|
On May 14 2013 16:46 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 16:44 Big J wrote:On May 14 2013 16:40 SeriousLus wrote:
classic Blizzard - never change something back but keep patching stuff^^ So instacast fungal would have been the way to go for you? Classic stupid counterargument which totally ignores the post itself ... no matter how short it is. "Going back" means getting rid of Mutalisk regeneration.
and how do you know what he means? I was merely asking a question what he thinks would be going back for him and as instacast fungal was probably the biggest reason which kept mutas at bay in WoL it would be the logic answer.
On May 14 2013 16:50 Bahajinbo wrote:I actually think, this would solve the whole ZvZ and the "phoenix only against mutas" PvZ problem for sure.
yeah. It would probably be good for ZvZ and doable for PvZ (though absolutly not necessary). It would just make mutas a joke in TvZ but without mutas drops are a joke in TvZ and one of the last tools to punish Terran greed in the midgame would be a goner as well...
|
So they nerf infestors, which affects all matchups, buff the muta for harassment potential, then buff spores because of the new muta and the shittier infestor.
I get that the goal is to make changes that affect other matchups the least, but this is kind of pointless. Just makes the matchup more boring and even longer since great muta play in the midgame can no longer dictate the pace of the game. The spore change just lowers the skill ceiling by guaranteeing safety against fast mutas. So muta is buffed as a harassment unit against T and P, but when it comes to Z, it's too strong. I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. Spores were fine the way they were. The changes still won't discourage muta play, because mutas have never been amazing until critical mass anyway. Now, we're just going to see people babying mutas until critical mass and whoever has the better upgrades and muta count during the final engagement wins. The question is, will it open up the hydra route? I seriously doubt it. It takes more than extra dps spores to make muta ling bane ineffective.
|
Wow sometimes i belive the TL forum consists only of 3on3 and gold league 1on1 Players. Hellbats are easy to deal with for any race besides maybe Protoss pre storm. They have 2 range -_- start microing your shit.
If you fear the game might not be balanced its probably your own incompetence that makes units look imba.
Balance is fine
|
France9034 Posts
I think that's a pretty neat change, though I'm not sure that's the most interesting overall...
I mean, it's clearly aimed at taking down, or at least seriously hinder the muta play in ZvZ, but it makes me quite anxious of the potential evolution of the match-up.
Someone said something along the line of "ZvZ is volatile, get the lings and the mutas out of the mu".
Great, it leaves only slow/campy units... I do enjoy a lot these kind of units in ZvZ (Mutas and lings). I do also agree that volatility is pretty bad in a match-up, because it reduces the chances that the better player win (well, the better player always win, but if it's decided by a muta-vs-muta battle that is decided only by the sheer number of mutas, and the pack who shot the first volley, well..., kinda bad...)
Lings and mutas are cool, don't just get them out of the match-up... I didn't enjoy at all roachfestorfests in WoL, I don't want the same thing with a little bit of SH to add camping and sieging, especially to the race that's supposed to swarm enemies with fast units (I do enjoy a lot Ultra play for example, feels righteously zergy, that's some high tier unit that corresponds to the zerg style).
Bleh... I don't know if it's the fact that I'm terran, but only the Terran match-ups feels enjoyable (ZvT is particularly great now from what I witnessed). Oh, and PvP a bit, now that early-mid game see crazy strategies in every directions, though not being expert at the match-up, I don't really know if it's still a bit luck based/coinflip-like as it was sometimes (often ?) in WoL.
I would really like Blizz to remove/rework units such as the SH and the broodlord...
Finally, I'm glad they didn't nerf the hellbat (as they have an history of nerfing quite instantly Terran things that work well), though I feel it'll be necessary at some point. I feel like keeping them beefy and even the bio attribute would be good, but gosh, those terrible damage... (then, I'm quite bad, so I won't suggest changes, I might embarass myself more than anything else...)
|
1395 Posts
On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit.
