Hydra... so what? Are you saying that he shouldn't have won that game? Are you saying that Zergs shouldn't win with ling/bling/ultra?
I understand what you're saying midgame - but the other races can still hold their own. The issue is that the other races cannot hold their own vs Infestor/BL.
What I am trying to say is that if both sides don't make big mistakes, zergs almost always come out ahead in the mid game. And I used the Stephano/Symbol/muta example because zergs have been saying they NEED infestors in the late game when that might not be the case at all.
And no, I don't think Terrans hold their own against Zerg in the mid game (top Terran vs top Zerg). They SURVIVE in the mid game but can't even put on pressure. I have seen countless sieged positions get taken out with equal sized armies. Basically, if the Terran is caught unsieged, he is just screwed and will lose the game. If the Terran is sieged, the trades are about even. Isn't there something wrong with that?
Oh ok, I've never believed that Zergs would be crippled w/o infestors, so maybe that's where the confusion is.
My point was, if SCVs were to mine 3 times more gas and minerals and you would lose to mass battlecruisers on 2-bases, the problem wouldn't be that you can't deal with battlecruisers and they need to be nerfed.
Yup, I don't think the Terran has a problem if it is equal bases. And by equal, I mean that the bases are put up at the same time and saturated at the same time. Equal bases does not mean Terran does 3 base push which kills the 4th of zerg(which has been mining for some time) and Zerg kills terrans while still on 3 bases and retaking his fourth.
Even of both Zerg and Terran go for fast third, the Zerg can saturated their 3rd so much faster and then make enough army to take a fourth. Yes, Terran can build quick 3 CC, but if the Zerg plays aggressive, that 3rd CC can't land for a long long time.
The IT nerf changes nothing - the zergies took their time and learned that the queen buff extends to each and every composition they can build. Nerfing one of them (even if it is the most frustrating one to deal with) will not change the big picture.
And the big picture is not looking pretty. TheBB's stats may give you a hint about it. Ironsquid's ro8 reflects it pretty damn well too. + Show Spoiler +
6 zergs in ro8
.
I feel sorry for SC2. In 2012 there was so much progress in the way tournaments are run and casted. At the same time the game transformed into something barely watchable. Nerfing the infestor will not change that - WoL feels dead.
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: It's good to think about ways to solve problems, but it's also good to sometimes try to figure out the reasons why they appeared. A lot of people mentionned the Queen range buff. I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
Yup, I don't think the units are the core problem (unless you make Zerg late game super weak). The problem is that zergs can cut all the corners while punishing the Terran or Protoss cutting corners. They just have too much info (while denying info) in the early mid game.
They can always build the optimal amount of units/drones. That is why the sentry immortal is so good. Because there is no composition from Zerg that just crushes it with ease. It comes down to execution (and maps play a role).
That also has to do with the maps. I still don't know why the fuck every many maps have free scout ledges for zerg. It just doesn't make sense.
Yup, that is why I get annoyed when casters say that zergs are putting their OLs in really great position. Honestly, you can just look at replays of a few games on the map and you can put your OLs in the same location as the pros. They even mark the spot you need to be on the map.
On January 13 2013 07:45 scypio wrote: The IT nerf changes nothing - the zergies took their time and learned that the queen buff extends to each and every composition they can build. Nerfing one of them (even if it is the most frustrating one to deal with) will not change the big picture.
And the big picture is not looking pretty. TheBB's stats may give you a hint about it. Ironsquid's ro8 reflects it pretty damn well too. + Show Spoiler +
6 zergs in ro8
.
I feel sorry for SC2. In 2012 there was so much progress in the way tournaments are run and casted. At the same time the game transformed into something barely watchable. Nerfing the infestor will not change that - WoL feels dead.
I feel sorry for SC2. In 2012 there was so much progress in the way tournaments are run and casted. At the same time the game transformed into something barely watchable. Nerfing the infestor will not change that - WoL feels dead.
I agree, it feels like the game peaked and fell pretty hard. Pretty much nobody will deny that around blizzard cup finals (DRG vs MMA) was WOL's best times and with HOTS on the horizon it makes the game really dull right now
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: It's good to think about ways to solve problems, but it's also good to sometimes try to figure out the reasons why they appeared. A lot of people mentionned the Queen range buff. I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
They are a lot of other Zerg myths as well, like the inability of putting pressure on Terran/Protoss, the lack of all-ins... Pretty much all of them have been made up and propagated by horrible Zerg foreigners of the past.
I agree
Since the queen buff, zerg became the swarm for real.
But Zerg still have the infestor, the core unit which allow zerg to be cost effective during the fights. Cost effective + swarm macro = op.
I'm waiting for huge fungle nerf so that zerg can start to be balanced.
all seems fair enough, nothing too drastic but im pretty sure most would rather see fungal changed to a slow or shorten the lock-down effect because as is it kills all micro and lets infestors counter any unit you can think of
the nerf to infested terrans will help for sure though, maybe that will be enough to even out the winrates
If their strategy was to set expectations really really really low and then do pretty good changes, they're doing an awesome job because I really like these changes
The problem isn't with Zerg so much as people think. Protoss is badly designed in almost every way. The race is a litany of ideas that seemed cool but went horribly wrong: Void Rays, Collosus, Warp Gate, Forcefield, Mothership. Every time protoss moves out he's basically all-in because the power of collosus and warp gate has to mean that protoss has almost no defensive power versus a big attack and their units have the silly mechanic of getting more cost-effective in greater numbers (the opposite of Z and T bio/biomech).
ZvT just needs some tiny tweaks to be perfect. Onegoal has a great idea giving Snipe high enough damage to allow for infestor, bane, muta etc snipes but with a penalty to massive to prevent blindly massing ghosts to counter everything lategame. Maybe a slight change to queens as well and the matchup is pretty much fixed.
Trying my best not to make this come across as balance whine but I feel the tournament map pools are to blame for the metagame stagnating into this 20 min no rush lategame deathball crap. Thirds are ludicrously easy to obtain and hold, rush distances are often so large that they make one base play entirely un-viable and this has just further augmented reasons to justify greedier builds.
