EPTBlizzard's Potential Balance Test Map Changes - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
tl2212
Belize731 Posts
| ||
|
Poo
Canada536 Posts
| ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
My only concern is that none of the major problems that pros are actually talking about are being discussed widow mines vs zerg hellbats vs ....everyone lategame skytoss Like wtf early burrow research, how does this promote zerg early game attacks..oh he burrowed...better scan or good job i already build a cannon. | ||
|
XerrolAvengerII
United States510 Posts
| ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:34 XerrolAvengerII wrote: any intention i had of playing starcraft in the next few weeks is now VERY MUCH GONE. Oracle buffs? So pro's don't lose them? They already had like, the 2nd fastest speed in the game (exaggeration, but neither terran nor zerg had any air units that could catch them). I still want Battlecruiser Buffs and Carrier Buffs, but NOOOO. ORACLES NOT PERFECT ENOUGH, BUFF MOAR! They're pretty trivial to defend as they are now. | ||
|
ROOTIllusion
United States1060 Posts
| ||
|
Empirimancer
Canada1024 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:35 Whitewing wrote: They're pretty trivial to defend as they are now. They're pretty trivial to defend as they are now if you scout them in time*** Unscouted oracles are like the black death. Scouted oracles arent bad If you buff their survivability, you have to nerf their damage. Nobody wants mutalisks that 2 shot workers. | ||
|
petered
United States1817 Posts
From my perspective, I don't even care that much about perfect balance at this point. I just want them to focus on interesting and dynamic units. Speed increase on oracle sounds good to me because a good player can make just a couple and use them effectively throughout the game, which I think is pretty cool. Unfortunately larger changes are probably out of the question for a while, but it makes me excited for LotV if they keep up that focus. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
-Oracles are not great at killing workers when they are pulled. Currently, I am using a mothership core to slow the workers, which works wonders. With an oracle speed buff, a mothership core may not be necessary and oracle harass may be a lot stronger early game. -In PvZ, I'm doing well with phoenix oracle play. I like to send my oracle with a phoenix or two. Use the phoenix to lift the queen, and use the oracle to kill drones. As long as the queen is lifted, there's no anti-air. Phoenixes move slightly faster than oracles, so having a faster oracle would make controlling phoenix-oracle play a lot easier. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:29 tl2212 wrote: i thought that 2 base infestors countered 2 base muta... then you transition into hydra / roach and expand a little slower as the player going mutas will have map control. i doubt blizzard has a good enough understanding of high level ZvZ to make changes... or maybe i am not playing hots yet you are not playing hots yet. Also in WoL a mutalisk player gets his third up before the Infestor player (that's why people play mutas in Wings). In HotS however with the fungal projectile it's very hard to hit fast moving targets to begin with AND the mutalisk player can dodge them. And on top of that, mutalisks heal up extremly fast if you don't kill them all at once, which even in wings you often don't have enough fungals for that, but you still damage the mutas enough to make harassing unviable. | ||
|
Highwinds
Canada955 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:37 Empirimancer wrote: Uh, am I blind or does he not say what changes he's making to improve ZvZ? Spore crawlers getting bonus damage vs bio he said was an option. That only effects zvz no other matchup. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On April 23 2013 11:54 partydude89 wrote: I agree 500 percent with this post. i hate it how some people are so biased when it comes to making sc2 a better game based on what race they play. yeah, i hate muta vs muta, but swarmhosts are almost just as bad. reminds me of Broodlord vs Broodlord. I don't ever remember Avilo ever making suggestions on serious (not stupid bio tag removal) suggestions on nerfing terran in any way ever. he always seems on the back foot while everything else is OP. You don't seem to understand the game dynamics. Hellbat drop are only a problem due to the healing factor. And mostly in TvT yes. For economics, having a cheap/early burrow upgrade throws out of wack TvZ early game because Terran economy is dependent upon mules, whereas Zerg economy can grow exponentially with larva inject if left untouched. This is why hellbat is fine in this match-up, as it forces larva to be converted to units instead of "drone up to 60 every game with 6 queen defend everything for free." Early burrow means more scans have to be used resulting in the match-up leaning again towards Zerg. As for oracles, TvP right now is balanced overall, except for early game coinflips are prevalent from Protosses side. Making the oracle even faster only strengthens the current coin flips involving "to oracle or not oracle," and the game of "find the proxy stargate." ZvZ mutalisks are the only viable option is obvious. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On April 23 2013 11:51 Usernameffs wrote: Yeah got wc3 vibes when i thought about it. Maybe to much but it would prob be hilarious to see in the game and entertaining if they would do it right. No... the best way to fix muta wars is to let Hydralisk Ride on Corruptors with the "Corruptor Rider" upgrade from the Spire. Now Hydralisk don't have to worry about Banelings and they can fly anywhere! Edit - Also yes, the comparison is better on Nerubian Weavers (for neutrals) or Crypt Fiends from WC3 since they had an ability that was sole designed to bring down air units (Raider's net was multipurpose and can be used just to immobilize any unit). Though, I wonder the possibilities on Blizzards returning Mutalisk movement (or something similar) from BW and throwing in Scourges too... (and Reavers for Protoss... and Terran well could get Wraiths so they too can micro them like Mutalisk!). If they can't figure out the Mutalisk wars problem, why not trying making it better game wise and spectator wise by just trying to copy BW? Mutalisk micro probably can't be replicated exactly the same but they can try to make it close. On April 23 2013 11:53 forsooth wrote: Do hydras really fare that poorly against mutas, even with the high DPS they have and their superior range? The reason I'm curious about all this is that even though I don't play Zerg pretty much ever, I've been on the receiving end of and watched a lot of pros deal with some of that brute force roach/hydra midgame in TvZ that's gotten more popular since HotS came out, and it's quite a lot stronger than I anticipated it would be. If we can buff hydras in such a way that they can deal better with muta play then that's good, but making hydras significantly better could also create problems in TvZ. I just think it's too bad that there's no high level muta micro like there was in BW. Those muta/scourge fights were always cool. In SC2 it just seems like whoever has more mutas always wins because the only thing you can do is park your muta cloud on top of their muta cloud and wait for the outcome. The main problem with Hydralisks is the Zerg can simply go banelings and a-moves and win. Most cases, both zerg players already have a baneling nest + the banelings are really good against Hydralisk mean you can't commit too much into Hydralisk. I played random at the start of HotS and went for the usual Mutalisk wars in ZvZ. When I met Zergs who tried Roach + Hydralisk + Infestors (for example), I just save some of my resources and massed banelings. If they tried to go Infestors (to try to fungal Banelings) with Hydralisk and Roaches already on the field, it gives a huge window of time to just destroy the Zerg. If they already have Infestors out (in a game where both Zergs are fairly high in bases), it's still hard to fungal every single baneling wave. If they gave Hydralisk some ability like "Acid Resistance" (which reduces damage against banelings), that could work. (They can adjust damage on any specific unit if they wanted to. All they need is to make a Behavior with a "Combat" modifier that only works against a specific unit damage... in this case they could give it to Hydralisks and make it reduce Baneling damage.) | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On April 23 2013 10:39 LgNKami wrote: Glad nothing drastic was introduced. Wondering if there is going to be some type of widow mine nerf though because I have been avoiding the bio/mine style for a while now with the expectation of seeing some kind of nerf with all the bitching thats going on. Other than that though, not sure what else needs to be nerfed from terran. People complain about the hellbat because they spam light units and expect them to roll over anti-light units like they used to do with the hellion. Sadly, it doesn't work like that. Maybe make something other than lings, banelings, marines, and zealots to beat them? If Roaches and Stalkers were decent versus Terran sure! But they aren't... | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
| ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:49 avilo wrote: You don't seem to understand the game dynamics. Hellbat drop are only a problem due to the healing factor. And mostly in TvT yes. For economics, having a cheap/early burrow upgrade throws out of wack TvZ early game because Terran economy is dependent upon mules, whereas Zerg economy can grow exponentially with larva inject if left untouched. This is why hellbat is fine in this match-up, as it forces larva to be converted to units instead of "drone up to 60 every game with 6 queen defend everything for free." Early burrow means more scans have to be used resulting in the match-up leaning again towards Zerg. As for oracles, TvP right now is balanced overall, except for early game coinflips are prevalent from Protosses side. Making the oracle even faster only strengthens the current coin flips involving "to oracle or not oracle," and the game of "find the proxy stargate." ZvZ mutalisks are the only viable option is obvious. Don't you think you are overstating the effect of a slightly changed burrow upgrade, you have no idea what the change will look like and I doubt it is going to be instant and free. | ||
|
BeyondCtrL