The problem isnt the harrasment part of muta's, but that ZvZ is completely about which side has more mutas. And can you name any T or P unit which has the harrasment potential of mutas, and aditionally where the entire game revolves arounds which side has more?
|
Not good at estimating the negative effect on the mind if a there is buff against your strategy, but this should only affect small muta groups. In that stadium you can still do tons with lings, so spores are not an issue for that strategy. Especially since people will try to cut as many spores as possible and gas is the limiting factor anyway.
I guess the assumption is that the Infestor transition is easier but that one worked just fine before. The decision was always Mutas as they are easier to execute and they still are. So a 3 instead of a 4 shot won't change much, guess they hope it will tick off players to try out other things, that work better but are just harder to use.
On the other hand I only need 3 spores now instead of 4 to set up traps for mutas. Still for a cost increase on Mutas.
On May 14 2013 17:09 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. The problem isnt the harrasment part of muta's, but that ZvZ is completely about which side has more mutas. And can you name any T or P unit which has the harrasment potential of mutas, and aditionally where the entire game revolves arounds which side has more?
Terran and Toss have similar air units like the Muta, but they are more expensive and either lack the speed or are far more limited in their combat abilities. Funnily enough their limiting factors doesn't matter in the Mirrors.
Terran had Viking wars and they fixed that by making one of Terrans AoE units almost useless. (well the other was already made useless before) But yeah now we have puppys that shoot rockets out of holes to make up for that mess up. Can't complain there they are kinda cute.
I am rather surprised that with the new range on Phoenix we don't see pure phoenix vs phoenix. But I guess that one is thanks to the cheap DTs. Otherwise Phoenix can beat any toss ground composition with minerals pumped into Zealots/Immortals.
|
On May 14 2013 17:09 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. The problem isnt the harrasment part of muta's, but that ZvZ is completely about which side has more mutas. And can you name any T or P unit which has the harrasment potential of mutas, and aditionally where the entire game revolves arounds which side has more?
That´s easy: Terran can build 20 Starports with techlabs and then in late game swith to cloaked banshees for ezgg. Same for Protoss. Build 20 Stargates and 10 Robos and then hard-switch tech after every trade.
|
On May 14 2013 17:12 Daswollvieh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 17:09 Sissors wrote:On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. The problem isnt the harrasment part of muta's, but that ZvZ is completely about which side has more mutas. And can you name any T or P unit which has the harrasment potential of mutas, and aditionally where the entire game revolves arounds which side has more? That´s easy: Terran can build 20 Starports with techlabs and then in late game swith to cloaked banshees for ezgg. Same for Protoss. Build 20 Stargates and 10 Robos and then hard-switch tech after every trade.
Ah lol :D
|
On May 14 2013 17:10 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 17:09 Sissors wrote:On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. The problem isnt the harrasment part of muta's, but that ZvZ is completely about which side has more mutas. And can you name any T or P unit which has the harrasment potential of mutas, and aditionally where the entire game revolves arounds which side has more? Terran and Toss have similar air units like the Muta, but they are more expensive and either lack the speed or are far more limited in their combat abilities. Funnily enough their limiting factors doesn't matter in the Mirrors. Terran had Viking wars and they fixed that by making one of Terrans AoE units almost useless. (well the other was already made useless before) But yeah now we have puppys that shoot rockets out of holes to make up for that mess up. Can't complain there they are kinda cute. I am rather surprised that with the new range on Phoenix we don't see pure phoenix vs phoenix. But I guess that one is thanks to the cheap DTs. Otherwise Phoenix can beat any toss ground composition with minerals pumped into Zealots/Immortals.
Archons/HT are also much better now that mass Colossus is off the table and that makes phoenixes worse. Also they are just straight up worse AtG combat units than mutas and can't attack canons. I think mass phoenix is simply much more volatile in the midgame which prevents those incredible build ups and doesn't do as much damage to the player without mapcontrol who can still just put down a third and a canon and the phoenixes can't do shit about it once the buildings are started.