Whenever Blizzard has launched a new map, all I hear is whining and bitching. Oh "Searing Crater is godawful", "Antiga Shityard is godawful", etc claims. Even Condemned Ridge which is a surprisingly 'great' map to tournament map pool standards that gives you an easy to defend and close main natural and third base is almost unanimously avoided in the ladder map pool.
Blizzard should have kept with the quirkier, varied maps and continued to balance the game around play on these maps. Or they should have just not cockblocked Kespa in the first place seeing as their mapmakers are more than willing to shake up the map pool in ways that mapmakers like ESV, TPW, etc. aren't.
I want to see Blizzard shake up the metagame with the map pool. This game has become boring because of the influence of tournament maps and the variation in positions was an interesting concept yet it made players groan because of the imbalances it caused which Blizzard weren't quite fixing in their balance updates.
A lot of people bitch at Blizzard over Blizzcon 2011 when they had maps in the pool with close positions enabled. This is something removed from virtually all tournament maps since the beginning of time.
On January 13 2013 08:28 Clbull wrote: Trying my best not to make this come across as balance whine but I feel the tournament map pools are to blame for the metagame stagnating into this 20 min no rush lategame deathball crap. Thirds are ludicrously easy to obtain and hold, rush distances are often so large that they make one base play entirely un-viable and this has just further augmented reasons to justify greedier builds.
Whenever Blizzard has launched a new map, all I hear is whining and bitching. Oh "Searing Crater is godawful", "Antiga Shityard is godawful", etc claims. Even Condemned Ridge which is a surprisingly 'great' map to tournament map pool standards that gives you an easy to defend and close main natural and third base is almost unanimously avoided in the ladder map pool.
Blizzard should have kept with the quirkier, varied maps and continued to balance the game around play on these maps. Or they should have just not cockblocked Kespa in the first place seeing as their mapmakers are more than willing to shake up the map pool in ways that mapmakers like ESV, TPW, etc. aren't.
I want to see Blizzard shake up the metagame with the map pool. This game has become boring because of the influence of tournament maps and the variation in positions was an interesting concept yet it made players groan because of the imbalances it caused which Blizzard weren't quite fixing in their balance updates.
A lot of people bitch at Blizzard over Blizzcon 2011 when they had maps in the pool with close positions enabled. This is something removed from virtually all tournament maps since the beginning of time.
No one at high levels (ie, what this discussion is about) wants to play non-tournament maps on ladder. Condemned Ridge (which for the record, I agree with you - can be very interesting) isn't avoided on preference, but rather because playing on it seems like a waste of time if you ever like dipping your toes in any organized tournaments/weekly/daily cups.
At the same time, Blizzard should work together with the organizers/map makers, I do agree that the 'official' map pool is contributing to the overall extremely poor state of the game.
On January 13 2013 07:13 Mavvie wrote: No close positions entombed and antiga?
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
I have to admitt that it was pretty funny to play Antiga Shipyard as Terran against Zerg with close spawn since it meant that you could sit in your main base and use tanks to hit Zerg when he tried to expand to his second natural. How the fuck did that even make sense? You can actually siege up and hit Zerg's second natural from your own godammn main base.
I hope you add some different maps to hots. The maps are so big and open, it stress the shit out of people. So easy to get flanked in 360 degrees and so long distances. It also makes the proxy possibilities so difficult to scout as well.
I feel sorry for SC2. In 2012 there was so much progress in the way tournaments are run and casted. At the same time the game transformed into something barely watchable. Nerfing the infestor will not change that - WoL feels dead.
I agree, it feels like the game peaked and fell pretty hard. Pretty much nobody will deny that around blizzard cup finals (DRG vs MMA) was WOL's best times and with HOTS on the horizon it makes the game really dull right now
Well the game wasn't much better when every joe schmo terran could bunker rush his way to victory or 1/1/1 through toss. The game has always had fairly serious and legitimate balance concerns. The thing is that a lot of enthusiasm kinda died naturally over time along with the fact that the style of zerg dominance leads to a less accessible experience.
What I dont understand is blizzard had no issue messing with metalopolis and shakuras plateau spawn locations because of tournaments doing it. but it took a year to do the same thing with Entombed and Antiga their argument seems invalid that they were worried about "different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players". IDK just glad to see this has been done.
On January 13 2013 09:23 biology]major wrote: its not that hard, you either remove the stun on fungal, or make it a projectile. Boom Sc2 suddenly 10x better
You can make it an undodgeable projectile as well. Don't ever under-estimate Blizzard incompetence.
On January 13 2013 07:13 Mavvie wrote: No close positions entombed and antiga?
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
I have to admitt that it was pretty funny to play Antiga Shipyard as Terran against Zerg with close spawn since it meant that you could sit in your main base and use tanks to hit Zerg when he tried to expand to his second natural. How the fuck did that even make sense? You can actually siege up and hit Zerg's second natural from your own godammn main base.
Yes, I'm not gonna lie, I'd be happy to see that implemented on more maps.
The maps announcement is great. Seeing a variety of maps is more fun from an audience perspective. But can players adapt to them fast enough? And there's also the problem with balance. Will the maps always be balanced enough or will this be a new complaining matter.
On January 13 2013 09:50 Trasko wrote: The maps announcement is great. Seeing a variety of maps is more fun from an audience perspective. But can players adapt to them fast enough? And there's also the problem with balance. Will the maps always be balanced enough or will this be a new complaining matter.
If they're cycling maps quickly, balance doesn't come into it.
On January 13 2013 07:13 Mavvie wrote: No close positions entombed and antiga?
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
I have to admitt that it was pretty funny to play Antiga Shipyard as Terran against Zerg with close spawn since it meant that you could sit in your main base and use tanks to hit Zerg when he tried to expand to his second natural. How the fuck did that even make sense? You can actually siege up and hit Zerg's second natural from your own godammn main base.
Funnily enough Roaches drops or Mutalisks come way faster and Zerg can siege your main base or your third 5 seconds after he's done morphing his Broodlords at his third or in his main, not to mention how he's instantly in your bases if you ever lose a fight. Funny how things are not so one-dimensional, eh?
