|
On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote:
All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later.
The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period.
Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality.
If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below:
|
On May 13 2013 18:59 Zanzabarr wrote:
They just need to nerf the mutalisk regen, which was an unnecessary buff to begin with. The speed is enough. Without the ridiculous muta regen it would help a lot.
I'm uncertain in the least how they exoect the unit to be a harass unit and a combat unit. The only unit I can think of that it actually works for is the hellbat and the reason for that is moreso the medivac than the hellbat itself. TvZ is fine for bio, but all the other MUs look somewhat stupid due to the muta.
I liked their thinking of harass units in HotS, emphasis is to keep them always able to go in again(reaper/muta heal and oracle energy/revelation), but if the unit is suppose to be a combat unit too, well I think they need to rethink that.
As an example TvT, reapers are really strong early game(until soft counters come out in numbers). Well if there was nothing that countered reapers well enough, TvT would just be mass reaper like ZvZ is now mass muta. You can't really go the harass unit route while having it as a really viable combat unit too(well just give 1 race/style the means to truly counter it).
|
On May 13 2013 18:17 Snowbear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote:
All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. Hellbat drops in TvT are really easy to hold, and I'm 100% sure they will disappear soon. If you know how to counter them (hellion marine viking with micro) you just roflstomp the opponent who does them. In TvP and TvZ a hellbat nerf would be a disaster. Unless they nerf the cargospace again to 1 hellbat for 1 medivac. But a damage / range nerf to the hellbat would be really sad. TvP mech would become even more dead. TvZ would be MMMM only. Now we can chose between MMM tank or MMM mine or MMM hellbat. I like it that way.
Well said. My experience with handling Hellbat drops even when playing against T as P/Z tends to be the same.
|
On May 13 2013 18:36 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 17:14 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 16:50 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 16:41 Big J wrote:On May 13 2013 15:31 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 12:58 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 13 2013 05:15 Sissors wrote:On May 13 2013 01:03 vRadiatioNv wrote:On May 12 2013 17:03 Sissors wrote:On May 12 2013 12:50 vRadiatioNv wrote:
[quote]
I agree with pretty much everything Big J said except I do feel that TvZ is just slightly in favor of Terran (as most stats show) and just needs a tiny, tiny adjustment.
Most stats don't show that. Only one sets of stats shown that, which was proven again and again to lack statistical significance (when you removed WCS qualifiers it was pretty much 50/50). And at what level do you think TvZ favors Terran? Since even the most hardcore zerg supporters here have a very hard time defending that at pro level terran would be stronger, with half the Code S RO8 for example being zerg. And at every level above silver it is kinda weird that way more people play zerg than terran if zerg would be so much weaker. But what kind of tiny ajustments do you want to boost zerg without allowing them to dominate pro levels and become even more popular on 'normal' levels? And not to nerf terran against toss would also be nice. Oh and take into account due to their production nature zerg always needs longer to adapt to new metagames so I would also consider it a pré if zerg don't dominate the next 6 months yet again. @Decendos, terran has never been able to go for a pure macro game against any of the other races. So why should zerg be allowed to do it? I've seen many different statistics posted on this site and very few of them don't show Terran being favored over Zerg. Most seem to be ~54-56% which is extremely close of course. Most seem to be 54-56% because they are all based on the exactly the same spreadsheet only they made different graphs with it. And that again is the spreadsheet where deleting the WCS qualifiers puts it back to pretty much 50/50 (actually 51/49 in favor of terran), which proofs that it lacked statistical significance. I think Terran is probably slightly favored at all levels but it's harder to see in lower level stats because the lower leagues are so volatile. At the pro level Life and many other pro players (including many Terrans) claim and Zerg is slightly underpowered. As for "half of Code S being Zerg" let's face it, Terran has a smaller player pool than the other races for whatever reason so there were bound to be more Zergs in the GSL. Come on even many of those who want terran nerfed here don't try to claim that terran is favored at pro level. There is literally nothing indicating that would be the case. I disagree with people saying it takes Zerg so much longer to adapt especially in the case of HoTS where Zerg didn't receive many new units or adjustments. It is much easier for Zerg to use Ling/Muta since they have been since WoL whereas Terran received huge changes. Well zerg also has to adapt how to use ling/muta against mines, that is pretty much what this entire topic is about. Just a-moving isn't the best idea anymore. And the basic idea of terran isn't really anything shocking, bio