|
1395 Posts
Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 17:09 Sissors wrote:On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. The problem isnt the harrasment part of muta's, but that ZvZ is completely about which side has more mutas. And can you name any T or P unit which has the harrasment potential of mutas, and aditionally where the entire game revolves arounds which side has more? Terran and Toss have similar air units like the Muta, but they are more expensive and either lack the speed or are far more limited in their combat abilities. Funnily enough their limiting factors doesn't matter in the Mirrors. Terran had Viking wars and they fixed that by making one of Terrans AoE units almost useless. (well the other was already made useless before) But yeah now we have puppys that shoot rockets out of holes to make up for that mess up. Can't complain there they are kinda cute. I am rather surprised that with the new range on Phoenix we don't see pure phoenix vs phoenix. But I guess that one is thanks to the cheap DTs. Otherwise Phoenix can beat any toss ground composition with minerals pumped into Zealots/Immortals.
Viking wars were never really mandatory though, thors keep them at distance, and the only reason for those wars in the first place was (is) purely vision, having air dominance is very useful, but it definately doesn't win you the game, outside getting that air dominance the vikings have pretty much no combat role. And with for example a sensor tower you can simply scan everytime your enemy moves.
But simply because vikings can't shoot down they aren't comparable to mutas. They also are alot slower: Mutas arent so scary for their straight up combat power, but for their speed. So they can simply kill you one unit at a time and then run, which is even better in hots due to their higher speed + regeneration
And well banshees can't shoot air, are also way slower, also don't regenerate, and aditionally you also need to invest way more into production facilities.
Toss has a better start with quite some air units that can shoot up and down, and that regenerate, well at least their shields. But as contender for the muta's role we only have the voidray timewise: The voidray is then also quite strong in PvP currently, but compared to the muta it lacks enormously in the speed department, you cannot just make a bunch of voids and harass with them, since blink stalkers will catch up with them and focus them down. In non-mirror matchups their lack of anti-light damage is the issue.
Finally we have phoenix, who can at least lift their targets, and they have the speed of mutas. However they cannot deal with static defenses, making it already alot harder to kill your opponent one mineral line at a time. And lifting a target really isn't as effective as just shooting them directly when there are many units.
And for the unit composition you mentioned: Archons counter that pretty well.
|
On May 14 2013 11:53 glad. wrote:
Absolutely absurd and unimaginative change. Can you imagine in Broodwar if Blizzard felt terran mech was too strong against protoss, they decided to make zealots do additional damage to siege tanks? The whole idea of "Let's have this one unit do more damage to one specific unit that we think is OP in this one matchup" reeks of bad design. Buffing static D is also likely to make muta v muta matches simply more defensively oriented (read: boring). Muta -> infestor tech switches are also something that Blizz should be wary of, because so much relies on luck (can you tell when your opponent is tech switching and take advantage, or not realize and lose the game because of 1 fungal? A lot of it comes down to luck and guesswork) but they seem to be encouraging it.
Buff hydra speed on creep instead IMO. Makes roach/hydra viable against terran, doesn't affect protoss much, helps ZvZ, isn't a gimmicky change.
Are you a game designer or at least pro gamer, to judge the decision of the developers? Hydra speed on creep is already as fast as a stimmed marine. Can you really foresee how a hydra speed buff would turn out?
|
On May 14 2013 16:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 16:46 Rabiator wrote:On May 14 2013 16:44 Big J wrote:On May 14 2013 16:40 SeriousLus wrote:
classic Blizzard - never change something back but keep patching stuff^^ So instacast fungal would have been the way to go for you? Classic stupid counterargument which totally ignores the post itself ... no matter how short it is. "Going back" means getting rid of Mutalisk regeneration. and how do you know what he means? I was merely asking a question what he thinks would be going back for him and as instacast fungal was probably the biggest reason which kept mutas at bay in WoL it would be the logic answer.
Because it is the logical step to take. They nerfed Infestors and buffed Mutalisks at the same time. Which unit is giving us a hard time now? Mutalisks. Why? Because they are more forgiving to use due to regeneration AND the speed buff.
Taking out the changes which made one unit (too) good really is the LOGICAL CHOICE because it adjusts the power level of that one unit towards the power level of the other units instead of raising another unit to the power level of the too strong one with a bunch of other adjustments being required afterwards.