Wish blizzard would stop dancing around the infestor problem(fungal). Its going to make some players mad but sc2 will benefit from it. You can't fix FF by nerfing the sentry attack to 3dmg either. I don't know what would be a fair nerf to infestors but I've yet to see a patch that directly addresses the root problem. (The projectile idea is dancing too). No other aoe can move that fast, imo they were on the right path when they tinkered with the movement speed.
Antiga / Entombed changes are so horribly overdue. While I appreciate Blizzard's commitment to making only positive changes to the game, these have been a no-brainer for months.
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
On January 13 2013 07:13 Mavvie wrote: No close positions entombed and antiga?
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
I have to admitt that it was pretty funny to play Antiga Shipyard as Terran against Zerg with close spawn since it meant that you could sit in your main base and use tanks to hit Zerg when he tried to expand to his second natural. How the fuck did that even make sense? You can actually siege up and hit Zerg's second natural from your own godammn main base.
Funnily enough Roaches drops or Mutalisks come way faster and Zerg can siege your main base or your third 5 seconds after he's done morphing his Broodlords at his third or in his main, not to mention how he's instantly in your bases if you ever lose a fight. Funny how things are not so one-dimensional, eh?
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
It will change quite much, but not as much as needed imo.
that's a good change on the infestor. Late game it might make them think twice about massing those things...though I still think a projectile would have been nice for the fungal growth...especially since terran has one...and it only does energy damage.
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
Man for PvZ though, the fact that many pre-hive pushes hit with very good upgrades, thats a lot of dps lost from non-upgraded ITS. I would also like broodlings to have air attack upgrades instead of melee but w/e
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
Man for PvZ though, the fact that many pre-hive pushes hit with very good upgrades, thats a lot of dps lost from non-upgraded ITS. I would also like broodlings to have air attack upgrades instead of melee but w/e
It's a much more significant nerf than some people are giving it credit for in this thread as evidenced by how much noticeably weaker Infested Terrans are on beta.
The absence of that additional DPS makes Stargate and Battlecruiser transitions MUCH more viable since ITs were overpowered anti-air for Zerg players that they didn't have to lose ground army supply for them.
We’ve held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players.
Catering for the noobs... maybe someday blizzard will realize what should be the noob-friendly aspects of a competitive game's sequel and what shouldn't be. This should've been fixed so long ago.
On January 13 2013 15:17 movac wrote: I hope this patch comes before GSL starts so might we don't get a ro16 with 13 zergs.
Right, because player skill has nothing to do with the game...all those zergs that made Ro16 last season were patchzergs! They definitely weren't some of the best players in the world practicing all day every day to compete at that level...nah, just imba.
Infested Terrans no longer gain weapon and armor upgrades.
yeah... because infested terrans were the essential part that made fungals OP *facedesk*
Honestly not looking forward to HotS since blizz will patch it for 1 year then half ass it for the remainder, just like they did for WoL.
I guess they just don't want to admit that they were wrong for 8+ months saying that "there is currently no imbalance with zerg at the highest levels."
On January 13 2013 15:17 movac wrote: I hope this patch comes before GSL starts so might we don't get a ro16 with 13 zergs.
Right, because player skill has nothing to do with the game...all those zergs that made Ro16 last season were patchzergs! They definitely weren't some of the best players in the world practicing all day every day to compete at that level...nah, just imba.
No one said these players didn't have skills. But it is still true that less would make it through if zergs get nerfed. It is not Zerg specific either. If they buffed terrans, terrans would have a better chance. If the buff Protoss, Protoss would have a better chance.
On January 13 2013 15:17 movac wrote: I hope this patch comes before GSL starts so might we don't get a ro16 with 13 zergs.
Right, because player skill has nothing to do with the game...all those zergs that made Ro16 last season were patchzergs! They definitely weren't some of the best players in the world practicing all day every day to compete at that level...nah, just imba.
No one said these players didn't have skills. But it is still true that less would make it through if zergs get nerfed. It is not Zerg specific either. If they buffed terrans, terrans would have a better chance. If the buff Protoss, Protoss would have a better chance.
Of course, I totally agree. I just really didn't like his attitude; his tone gave the impression that the game is so broken that the other races can't compete at all. I mean we'll see; current code s season is looking to be mostly terrans, I'm interested in how the brackets progress.
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
That wasn't myth at all. I had seen countless games where Z loses to mass 3/3 marines or mass 3/0 pure blink stalkers prior to Infestor buff.
I still think the problem with Infestor is the infested terrans. Without infested terrans, I don't see the reason Z will make more than 10 infestors in any given game. If I watch today's games, most infestor energy goes to infested terrans other than some clutch fungals.
Still, rolling out a knee-jerk patch right before the launch of a sequel that will screw over players so that Blizzard can have a better PR pitch seems morally wrong.
On January 13 2013 06:30 vthree wrote: Honestly, during the past few days. I am starting to think that infestors/BL isn't even the core of the problem.
I think that after the queen patch, zerg early and mid game is just too strong. And it just snowballs from that point. Infestor/BL was just the easiest comp for zergs to end the game with. Looking at the games themselves, you always hear things like the Terran didn't see the early roaches coming, or the Protoss spotted the muta switch too late, etc. You almost never hear that about Zerg. Because in the early/mid game, they pretty much know everything their opponent is doing and thus can either punish them or be as greedy as possible. Zerg pretty much dictation the pace and flow of the game. They also have so much map control once speed lings are out. Creep spread also gives them so much vision.
Zergs has always been the most 'reactive' race in that they can switch their composition the easiest. If terrans start their Viking production only after seeing 4 colossi, there is no way they will have them in time, this is not true for Zerg. They can build 8-10 corruptor in one round.. And with the queen/OL buff, they have all the early game intel while denying the opponents.
So I think in order to have a 'balance' game, we actually have to make Zerg end game the weakest because even if the late game army were even, the zergs still carry too much of an advantage from the early and mid game. And I don't think that is good design.
Rather, we should look the early and mid game and see what can be done to give the other 2 races better counter/scouting. IMO, early roaches are too good vs Terran. You basically have to blindly build marauders or the roaches WILL do damage. But if you overbuild them and Zerg went lings, you will not be able to move out at all. Terrans need more reliable scouting besides having to waste 540 minerals on 2 scans.