play was also around in WoL, now only mines were added. If it was just TvZ I would agree that terran got quite a bit of adjustment to do, but since bio was the standard in TvP most players are pretty used to it. The difference is that zerg is inherently a reactive race, unless they go all-in, where even the most hardcore zerg supporter here doesn't claim they are struggling. As example, lets say TvP. With changes in the metagame I need to know roughly when Oracles can come so I am prepared for it, and when I need to start worrying about DTs. Then also a bit when to roughly start making vikings, but thats it, as non-pro I really don't need to know that very accurate. Meanwhile zerg playstyle is pretty much pure droning as long as possible, and then switching to pure making army. In an all-in (although imo generally it isn't an all-in, just an early game push, but thats another discussion) thats fairly easy: mass drones till X-supply, then mass roaches for example. But if you want to go for a longer game you really need to know based on what you scout when to exactly switch from droning to army production. This means zerg take longer to adjust to new metagames, and why zerg more than other races can highly optimize their builds, but it also takes longer before they are optimized. What you say about Zerg playstyle and being reactive is pretty much true for everyone. There are builds and timings each race can do and each other race has to be prepared for. You are either attacking or expanding/teching depending on what the other player is doing; this is true for everyone. Zerg has to decide when to build drones or cut drones, Terrans and Protoss also have to decide when to cut probe and SCV production when they are doing certain timing pushes (or defending pushes) as well. Sorry but this makes just no sense. Sure in some timing pushes you got to cut probes/SCVs, but then when you do it that barely results in more military units, which is why it isn't done that often. When a zerg cuts drone production it results in an enormous spike in military production, that is completely uncomparable. It's not about "how many workers do I cut". It's straight up about "what do I do". If a Terran does a reaper-->hellion opening with 3CCs in TvZ, he must play extremly reactive. He has nothing on the field that can actually defend an attack. The only way to play is to get the scouting information by scouting the front and/or suciding units/scanning and then react by building the right units - more hellions/mines against more zerglings, tanks/mines against banelings, tanks/marauders/banshees against roaches. The same is true for Protoss, who has to react to a bio opening with a turtlesplash midgame, or against zerg where he absolutly needs to adjust his composition to roaches, hydras, mutas or swarm hosts. Reactive play is inherently given in developed, strategic games. If you don't play reactive, a good opponent will always beat you. Besides that you completely ignore my point, that for zerg it is way more important to get used to enemies timings due to their production nature, reactive play definately is not always the case. Often it is a good idea to force the enemy to react to your play, not the other way around. And if you do for example a proxy oracle opening you really aren't reacting to anything the enemy does. And generally, you can't/don't postpone your whole production to the point where you see an opponent move out. And now you say yourself exactly why zerg requires more time to adapt to a new metagame, you can't postpone production until your opponent moves out, then you are too late. You postpone it till a little bit before he moves out, and that simply takes time before zerg know how long they postpone it. Sure everyone always has to react to what an enemy does, but for zerg it is simply alot more important to know when an enemy will probably move out, depending on his build. Yes all races have it, but not all races have it to the level of zerg. If I look in a TvZ to the army supply, my supply will continiously increase, I need to use those production facilities. So for me it really is not a big deal if zerg attacks a bit earlier than I expected. I have a bit less then, and he has a bit less because he attacks earlier. However now look at the zerg army supply. Generally it is close to zero, with only some lings and queens, while my army supply is way more. But right before I move out zerg switches to military production and suddenly his army supply spikes, and he can defend my attack even though a minute before that I literally had 3-4 times the army supply he had. Automatically that also means that any error in the zergs estimation of when I will attack can be devastating, if he thinks I would attack a minute later he is outnumbered 3-4 to 1 in army units. Then they proceed complaining about terran being OP and that I am a noob. And yeah later in the game that becomes less important since then zerg doesn't have to decide as much between drones and army. And of course it isn't only zerg who needs to know roughly what the opponent does, and yes also early game a zerg makes some army units. But you also have for example the same against toss immortal-all-ins. In the beginning all zerg had auto-loss against it, while now they do quite reasonable against it. And that isn't because of some fancy micro tricks, since zerg defense against immortal all-in is pretty much outnumbering the toss enough, it is largely because they now better know how long to drone and when to mass army.