Obviously I cant know what SeriousLus thought, but I do know your thoughts were wrong and I simply assumed he chose better. If he didnt then both of you are wrong and I have to retract my statement of him choosing better.
|
On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
So they nerf infestors, which affects all matchups, buff the muta for harassment potential, then buff spores because of the new muta and the shittier infestor.
I get that the goal is to make changes that affect other matchups the least, but this is kind of pointless. Just makes the matchup more boring and even longer since great muta play in the midgame can no longer dictate the pace of the game. The spore change just lowers the skill ceiling by guaranteeing safety against fast mutas. So muta is buffed as a harassment unit against T and P, but when it comes to Z, it's too strong. I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. Spores were fine the way they were. The changes still won't discourage muta play, because mutas have never been amazing until critical mass anyway. Now, we're just going to see people babying mutas until critical mass and whoever has the better upgrades and muta count during the final engagement wins. The question is, will it open up the hydra route? I seriously doubt it. It takes more than extra dps spores to make muta ling bane ineffective.
Buffing mutas was, at the first place, a stupid and unneeded idea at all.
P were suffering from it enough in WoL, now it's even worse. What are they thinking about their balance approach is beyond common sense.
Almost all Zv* match-ups now is ...1. whateveropening 2. mass mutas.
Now they buff spores...
Why not turrets? Or thors? Or stalkers AA?
|
Mutas were always a problematic unit with their mobility and fighting power. In SC1, before BW, they made Zerg wildly overpowered, and BW dealt with this by putting in a bunch of hard counters (Valkyries and Corsairs), as well as making a variety of anti-Muta adjustments to other units.
To learn from that experience, the solution would be to give Corrupters a large + biological bonus.
|
At first, I thought its very hard to balance the game. But more I look at it and the way its going, I think Dayvie (or someone at blizz) has a wrong vision of how it needs to be done.
Couple things particularly:
1. Whenever they talk about balance they mention raw battle.net statistics, which is bad. Lets take an example, say PvT is 60/40, what they gonna do about it? They can't buff terran, cause they mess up TvZ. So they proceed to nerf something about protoss which won't hurt othaer matchups. then gradually, game becomes linear and one dimensional.
2. They try to fuck with meta. Force some strategies, shut down 'unintended' strategies and so on.
fuckton of examples:
- instead of fixing reapers or giving zerg other options they just killed strat alltogether.
- voidrays got nerfed to oblivion, its just 'another' unit with a cool animation now.
- colossi are problem? lets make the most straightforward and boring unit to counter it (tempest, copy of corruptors and vikings, with cool mecanics)
- roaches are good? NERF them, hydras, sentries, infestors, tanks are good? NERF them all.
Remember how it was fun on Fruitdealer era? Then what it become on Stephano era?
Just look how beautiful Dota 2 is. Every hero is overpowered in some way, but alltogether they're balanced by their equal overpoweredness.
/rant.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 14 2013 18:11 Calm_down wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 16:54 scph wrote:
So they nerf infestors, which affects all matchups, buff the muta for harassment potential, then buff spores because of the new muta and the shittier infestor.
I get that the goal is to make changes that affect other matchups the least, but this is kind of pointless. Just makes the matchup more boring and even longer since great muta play in the midgame can no longer dictate the pace of the game. The spore change just lowers the skill ceiling by guaranteeing safety against fast mutas. So muta is buffed as a harassment unit against T and P, but when it comes to Z, it's too strong. I can think of many more harassments from T and P that are stronger, techs faster, and is more efficient for 100/100 per unit. Spores were fine the way they were. The changes still won't discourage muta play, because mutas have never been amazing until critical mass anyway. Now, we're just going to see people babying mutas until critical mass and whoever has the better upgrades and muta count during the final engagement wins. The question is, will it open up the hydra route? I seriously doubt it. It takes more than extra dps spores to make muta ling bane ineffective. Buffing mutas was, at the first place, a stupid and unneeded idea at all. P were suffering from it enough in WoL, now it's even worse. What are they thinking about their balance approach is beyond common sense. Almost all Zv* match-ups now is ...1. whateveropening 2. mass mutas. Now they buff spores... Why not turrets? Or thors? Or stalkers AA?