On January 13 2013 15:17 movac wrote: I hope this patch comes before GSL starts so might we don't get a ro16 with 13 zergs.
Right, because player skill has nothing to do with the game...all those zergs that made Ro16 last season were patchzergs! They definitely weren't some of the best players in the world practicing all day every day to compete at that level...nah, just imba.
No one said these players didn't have skills. But it is still true that less would make it through if zergs get nerfed. It is not Zerg specific either. If they buffed terrans, terrans would have a better chance. If the buff Protoss, Protoss would have a better chance.
Of course, I totally agree. I just really didn't like his attitude; his tone gave the impression that the game is so broken that the other races can't compete at all. I mean we'll see; current code s season is looking to be mostly terrans, I'm interested in how the brackets progress.
Code S last season had more terrans as well. We actually have more zergs this season compare to last. It just isn't code S. Look at Iron Squid. Honestly, at the tip top level, it looks pretty broken at the moment. The top 10 terrans/protoss all have a hard time against the top 10 zergs. Even in the terran domination period, there were players known for their ZvT and PvT. Right now, I am not sure there is a player known for their TvZ and PvZ except for PartinG because his immortal all in execution is so good. And it is both in Korean and International scenes.
If you look at TvZ, terrans used to have the most timings. That is one of the reasons the queen/OL buff was introduced. Zergs were getting hit with timings they couldn't scout. But the problem is, there are basically no terran timings anymore. There is 11/11 and then the pre-BL push. That's IT.
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
That wasn't myth at all. I had seen countless games where Z loses to mass 3/3 marines or mass 3/0 pure blink stalkers prior to Infestor buff.
I still think the problem with Infestor is the infested terrans. Without infested terrans, I don't see the reason Z will make more than 10 infestors in any given game. If I watch today's games, most infestor energy goes to infested terrans other than some clutch fungals.
Still, rolling out a knee-jerk patch right before the launch of a sequel that will screw over players so that Blizzard can have a better PR pitch seems morally wrong.
It is not a knee-jerk patch. If anything, their previous patch did very little (too little). Honestly, I think they should just revert back to pre Queen patch. I think the maps have gotten big enough that early game timings aren't really an issue anymore.
On January 13 2013 15:17 movac wrote: I hope this patch comes before GSL starts so might we don't get a ro16 with 13 zergs.
Right, because player skill has nothing to do with the game...all those zergs that made Ro16 last season were patchzergs! They definitely weren't some of the best players in the world practicing all day every day to compete at that level...nah, just imba.
i share this sentiment and think it's sad everyone doesn't
These players pour their heart into this game and deserve to be recognized for their talent no matter what the metagame is
i probably will misquote it but, "we are the sum of many large failures and a few small triumphs" or something like that. they have trained a lot
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
That wasn't myth at all. I had seen countless games where Z loses to mass 3/3 marines or mass 3/0 pure blink stalkers prior to Infestor buff.
I still think the problem with Infestor is the infested terrans. Without infested terrans, I don't see the reason Z will make more than 10 infestors in any given game. If I watch today's games, most infestor energy goes to infested terrans other than some clutch fungals.
Still, rolling out a knee-jerk patch right before the launch of a sequel that will screw over players so that Blizzard can have a better PR pitch seems morally wrong.
It is not a knee-jerk patch. If anything, their previous patch did very little (too little). Honestly, I think they should just revert back to pre Queen patch. I think the maps have gotten big enough that early game timings aren't really an issue anymore.
It wasn't Early game timings as much as Hellions running driving around in circles around the queens. Without being able to reach them creep was getting denied constantly making the follow up timings hard.
And it is generally hard to balance a unit matchup when one of the units can't reach the other.
On January 13 2013 15:17 movac wrote: I hope this patch comes before GSL starts so might we don't get a ro16 with 13 zergs.
Right, because player skill has nothing to do with the game...all those zergs that made Ro16 last season were patchzergs! They definitely weren't some of the best players in the world practicing all day every day to compete at that level...nah, just imba.
i share this sentiment and think it's sad everyone doesn't
These players pour their heart into this game and deserve to be recognized for their talent no matter what the metagame is
i probably will misquote it but, "we are the sum of many large failures and a few small triumphs" or something like that. they have trained a lot
To be fair, it happened to Terrans like Jjajki, Ganzi, Happy, Noblesse, KeeN, etc as well.
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
That wasn't myth at all. I had seen countless games where Z loses to mass 3/3 marines or mass 3/0 pure blink stalkers prior to Infestor buff.
I still think the problem with Infestor is the infested terrans. Without infested terrans, I don't see the reason Z will make more than 10 infestors in any given game. If I watch today's games, most infestor energy goes to infested terrans other than some clutch fungals.
Still, rolling out a knee-jerk patch right before the launch of a sequel that will screw over players so that Blizzard can have a better PR pitch seems morally wrong.
It is not a knee-jerk patch. If anything, their previous patch did very little (too little). Honestly, I think they should just revert back to pre Queen patch. I think the maps have gotten big enough that early game timings aren't really an issue anymore.
It wasn't Early game timings as much as Hellions running driving around in circles around the queens. Without being able to reach them creep was getting denied constantly making the follow up timings hard.
And it is generally hard to balance a unit matchup when one of the units can't reach the other.
And zergs could build a bunch of lings or some roaches to stop the hellions. You just pointed out the problem, zergs now don't have to make units in the early game making them able to drone up. And with the creep spread, now timings are near impossible.
sigh, im not liking these new HotS maps, or the nerfs on the infestor. Not only will you see more zergies cry, but you are going to see probably even MORE infestors used :/ either MASS infestor or MASS units.