That's simply not true. Good zergs continously spend their money and larva. After bases are saturated, they produce units all the time until they max out. What you describe may be a low level syndrom but has little to do with progaming reality. Sorry, but there are simply no progames where "a zerg is behind in supply and when he gets attacked he is suddenly ahead" (unless it's some cheesy early game attack where the opponent cut a base and upgrades and workers and now you have to cut something as well to defend it). There may be differences in what you produce (is my ultra den finished and do I have the time to build the ultras I'm waiting for, or do I have to spend my money on banelings again to hold this attack) but that's it in a macro setup.
|
On May 13 2013 18:57 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 15:37 Tuczniak wrote:On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote:
OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm. No one ever researches burrow and uses it in defense, so I doubt your assessment is as automatically true as you make it sound. You can get two Hydralisks for every Mutalisk (when you take the gas into account only) and they have a higher dps too per unit; another reason why I think your "that doesnt work" answer isnt that clear as you think. In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary.
You don't get 2hydras per muta. You get 2hydras for muta and 4zerglings. Guess which unit is an amazing hydralisk counter... So yeah, you need roaches or banelings to go with your hydras. But if you go banes, your opponent can trade banes for banes+hydras or pick off banes with mutas first and you lose again.
You simply don't grasp the problems that people have against muta/ling in ZvZ (on the current patch, not the announced one).
Burrow your hydras all you want, I'm gonna attack 3bases at once with my zerglings and swoop my hydras in where I need them. You don't have marine+medivac and/or mines which are good against both, the mutalisk and the zergling. And you don't have walls that prevent runbys if you play a slow army. You just get overrun at multiple fronts at once, but your split roach/hydra forces get torn apart by the mutalisk and the zergling alike and sporecrawlers/queens fall to zerglings long before they can really significantly damage mutalisks.
You are getting flooded and outexpanded at once.
|
United States7483 Posts
On May 13 2013 19:22 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 16:39 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 14:44 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 12:33 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 11:34 DemigodcelpH wrote:On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote:On May 13 2013 04:46 Godwrath wrote:On May 13 2013 02:05 Nirel wrote:
All the progamers I've heard, said that Hellbats are bad. They are a unit with obvious flaws design. The thing is it is not overpowered, just a boring unit, pretty much like colossi. Hellbats do OP dps for cost. You can throw them away into mineral lines and basically never NOT get your money's worth. You only have to kill 4 probes to pay for them, and due to lost mining time you don't even have to kill 4 to pay for them. Very rarely will they ever do less damage than that, and you always have the chance to do devastating damage with a single drop. The unit was designed to help terrans against mass chargelot, which is why they are a slower shorter range version of the hellion that is tankier and does a splash damage radius that is more effective against units in melee range. The mistake blizzard made was making the hellbat do 281% dps to non-light of its hellion counter part, making it do great dps to everything. It also does over 200% dps to light of a blue-flame hellion, making it completely shred light units like workers. The unit does way too much aoe dps for a 100 mineral 2 supply unit that can be reactored out. Sure it requires an armory, but Terran gets an armory every game anyway for +2/+2 and +3/+3 upgrades, whether they make any hellbats or not. The thing needs a dps nerf badly. Smart Terrans should be hellbat dropping all game, and throwing them into their composition against Toss so they can laugh at chargelots. Once the mineral dump chargelots are gone in PvT, there is just a gas expensive fragile army left over that can be run over. Extreme Protoss bias, and it sounds like you're a bit bitter over losing to drops. Try building static defense. Aside from killer works, which normal hellions are already better at, Zealots are more effective as general purpose unit because of charge and speed while hellbats can die before doing anything because of 2 range and slow movement speed. On May 13 2013 09:25 Zanzabarr wrote: there is just a gas expensive fragile army I assure you no Protoss unit is "fragile" considering Protoss units have the best cost:life ratios in the game. Lol do you even play this game? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. My opinion is based on facts, math, and watching a lot of high level starcraft where I've seen plenty of hellbat abuse already. The numbers don't lie. I'm talking in terms of context of the matchup when I talk about zealots and hellbats. The hellbats don't need to move fast because the zealots have to come to them, and when they do, they get demolished. Once that happens, the fragile expensive protoss army gets run over. Best cost:life ratios in the game? What game are you playing? You should do some research before you open your mouth. Zealots and tempest are the only thing protoss has that have lots of life for cost, and even then, it's not by much (hellbat has 135 and does more dps, and has splash. Roach is 75/25 and has 145). How is that relevant when the fragile toss army I am referring to is the stuff that isn't zealots? Hellbats are so stupidly cost effective right now, Terrans should be using them. Some high level terrans have already stated that they almost try not to use them because they know they have to be nerfed and will be nerfed. Static defense? Like I've already stated, hellbats are so cost effective, you can drop them to their death and they'll still be worth it. I could have two cannons in the mineral line at each base, and you'd still be able to zoom in with a medivac, drop them, not lose the medivac, and have the hellbats do massive damage before dying. Even Terrans complain of OP hellbats in TvT. Ironically you cite no "fact", and then transition into more ad hominem which is more or less all I need to know that you, unfortunately, have no argument aside from your unfounded balance whine combined with no rebuttal to my main point. Regular hellions are better at wiping mineral lines than Hellbats, so if you're losing workers to Hellbats then it's because of your own negligence as you would lose even more to normal hellions; furthermore with 2 range and extremely slow movement speed Hellbats are also extremely kitable in direct engagements (while being less "tanky" than the Zealot and the Roach) which means that, combining these two points, if you're losing to them you're simply getting outplayed. I understand getting outplayed is frustrating, but you're not as good as you think. Balance is not your issue. Again, you don't play this game, do you. Perhaps you play at a really low level? Try watching some Starcraft 2 games. Hellbats have conal splash, do more dps, are tankier than hellions, and most of all, can be healed by medivacs. Hellbats are much harder to kill because of this, and this allows them the time to ravage your mineral line. Not only this, they do WAY more damage to non-light, unlike hellions which tickle light and can be handled by non-light units quite easily. Again, do you not play this game? You clearly don't understand how it is played. You realize the entire protoss ground army besides the stalker and chargelot move the same speed or slower than a hellbat, right? And chargelots are melee range.... and no, lots of stalkers in PvT is not good at all, unless you are trying to 1 base blink all in a gasless expand. Why do you keep trying to pin the balance discussion on my play? It's not some secret that hellbats are OP for cost that only I know about . When top Terran players admit hellbats are OP and how they are really lame in TvT as well, how does that have anything to do with me? It doesn't. From a spectator point of view, I've already seen many TvT games where each Terran just repeatedly hellbat dropped each other over and over, and man, is that ever a terrible viewing experience. It's like the muta vs muta wars in ZvZ atm but worse because Hellbats are so expendable. Flash seems to think Hellbats are pretty OP, why else is his TvT strategy to multi-prong drop hellbats all game long. You come off as a bad Terran player that doesn't really even play the game... I can't explain in... your comments are so out of touch with the game. Wait, I know.... you are just blindlly defending everything to do with your race, hoping to qualm the obvious needs for balance adjustments. How original? I barely ever face Hellbat drops or Hellbats in compositions on ladder, because a lot of Terrans on NA don't abuse them enough. Once they become more used, especially later in the game, blizzard will eventually wake up and nerf them. It's inevitable, but it would be nice if it was sooner rather than later. The only one "who doesn't play this game" or "is low level" is someone doesn't understand the basic fact that normal hellions are better at clearing minerals lines than Hellbats because, not only can they chase workers which hellbats can't, but also if workers run they line up. If you're losing all of your workers to Hellbats you're getting outplayed because normal hellions would do just as much damage or more, and do it faster; this means you're simply riding the placebo train and likely trying to justify areas where you lack. If you're losing to Hellbats in direct engagements when they are slow 2 range units then you're also getting outplayed. Period. Stop trying to take the high ground and pin your losses on balance, because not only do you have zero reasonable proof, but your logic isn't remotely consistent or valid and consists of unsourced claims (he said she said), bias, and anecdotes. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to accept reality. If you want some advise for the next time you attempt this try coming back with replays or something that has actual statistical significance like the below:
Sorry man, but with medivac speed boost and micro, hellbats are just as good as chasing down workers as hellions, and they heal and do better splash and single target damage, meaning they can stick around longer and fight defenders far more effectively while killing just as many workers. That's why you see pros do hellbat drops far more often than hellion drops.
|
On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though  I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines.
Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn.
HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will.
Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..."
That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works.
At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience.
The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree?
On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote:
What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL.
Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out.
|
On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. Show nested quote +At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote:
What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out.
last i saw infestors are pretty good against mines, you throw out infested terrans to bait them.
also make overseers. lots of overseers. so you always have an overseer handy to deal with a mine.
|
On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote:
OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep.
- I see a lot of discussion in this thread about ZvT balance. I have no idea if the matchup is balanced overall, but I do think that roach/hydra style is underpowered. It is also INCREDIBLY fun to play. I do it all the time on ladder (even though I think it's worse than ling/bane/muta) because it's so enjoyable. But a competent terran will just rip you apart with drops, and unless you can get an absurdly strong econ to put static D everywhere (while still making enough units to trade effectively against bio) then you will simply lose. I think the matchup would be much improved if roach/hydra was more viable, and I hardly think that buffing hydra speed on creep would make roach/hydra in anyway overpowered. But it would make dealing with drops a lot easier.
Interesting... I think this isn't a bad idea at all. No one has ever complained about hydras being too strong... why not try out making them super fast on creep? It could potentially help ZvZ as well, if hydras could chase down mutas the way that stimmed marines do. There could be potential problems though, like opponents being unable to retreat in a game where creep covers half the map.
|
On May 13 2013 18:06 p14c wrote:
I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything.
Zergs have been making good progress vs protoss air. It isn't the flying units alone that are so deadly- it's the combination of air + colossus or air + psi storm. Get some swarmhosts so that those are out of the equation, and suddenly corruptor/infestor/viper becomes cost efficient if you play it well.
|
On May 13 2013 21:47 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 18:06 p14c wrote:
I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything. Zergs have been making good progress vs protoss air. It isn't the flying units alone that are so deadly- it's the combination of air + colossus or air + psi storm. Get some swarmhosts so that those are out of the equation, and suddenly corruptor/infestor/viper becomes cost efficient if you play it well.
Yeah, for all the complaining about Skytoss, every time I see PvZ get into a split map situation, it's the Protoss who has to harass and run around sniping bases, because it's impossible to effectively engage a mass Swarm Host defensive position with static defense and corrupters/vipers.
|
Reduce Muta HP. Easiest solution, this spore crawler nonsense won't change anything at all until Blizzard wake up from their dream world, where a superb harassing unit is also a superior fighting unit.
|
On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. Show nested quote +At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote:
What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out.
You are twisting my posts. Where do I say that no one tries to counter mines? I doubted your claim that it takes unreasonable effort to learn how to counter mines.
You are also not discussing gameplay i.e. how to counter mines but you want mines nerfed because you can't handle them.
And this is all you are arguing: there is a "skill cap" for handling mines and you don't want to be below it. Guess what: the same is true for marine splitting vs banes, EMPing protoss armys or fighting 2gate proxys.
|
On May 13 2013 20:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 18:57 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 15:37 Tuczniak wrote:On May 13 2013 15:25 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 14:38 blade55555 wrote:On May 13 2013 14:08 Rabiator wrote:On May 13 2013 11:25 glad. wrote:
OK I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread, but does anyone know why Blizzard isn't considering buffing hydralisks instead of spores? This change is really frustrating because I think the game would be much better with a hydra buff. I think it would be best if they buffed the movement speed upgrade so that it also buffed speed on creep. Why would they need to buff the "machinegun Hydras" in any way? If you want them against Mutalisks JUST BUILD SOME ... they are good enough already. I hope this is sarcasm. Go roach/hydra against muta and you might as well gg right there. The question is DEFENSE againt Mutalisks and you bring in Roaches? 1. Get Spore Crawlers at your bases. 2. Research burrow. 3. Get Hydralisks in sufficient numbers to defend your bases against any form of Mutalisk harrassment and set a trap by placing your Hydralisks burrowed at a suspiciously light defended base ... 4. While you are at it get burrowed movement for your Roaches to attack and/or hide from Mutalisks out on the field. In any case there is zero need to buff Hydralisks in any way. Do you play zvz at decent level? What you say is very gimmicky and will get destroyed by any high masters/gm. No one ever researches burrow and uses it in defense, so I doubt your assessment is as automatically true as you make it sound. You can get two Hydralisks for every Mutalisk (when you take the gas into account only) and they have a higher dps too per unit; another reason why I think your "that doesnt work" answer isnt that clear as you think. In any case there seems to be a problem with one unit: the MUTALISK ... It would be a silly choice to BUFF another unit, which then affects other units / matchups as well. The smart choice it to nerf the Mutalisk ... and we are back at my "buffing the Hydralisk is completely unnecessary. You don't get 2hydras per muta. You get 2hydras for muta and 4zerglings. Guess which unit is an amazing hydralisk counter... So yeah, you need roaches or banelings to go with your hydras. But if you go banes, your opponent can trade banes for banes+hydras or pick off banes with mutas first and you lose again. You simply don't grasp the problems that people have against muta/ling in ZvZ (on the current patch, not the announced one). Burrow your hydras all you want, I'm gonna attack 3bases at once with my zerglings and swoop my hydras in where I need them. You don't have marine+medivac and/or mines which are good against both, the mutalisk and the zergling. And you don't have walls that prevent runbys if you play a slow army. You just get overrun at multiple fronts at once, but your split roach/hydra forces get torn apart by the mutalisk and the zergling alike and sporecrawlers/queens fall to zerglings long before they can really significantly damage mutalisks. You are getting flooded and outexpanded at once.