Sweden642 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:06 Msr wrote: Ironic because I am GM on every server, and Ive yet to find a way to kill a voidray army. Hydras and corrupters both get completely destroyed by voidrays. Aoe is the biggest issue with hydras being terrible vs them, and queen-spores is too immobile. The only way I've found to beat a voidray army that is not pure static defense tempest turtle, is to damage their economy so bad that multiple remaxes eventually overpower the protoss. If other skilled zergs have an army composition I am not using correctly please feel free to show me. Oh, the irony is not lost on me here. You are suggesting that a Voidray army, which takes a lot of time and sacrifice to build, a unit that costs 4 supply, 250 minerals and 150 gas, is too hard to counter? You really can't think of a way to beat a specific build like that? As a GM, I'm sure it's obvious to you that the game is asymmetrically balanced and that when certain builds are allowed to be executed unhindered their power of advantage becomes greater. Scouting such a build is not so hard either since getting a sizable VR army quickly would show you more than 1 Stargate and a gradual build up takes time. There is a large window where the Protoss ground army is super weak and vulnerable to counter attack. You shouldn't expect to play vs. every build and strategy to the late game and have a viable way to win, something that is intended as part of the design. Queens start becoming really effective vs. VRs with carapace upgrade since every +1 armor reduces VR dps by 2, a Queen with +2 armor upgrade will reduce a VR's DPS on a queen from 10 to 6... which is the same as a sentry or at max upgrades from 16 to 10. Or better yet, 2 queens cost as much supply, 50 more minerals but no gas. Do the math, if you have 2:1 ratio of Queens to VR. You are gonna kill the VRs. And if the Protoss kills your queens with a ground switch its still in your favor because he lost a ton of gas and you only used minerals and Zerg ground > Protoss... | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:57 BeyondCtrL wrote: Oh, the irony is not lost on me here. You are suggesting that a Voidray army, which takes a lot of time and sacrifice to build, a unit that costs 4 supply, 250 minerals and 150 gas, is too hard to counter? You really can't think of a way to beat a specific build like that? As a GM, I'm sure it's obvious to you that the game is asymmetrically balanced and that when certain builds are allowed to be executed unhindered their power of advantage becomes greater. Scouting such a build is not so hard either since getting a sizable VR army quickly would show you more than 1 Stargate and a gradual build up takes time. There is a large window where the Protoss ground army is super weak and vulnerable to counter attack. You shouldn't expect to play vs. every build and strategy to the late game and have a viable way to win, something that is intended as part of the design. Queens start becoming really effective vs. VRs with carapace upgrade since every +1 armor reduces VR dps by 2, a Queen with +2 armor upgrade will reduce a VR's DPS on a queen from 10 to 6... which is the same as a sentry or at max upgrades from 16 to 10. Or better yet, 2 queens cost as much supply, 50 more minerals but no gas. Do the math, if you have 2:1 ratio of Queens to VR. You are gonna kill the VRs. And if the Protoss kills your queens with a ground switch its still in your favor because he lost a ton of gas and you only used minerals and Zerg ground > Protoss... You use a lot of words and it cleverly masks the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about. Cutting through the bullshit here is that apparently "mass queen is the answer to skytoss". Also the skytoss style is very turtley and it is very difficult to attack into it. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On April 23 2013 12:57 BeyondCtrL wrote: Oh, the irony is not lost on me here. You are suggesting that a Voidray army, which takes a lot of time and sacrifice to build, a unit that costs 4 supply, 250 minerals and 150 gas, is too hard to counter? You really can't think of a way to beat a specific build like that? As a GM, I'm sure it's obvious to you that the game is asymmetrically balanced and that when certain builds are allowed to be executed unhindered their power of advantage becomes greater. Scouting such a build is not so hard either since getting a sizable VR army quickly would show you more than 1 Stargate and a gradual build up takes time. There is a large window where the Protoss ground army is super weak and vulnerable to counter attack. You shouldn't expect to play vs. every build and strategy to the late game and have a viable way to win, something that is intended as part of the design. Queens start becoming really effective vs. VRs with carapace upgrade since every +1 armor reduces VR dps by 2, a Queen with +2 armor upgrade will reduce a VR's DPS on a queen from 10 to 6... which is the same as a sentry or at max upgrades from 16 to 10. Or better yet, 2 queens cost as much supply, 50 more minerals but no gas. Do the math, if you have 2:1 ratio of Queens to VR. You are gonna kill the VRs. And if the Protoss kills your queens with a ground switch its still in your favor because he lost a ton of gas and you only used minerals and Zerg ground > Protoss... or you could, you know, upgrade your void rays as well? And Zerg ground>Protoss? Roach/Hydra/Ling > Stalker/Zealot/Sentry, yes. But which zerg ground composition beats 10+ immortals with mass archons and Colossi and Templar? | ||
| ||