Im so sad about this changes...after HSC, DB said that the infestors changes are not enough. It was December 22. Now, 3 weeks later I see this patch notes, and understand that with this Infestor nerf nothing will change in the game. IT has 9,3 dps basically(even more than marine which cost minerals) and with 3 weapon upgrades IT has 12,9 dps. So, did Blizz think, that the problem of TvZ is the 3,6 dps of IT?! Now, Blizz give it to Live, we see 2-3 Premier Tournaments which as always will be ZvZ, and DB again will said that nerf was not enough, and again will fix some small thing... HotS will start in 3 months and I fell like this 3 months nothing will change lobaly in yhe game
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
Man for PvZ though, the fact that many pre-hive pushes hit with very good upgrades, thats a lot of dps lost from non-upgraded ITS. I would also like broodlings to have air attack upgrades instead of melee but w/e
It's a much more significant nerf than some people are giving it credit for in this thread as evidenced by how much noticeably weaker Infested Terrans are on beta.
The absence of that additional DPS makes Stargate and Battlecruiser transitions MUCH more viable since ITs were overpowered anti-air for Zerg players that they didn't have to lose ground army supply for them.
That's because Hydras aren't really affective vs a mass of BC and if you mass corruptors you have a useless unit that can't hit ground.
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
Man for PvZ though, the fact that many pre-hive pushes hit with very good upgrades, thats a lot of dps lost from non-upgraded ITS. I would also like broodlings to have air attack upgrades instead of melee but w/e
It's a much more significant nerf than some people are giving it credit for in this thread as evidenced by how much noticeably weaker Infested Terrans are on beta.
The absence of that additional DPS makes Stargate and Battlecruiser transitions MUCH more viable since ITs were overpowered anti-air for Zerg players that they didn't have to lose ground army supply for them.
That's because Hydras aren't really affective vs a mass of BC and if you mass corruptors you have a useless unit that can't hit ground.
It's not useless if the enemy has battlecruisers ? O_o
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
Man for PvZ though, the fact that many pre-hive pushes hit with very good upgrades, thats a lot of dps lost from non-upgraded ITS. I would also like broodlings to have air attack upgrades instead of melee but w/e
It's a much more significant nerf than some people are giving it credit for in this thread as evidenced by how much noticeably weaker Infested Terrans are on beta.
The absence of that additional DPS makes Stargate and Battlecruiser transitions MUCH more viable since ITs were overpowered anti-air for Zerg players that they didn't have to lose ground army supply for them.
That's because Hydras aren't really affective vs a mass of BC and if you mass corruptors you have a useless unit that can't hit ground.
It's not useless if the enemy has battlecruisers ? O_o
hydras are actually useless vs battlecruisers. They are supposed to be the zerg's GtA unit but it's rubbish.
On January 13 2013 07:13 Mavvie wrote: No close positions entombed and antiga?
Now 30% of my games aren't instant losses! Woohoo!
But seriously, I wish these changes happened earlier. Either way, I'm very happy that they're listening to the community and doing what's been asked of them! Sure, it's a little late, but better late than never!
I have to admitt that it was pretty funny to play Antiga Shipyard as Terran against Zerg with close spawn since it meant that you could sit in your main base and use tanks to hit Zerg when he tried to expand to his second natural. How the fuck did that even make sense? You can actually siege up and hit Zerg's second natural from your own godammn main base.
Funnily enough Roaches drops or Mutalisks come way faster and Zerg can siege your main base or your third 5 seconds after he's done morphing his Broodlords at his third or in his main, not to mention how he's instantly in your bases if you ever lose a fight. Funny how things are not so one-dimensional, eh?
I was referring to the stupidity of the map and yes there are more than one fucked up scenario on that map, my point was that the map is fucking terrible, not what race is more imbalaced.
On January 14 2013 02:25 Jacopana wrote: Blizzard is working for us, and we shoul apreciate AND THANK all that good effort =)
really? Blizzard are not doing shit correct. I'm usually against whining about blizzard, but this time they are completely retarded. Their reasoning for the changes are simply not true, they did not change the spawn positions because it is confusing - well what about the blizzard created Shakuras Plateau?!
Their reasoning for the IT nerf is also completely retarded. They apparently havent realised that the biggest problem with the IT's is in ZvT vs a meching terran, where the upgrades on IT does not really matter. Christ people, you should not be so happy about blizzard, they have proven to be incompetent once again.
On January 14 2013 03:11 Steglich wrote: They apparently havent realised that the biggest problem with the IT's is in ZvT vs a meching terran, where the upgrades on IT does not really matter.
Oh yes it does, both vs mech and air units, no idea why you would pretend otherwise.
On January 14 2013 03:11 Steglich wrote: They apparently havent realised that the biggest problem with the IT's is in ZvT vs a meching terran, where the upgrades on IT does not really matter.
Oh yes it does, both vs mech and air units, no idea why you would pretend otherwise.
it has such a small impact that it does not really matter. this change will not have any relevance in 99% of engagements in ZvT. It just does not matter when you have 25 infestors, it means energy for 200 infested terrans which will rip through tanks and thors no problem. A unupgraded IT does 8 damage, thats equivalent to a +2 Marine. EDIT: I should be more clear on my point. Sure it will have a significance in engagements, but it is far from enough. Mass infestors will still counter mech without a problem.
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
Man for PvZ though, the fact that many pre-hive pushes hit with very good upgrades, thats a lot of dps lost from non-upgraded ITS. I would also like broodlings to have air attack upgrades instead of melee but w/e
It's a much more significant nerf than some people are giving it credit for in this thread as evidenced by how much noticeably weaker Infested Terrans are on beta.
The absence of that additional DPS makes Stargate and Battlecruiser transitions MUCH more viable since ITs were overpowered anti-air for Zerg players that they didn't have to lose ground army supply for them.
That's because Hydras aren't really affective vs a mass of BC and if you mass corruptors you have a useless unit that can't hit ground.
That's my whole point.
It makes transitioning into air units actually viable because then it puts the Zerg player in the same position Protoss and Terrans are in when the Zerg goes into Broodlords, do you over-commit to anti-air and sacrifice ground army supply in case of a tech switch into Ultralisks or do you under-commit and die to the air units?
Infestors right now take the guess work out of that because they supply ample anti-air baseline without losing anything in terms of fighting ground troops. Take the upgrades on the ITs away and they become far less effective vs late game heavily armored air units like the Battlecruiser and Carrier which forces a heavier commitment into corruptors.