Oh, so I dont have walls? Who said that? Just because people usually dont do that doesnt mean it wouldnt work.
Again we are at "there is no need to BUFF the Hydralisk but rather one to NERF the Mutalisk". That is the thing you can clearly see without any playing experience yourself because buffing one unit in a balanced environment will make it overpowered against most of the other stuff and consequently trigger the need to buff more units ... in a chain of endless buffing until the units deal 560 damage and have 7000 hit points ...
Buffing does not work ... and the perfect example is the Mutalisk. It got a buff with HotS and became wayyy too good.
|
Vatican City State431 Posts
On May 13 2013 22:12 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 21:47 Chocobo wrote:On May 13 2013 18:06 p14c wrote:
I guess PvProleague will continue indefinitely. How can someone say with a straight face that SkyToss is balanced? The end game was the problem in WOL and is continuing to be in HOTS also. Kim didn't learn anything. Zergs have been making good progress vs protoss air. It isn't the flying units alone that are so deadly- it's the combination of air + colossus or air + psi storm. Get some swarmhosts so that those are out of the equation, and suddenly corruptor/infestor/viper becomes cost efficient if you play it well. Yeah, for all the complaining about Skytoss, every time I see PvZ get into a split map situation, it's the Protoss who has to harass and run around sniping bases, because it's impossible to effectively engage a mass Swarm Host defensive position with static defense and corrupters/vipers.
Getting Swarm Hosts against SkyToss is the most stupid thing I ever heard. Bisu demolished 2 Code S zergs, EG-TL zergs were also demolished by Skytoss today, Flash air battlecruisers were demolished by Parting's skytoss (it wasn't even a close fight) and I could continue with examples all day long. Code S will soon get filled with Kespa Protoses mark my word! In Proleague the team with the most good Protoses wins always.
|
On May 13 2013 21:36 Chocobo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 03:13 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 23:16 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 22:59 Hryul wrote:On May 12 2013 22:43 Chocobo wrote:On May 12 2013 09:39 AxionSteel wrote:After ages of frustration against zerg in LingsofLiberty, it certainly gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling to see all this QQ in here. Doesn't stop zerg from mopping up the tournaments and doing extremely well in Code S though I don't know any zergs who are complaining about balance at the pro level. The problem is that the skill required to play effectively in ZvT is too high for the vast majority of active players. This wouldn't be a problem if it affected both races equally, but it only affects zerg. It's nothing like other situations where it's like "yes, banelings are strong, you have to split your army up when you see them coming, or you have to protect yourself with tanks". Those are reasonable challenges that most players can learn to pull off. The skill and precision requires to deal with mines effectively is not. It requires so much effort, and is very punishing for any mistakes. Few diamond and masters players have the skill to ever be able to pull it off. So even though it's completely fair at the pro level, there's a problem for much of the ladder. This post highlights a unreasonable fatalistic stance: It is hard. I can't do it right now therefore only a few people can do it and all the others (including me) can't ever learn it. Zerg bias at its finest. The deliberate ignorance of facts in here is starting to rival Fox News. It is simply a fact that it is significantly more difficult to engage a bio mine army in a cost efficient way than it is to split your marines when banelings come rolling in, or cast feedback on medivacs, or whatever. Completely missing the point. You just claim that it is an unreasonable effort to learn how to engage mines and then base your whole arguments on this assumption. It doesn't strengthen your argument by drawing wild comparisons to Fox News. And instead of taking the challenge you fight a war on the tl forums for a nerf of mines. Why is there an assumption that no one is trying to counter mines? Everyone seems to think zergs are trying to play WoL style and crying when it doesn't work, and refusing to adapt and learn. HotS has been out for a while now, and the beta's been going longer than that. If months and months of doing your best to try anything and