On January 13 2013 11:02 Laneir wrote: good on the infested terran nerf will be a game changer for end game
It won't change much, now instead of using mass infestor, zergs will just revert back to infestor/BL, which is still way too powerful of a composition given the ease at which you can transition to it. Although, at least infestor/BL only wants to make me stab my eyes out instead of slit my wrists, so I suppose it is an improvement.
Man for PvZ though, the fact that many pre-hive pushes hit with very good upgrades, thats a lot of dps lost from non-upgraded ITS. I would also like broodlings to have air attack upgrades instead of melee but w/e
It's a much more significant nerf than some people are giving it credit for in this thread as evidenced by how much noticeably weaker Infested Terrans are on beta.
The absence of that additional DPS makes Stargate and Battlecruiser transitions MUCH more viable since ITs were overpowered anti-air for Zerg players that they didn't have to lose ground army supply for them.
That's because Hydras aren't really affective vs a mass of BC and if you mass corruptors you have a useless unit that can't hit ground.
If you're worried about ground I suggest you then morph them into broodlords.
Slightly off topic. For us plat- and below noobs who don't know what maps have specific spawn rules, is there a good way to find out, other than reading up on every ladder map in Liquipedia? It's not like it does much for timing attacks and whatnot, but it might at least make the difference between getting a scout in before a walloff, or being locked out.
On January 13 2013 07:26 SiroKO wrote: I would like to mention the myths of Zerg cost-unefectiveness and need of an OP infestor to stand a chance against Terran/Protoss. In fact, these are the 2 faces of the same "troll coin", since Zerg has now the most bases and the best macro capabilities coupled with the most cost-effective unit of the game.
That wasn't myth at all. I had seen countless games where Z loses to mass 3/3 marines or mass 3/0 pure blink stalkers prior to Infestor buff.
I still think the problem with Infestor is the infested terrans. Without infested terrans, I don't see the reason Z will make more than 10 infestors in any given game. If I watch today's games, most infestor energy goes to infested terrans other than some clutch fungals.
Still, rolling out a knee-jerk patch right before the launch of a sequel that will screw over players so that Blizzard can have a better PR pitch seems morally wrong.
It is not a knee-jerk patch. If anything, their previous patch did very little (too little). Honestly, I think they should just revert back to pre Queen patch. I think the maps have gotten big enough that early game timings aren't really an issue anymore.
It wasn't Early game timings as much as Hellions running driving around in circles around the queens. Without being able to reach them creep was getting denied constantly making the follow up timings hard.
And it is generally hard to balance a unit matchup when one of the units can't reach the other.
And zergs could build a bunch of lings or some roaches to stop the hellions. You just pointed out the problem, zergs now don't have to make units in the early game making them able to drone up. And with the creep spread, now timings are near impossible.
That's the problem with the average Zerg player's mentality. Is the belief that they should be able to drone up to 80 and have 3 early bases while only building a handful of zerglings, a spine or two, and their queens to counter every kind of early game aggression possible. That SHOULD be considered playing as greedy as triple CC Terran which all ins obviously destroy if controlled right, but now there is no such thing as playing "greedy" with Zerg provided you build enough queens. Queens should be the counter to air, not ground.
If I push into your base with like 12 blue flame hellions and all you have are 5 queens, a spine and 10 zerglings. Then you deserve to lose nearly all your workers. Right now that isn't even a problem when it should be a big threat. If a Terran runs up your ramp where all you have are 5 queens when he has like 15 marines, it's pathetic to watch the Terran lose all of his marines without a single loss of queens (because of transfuse), this means that there is a fucking problem (not saying transfuse is the problem). Queens shouldn't be used to beat early game ground aggression, Zerg have roaches and zerglings for that.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
Wait, what?
Dunno if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'll take the serious' one : maps like shakuras and metalopolis comes to mind when they had 3 starting position instead of 4 (Shakuras is horizontal spawns only, Metalo it was either in your side or cross position, both never had the closest spawning positions (except on the very first seasons)).
You Can CLEARLY MARK The starting positions On the loading screen
Or even write something like "Cross position only"
Wait what ? Sure that works for the next Entombed valley's map if the patch go live. But how would you have explained if maps like shakuras were still in ? Cross position wouldn't cut it. Afaik there are 4 starting positions on the loading screen for shakuras. If you wanted to "mark" them then you would have needed to mark only 2 and on the right places (unless you wanted to make that map cross position only aswell).
That's the problem with the average Zerg player's mentality. Is the belief that they should be able to drone up to 80 and have 3 early bases while only building a handful of zerglings, a spine or two, and their queens to counter every kind of early game aggression possible. That SHOULD be considered playing as greedy as triple CC Terran which all ins obviously destroy if controlled right, but now there is no such thing as playing "greedy" with Zerg provided you build enough queens. Queens should be the counter to air, not ground.
I used to think the same but these days watching so many ZvZ's I don't think there is any such Z mentality. Lots of macro Zergs (or so I thought) are surprisingly aggressive in ZvZ. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as to say that ZvZ is the most action packed match up, albeit with not so interesting actions. Every moment there are unit movements in ZvZ. (repetitive yet fast enough to induce heart attack)
I feel sorry for SC2. In 2012 there was so much progress in the way tournaments are run and casted. At the same time the game transformed into something barely watchable. Nerfing the infestor will not change that - WoL feels dead.
I agree, it feels like the game peaked and fell pretty hard. Pretty much nobody will deny that around blizzard cup finals (DRG vs MMA) was WOL's best times and with HOTS on the horizon it makes the game really dull right now
Ha, reading this made me a little sad, because you're basically right. Two titans slugging it out on pretty equal terms; good times.
On January 15 2013 14:15 herrmus wrote: because infested terrans is why zergs mass infestors.
Uuuh, yeah it is. Mass amounts of infested terrans allow zergs to get away with making a mostly infestor based army. Infestors on their own are very weak but the fact that they could conjure up an army that could trade cost-efficiently with most other armies made them extremely powerful when massed in great numbers. If that insta-army that IT's used to bring with their upgrades suddenly dissapears zergs can no longer get away with getting an army consisting of 40 infestors and they would need to incorporate different units. It's a good change.