everything to deal with mines leads to no results... how else can you feel? I do not have the skill and control of Life and Stephano and I never will. Instead of "stop crying and deal with it", why not try discussing the gameplay? Why is it that other strats are dealth with by "make ___ to counter it" or "when the engagement hits, do ___" while the counter to mines is "make this, and some of these, and carefully suicide single units, and make sure you never do that, and..." That's what the issue is all about. The way that zerg deals with mines is a very challenging micro-intensive process and is very unforgiving of mistakes. This is not in line with how the rest of the game works. Show nested quote +At the moment you are arguing that Blizzard should balance the game not only for the pros (where TvZ might be slightly T favored) but also to your personal gaming experience. The pro level is most important, but it would be nice if it's a good gameplay experience for non-pros too, wouldn't you agree? Show nested quote +On May 13 2013 00:46 FirstGear wrote:
What are you actually suggesting? Nerfing mines to make it easier at lower levels? Or just an acknowledgement that its hard to play against mines? ZvT certainly does have a greater micro requirement than it did in WoL. Some kind of change to mines that makes them less difficult for players to deal with, without ruining them at the pro level (which is important). Maybe a longer burrow time, since so many people use it as a siege tank replacement. Maybe have them become visible for 1 second after firing. I dunno, just throwing some ideas out.
This has however been reversed for Terran in the whole WoL.
Split vs Banelings and Instant Fungals.
Kite vs Ultras. Split like a crazy with all your vikings to not get chain fungaled. Always scout around you to not get chain fungaled. Etc. etc. etc.
Vs Toss:
Controll MMM, Vikings and Ghosts, Kite, EMP, Do not sacrifice the vikings.
I can promise you, low level terrans aint having an easier time dealing with any of those situations than Zerg is having to deal with some widow mines...
But if you actually are having problems dealing with Widow Mines in Gold for an example, lets say your opponents spams 30 of them. A easy way is to make 20 Swarm Hosts and suddenly you dont have to worry about micro at all.
|
|
|
On May 13 2013 22:18 TigerKarl wrote:
Reduce Muta HP. Easiest solution, this spore crawler nonsense won't change anything at all until Blizzard wake up from their dream world, where a superb harassing unit is also a superior fighting unit.
A reduction in Muta HP does influence all match ups. They only want to change ZvZ. Here A spore buff will help, altough opinions differ how much it will help. Spores are usually built against mutas later on they do not work that well, but in the initial stages a buff to them would allow the defending players more options (getting mutas later or incorporating other units).
|
On May 13 2013 22:18 TigerKarl wrote:
Reduce Muta HP. Easiest solution, this spore crawler nonsense won't change anything at all until Blizzard wake up from their dream world, where a superb harassing unit is also a superior fighting unit.
That would make them garbage in ZvT and ZvP that's the stupidest solution I've seen.
People need to wake up from their dream world where they think they have any clue how to balance anything. Nothing wrong with discussing it, but most people go "listen guys I got THE answer it's so EZ...just nerf/buff x without any regard for any other match up and it's fixed see. Blizzard L2P GG hahahaah"
You're daft in the head if you think it's that simple or the game would be perfectly balanced already.
|
In 415 or so HoTS games, my race ratios are pretty solidified:
I'm Zerg high-Diamond player.
vs. Zerg: 60%
vs. Protoss: 50%
vs. Terran: 40%
If we just use this season to look at more recent games, The Zerg win-percentrage for me has gone up and the Terran one has lowered (the longer this expansion goes on, the worse I've been doing against Terran and the better I've been doing against Zerg, which is keeping my overall win-rate fairly constant).
I've reached a point where I've played enough games for this to be a large enough sample size for me. I don't anticipate any significant changes unless my strategies change or there are balance patches. I would be interested to know how other players with at least a few hundred games played are fairing, especially Zergs. I tend to check my opponents ratios and have yet to find a Zerg with a win-rate over 50% against Terran.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