The metagame has been stagnant for 8 months now. Stream viewership is off 50-75%. And Dave says, well, since our game is dead, now's the time to make a couple of those sensible changes the community screamed for years ago. Such a shame how this was all managed. Lot of lessons here for future game designers/marketers if they're out there watching.
The infestor nerf is stupid imo. Inf Terrans aren't imbalanced and used more in ZvP than ZvT. ZvP is a pretty decently balanced anyway (if anything toss has the edge), ZvT is the problem. It could make air terran with BCs totally unbeatable, more than it already is. Infested terrans are your bread and butter against BCs and without upgrade they won't do shit.
On January 15 2013 23:07 Dwayn wrote: The infestor nerf is stupid imo. Inf Terrans aren't imbalanced and used more in ZvP than ZvT. ZvP is a pretty decently balanced anyway (if anything toss has the edge), ZvT is the problem. It could make air terran with BCs totally unbeatable, more than it already is. Infested terrans are your bread and butter against BCs and without upgrade they won't do shit.
Ah yes, those hordes of games I see with Terran rolling Zerg with BCs.
On January 15 2013 23:07 Dwayn wrote: The infestor nerf is stupid imo. Inf Terrans aren't imbalanced and used more in ZvP than ZvT. ZvP is a pretty decently balanced anyway (if anything toss has the edge), ZvT is the problem. It could make air terran with BCs totally unbeatable, more than it already is. Infested terrans are your bread and butter against BCs and without upgrade they won't do shit.
Ah yes, those hordes of games I see with Terran rolling Zerg with BCs.
um....
Nah, he's right. If a Zerg lets a Terran max out on Viking/bc/raven, that army isn't going to die to anything Zerg can make, especially with weaker infested terrans. Once Terran approaches max with air, zerg's only hope is a ground-based remax to kill bases/production of Terran. Also, Zerg can often kill Terran before the air hits critical mass, but it's true that a skyterran ball is nearly unkillable, especially without infestors.
WIll they ever patch the ramp block for wings? As a zerg player this is a strategy that has made we want to consider quitting the game, it has become 50% of my pvz at high master level and against an evenly matched player its pretty much an auto loss
On January 16 2013 02:25 EssenceSC wrote: WIll they ever patch the ramp block for wings? As a zerg player this is a strategy that has made we want to consider quitting the game, it has become 50% of my pvz at high master level and against an evenly matched player its pretty much an auto loss
nope
It's sad, but they don't seem to have any intention of fixing it in WoL. Fortunately I've only faced it once in the last 100 or so games, so I don't really care. Just leave if it happens, they're a bad player and it's just a few ladder points.
On January 16 2013 02:25 EssenceSC wrote: WIll they ever patch the ramp block for wings? As a zerg player this is a strategy that has made we want to consider quitting the game, it has become 50% of my pvz at high master level and against an evenly matched player its pretty much an auto loss
nope
It's sad, but they don't seem to have any intention of fixing it in WoL. Fortunately I've only faced it once in the last 100 or so games, so I don't really care. Just leave if it happens, they're a bad player and it's just a few ladder points.
Ya but when your goal is getting GM and it happens so often and there's literally NO good response its beyond frustrating, it would take them what like 5minutes to fix?
On January 16 2013 02:25 EssenceSC wrote: WIll they ever patch the ramp block for wings? As a zerg player this is a strategy that has made we want to consider quitting the game, it has become 50% of my pvz at high master level and against an evenly matched player its pretty much an auto loss
nope
It's sad, but they don't seem to have any intention of fixing it in WoL. Fortunately I've only faced it once in the last 100 or so games, so I don't really care. Just leave if it happens, they're a bad player and it's just a few ladder points.
Ya but when your goal is getting GM and it happens so often and there's literally NO good response its beyond frustrating, it would take them what like 5minutes to fix?
If it happens as often as you suggest, it seems like it would be worth it to chase any probes around with a drone like you would the scv of a terran who might be proxy raxing you.
On January 15 2013 23:07 Dwayn wrote: The infestor nerf is stupid imo. Inf Terrans aren't imbalanced and used more in ZvP than ZvT. ZvP is a pretty decently balanced anyway (if anything toss has the edge), ZvT is the problem. It could make air terran with BCs totally unbeatable, more than it already is. Infested terrans are your bread and butter against BCs and without upgrade they won't do shit.
Ah yes, those hordes of games I see with Terran rolling Zerg with BCs.
um....
Nah, he's right. If a Zerg lets a Terran max out on Viking/bc/raven, that army isn't going to die to anything Zerg can make, especially with weaker infested terrans. Once Terran approaches max with air, zerg's only hope is a ground-based remax to kill bases/production of Terran. Also, Zerg can often kill Terran before the air hits critical mass, but it's true that a skyterran ball is nearly unkillable, especially without infestors.
I am not sure how the perfect end game comp is a problem if 99% of the games never get to that stage. BL /infestors became an issue when Zerg found the builds that easily led to the BL/infestor comp.
On January 15 2013 23:07 Dwayn wrote: The infestor nerf is stupid imo. Inf Terrans aren't imbalanced and used more in ZvP than ZvT. ZvP is a pretty decently balanced anyway (if anything toss has the edge), ZvT is the problem. It could make air terran with BCs totally unbeatable, more than it already is. Infested terrans are your bread and butter against BCs and without upgrade they won't do shit.
Also, this nerf to infested terrans is gonna make mass voidrays even more powerful. Blizzard is crazy, now zerg lategame is pretty much just fucked up, ZvT lategame zerg cant win because of mass bc, ZvP zerg straight up dies to mass voids. Silly
On January 15 2013 23:07 Dwayn wrote: The infestor nerf is stupid imo. Inf Terrans aren't imbalanced and used more in ZvP than ZvT. ZvP is a pretty decently balanced anyway (if anything toss has the edge), ZvT is the problem. It could make air terran with BCs totally unbeatable, more than it already is. Infested terrans are your bread and butter against BCs and without upgrade they won't do shit.
Ah yes, those hordes of games I see with Terran rolling Zerg with BCs.
um....
Nah, he's right. If a Zerg lets a Terran max out on Viking/bc/raven, that army isn't going to die to anything Zerg can make, especially with weaker infested terrans. Once Terran approaches max with air, zerg's only hope is a ground-based remax to kill bases/production of Terran. Also, Zerg can often kill Terran before the air hits critical mass, but it's true that a skyterran ball is nearly unkillable, especially without infestors.
That would only happen if the game gave/improved terrans a unit which allowed them to turtle till they get their superlategame composition easier. That's actually what happens right now with Infestor / Broodlord. Pretty much what happened with the queen.
On January 15 2013 23:07 Dwayn wrote: The infestor nerf is stupid imo. Inf Terrans aren't imbalanced and used more in ZvP than ZvT. ZvP is a pretty decently balanced anyway (if anything toss has the edge), ZvT is the problem. It could make air terran with BCs totally unbeatable, more than it already is. Infested terrans are your bread and butter against BCs and without upgrade they won't do shit.
Ah yes, those hordes of games I see with Terran rolling Zerg with BCs.
um....
Nah, he's right. If a Zerg lets a Terran max out on Viking/bc/raven, that army isn't going to die to anything Zerg can make, especially with weaker infested terrans. Once Terran approaches max with air, zerg's only hope is a ground-based remax to kill bases/production of Terran. Also, Zerg can often kill Terran before the air hits critical mass, but it's true that a skyterran ball is nearly unkillable, especially without infestors.
That would only happen if the game gave/improved terrans a unit which allowed them to turtle till they get their superlategame composition easier. That's actually what happens right now with Infestor / Broodlord. Pretty much what happened with the queen.
Of course, that's why you don't see it happening. But to say that BCs are weak is kind of wrong...3/3 bc/raven/viking is basically tempest/templar but in WoL
I wouldn't mind it being easier for Terrans to get to the composition, but I don't think it's impossible. Drops can help you win the war, and viking/thor is still really good against broodlord compositions, especially to buy time for an unkindness of ravens to get up. But the winrates speak for more than I can, as Terrans have too hard a time against Zerg 2/2 speedbane timings, as well as the initial brood/festor/queen/corruptor push.
It's sort of like ZvT is similar to PvZ; there's a midgame timing you can hit (pre-siege tank vs pre-infestor), and a lategame timing you can hit where you have a deathball that your opponent can't engage (broodfestor vs colossus ball). Lots of similarities, lots of the same problems. HotS will be better though
On January 16 2013 02:25 EssenceSC wrote: WIll they ever patch the ramp block for wings? As a zerg player this is a strategy that has made we want to consider quitting the game, it has become 50% of my pvz at high master level and against an evenly matched player its pretty much an auto loss
nope
It's sad, but they don't seem to have any intention of fixing it in WoL. Fortunately I've only faced it once in the last 100 or so games, so I don't really care. Just leave if it happens, they're a bad player and it's just a few ladder points.
Ya but when your goal is getting GM and it happens so often and there's literally NO good response its beyond frustrating, it would take them what like 5minutes to fix?
If it happens as often as you suggest, it seems like it would be worth it to chase any probes around with a drone like you would the scv of a terran who might be proxy raxing you.
They can still get it off pretty easily, even going 12 or 13 pool cant stop it, im sure every zerg player would want to see that patched since like forever.
On January 16 2013 02:25 EssenceSC wrote: WIll they ever patch the ramp block for wings? As a zerg player this is a strategy that has made we want to consider quitting the game, it has become 50% of my pvz at high master level and against an evenly matched player its pretty much an auto loss
nope
It's sad, but they don't seem to have any intention of fixing it in WoL. Fortunately I've only faced it once in the last 100 or so games, so I don't really care. Just leave if it happens, they're a bad player and it's just a few ladder points.
Ya but when your goal is getting GM and it happens so often and there's literally NO good response its beyond frustrating, it would take them what like 5minutes to fix?
If it happens as often as you suggest, it seems like it would be worth it to chase any probes around with a drone like you would the scv of a terran who might be proxy raxing you.
They can still get it off pretty easily, even going 12 or 13 pool cant stop it, im sure every zerg player would want to see that patched since like forever.
Indeed, a 10 pool barely gets lings in time to defend a normal cannon rush, and I'm pretty sure that the cannons and wall still get up? Can't remember, but I think that's what belial said.
It doesn't matter, every tournament has a neutral depot to prevent it and even HotS addresses the issue with "unbuildable plates" at the bottom of ramps. But hey, it's better to have imbalance at a high level than to confuse the lower level players!
On January 16 2013 02:25 EssenceSC wrote: WIll they ever patch the ramp block for wings? As a zerg player this is a strategy that has made we want to consider quitting the game, it has become 50% of my pvz at high master level and against an evenly matched player its pretty much an auto loss
nope
It's sad, but they don't seem to have any intention of fixing it in WoL. Fortunately I've only faced it once in the last 100 or so games, so I don't really care. Just leave if it happens, they're a bad player and it's just a few ladder points.
Ya but when your goal is getting GM and it happens so often and there's literally NO good response its beyond frustrating, it would take them what like 5minutes to fix?
If it happens as often as you suggest, it seems like it would be worth it to chase any probes around with a drone like you would the scv of a terran who might be proxy raxing you.
They can still get it off pretty easily, even going 12 or 13 pool cant stop it, im sure every zerg player would want to see that patched since like forever.
Indeed, a 10 pool barely gets lings in time to defend a normal cannon rush, and I'm pretty sure that the cannons and wall still get up? Can't remember, but I think that's what belial said.
It doesn't matter, every tournament has a neutral depot to prevent it and even HotS addresses the issue with "unbuildable plates" at the bottom of ramps. But hey, it's better to have imbalance at a high level than to confuse the lower level players!
It matters to people like me who only play ladder ;/
So glad to hear about the change in thinking for their map pools, plus the cross spawns on Antiga and Entombed will be sweet. Good on ya' Blizz! Still interested to see where the Infestor ends up. Hoping they don't nerf it into oblivion and make it useless.
On January 12 2013 10:19 Xpace wrote: "We've held off on these changes until now primarily because we thought having different sets of hidden start location rules for each map might be confusing to lower level players." "At this point we feel that most StarCraft II players have a solid understanding of starting locations on each map."
EPT