As a Terran I have never had a problem with mutas, there isn't any need for a turret buff.
Also as a Terran I face mutas 1/3 TvZs tops.
Stop arguing that P was weak in WoL, P was fine there just wasn't that many top tier P players compared to T and Z.
On May 14 2013 18:15 saddaromma wrote:
At first, I thought its very hard to balance the game. But more I look at it and the way its going, I think Dayvie (or someone at blizz) has a wrong vision of how it needs to be done.
Couple things particularly:
1. Whenever they talk about balance they mention raw battle.net statistics, which is bad. Lets take an example, say PvT is 60/40, what they gonna do about it? They can't buff terran, cause they mess up TvZ. So they proceed to nerf something about protoss which won't hurt othaer matchups. then gradually, game becomes linear and one dimensional.
2. They try to fuck with meta. Force some strategies, shut down 'unintended' strategies and so on.
fuckton of examples:
- instead of fixing reapers or giving zerg other options they just killed strat alltogether.
- voidrays got nerfed to oblivion, its just 'another' unit with a cool animation now.
- colossi are problem? lets make the most straightforward and boring unit to counter it (tempest, copy of corruptors and vikings, with cool mecanics)
- roaches are good? NERF them, hydras, sentries, infestors, tanks are good? NERF them all.
Remember how it was fun on Fruitdealer era? Then what it become on Stephano era?
Just look how beautiful Dota 2 is. Every hero is overpowered in some way, but alltogether they're balanced by their equal overpoweredness.
/rant.
Not quite sure what you're getting at, they didn't nerf anything.
|
This changes is prime example of balancing team in blizzard not knowing the game at all. ANY random high master zerg would tell you that the problem is not whatever they think it is when they buff the spores.
The problem is that mutas with reasonable opener from both sides are the best choice as infestors just dont cut it anymore BECAUSE of the regen. If you managed to hit the mutas 1-2 fungals in WoL you could make 10 hydras and stomp him - now the mutas just heal back to full in no time and its useless as it is.
Spore change is absurd.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On May 14 2013 18:17 Veriol wrote:
This changes is prime example of balancing team in blizzard not knowing the game at all. ANY random high master zerg would tell you that the problem is not whatever they think it is when they buff the spores.
The problem is that mutas with reasonable opener from both sides are the best choice as infestors just dont cut it anymore BECAUSE of the regen. If you managed to hit the mutas 1-2 fungals in WoL you could make 10 hydras and stomp him - now the mutas just heal back to full in no time and its useless as it is.
Spore change is absurd.
I'd actually say this is one of the best recent balance patches they have done.
|
Are there any thoughts to change the PvZ matchup? The last PvZ match wich blowed my mind is long time ago TT. I wish in Protoss matches would be more action on the map, with constant unit trades like we see in TvZ.
|
On May 14 2013 18:09 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2013 16:52 Big J wrote:On May 14 2013 16:46 Rabiator wrote:On May 14 2013 16:44 Big J wrote:On May 14 2013 16:40 SeriousLus wrote:
classic Blizzard - never change something back but keep patching stuff^^ So instacast fungal would have been the way to go for you? Classic stupid counterargument which totally ignores the post itself ... no matter how short it is. "Going back" means getting rid of Mutalisk regeneration. and how do you know what he means? I was merely asking a question what he thinks would be going back for him and as instacast fungal was probably the biggest reason which kept mutas at bay in WoL it would be the logic answer. Because it is the logical step to take. They nerfed Infestors and buffed Mutalisks at the same time. Which unit is giving us a hard time now? Mutalisks. Why? Because they are more forgiving to use due to regeneration AND the speed buff. Taking out the changes which made one unit (too) good really is the LOGICAL CHOICE because it adjusts the power level of that one unit towards the power level of the other units instead of raising another unit to the power level of the too strong one with a bunch of other adjustments being required afterwards. Obviously I cant know what SeriousLus thought, but I do know your thoughts were wrong and I simply assumed he chose better. If he didnt then both of you are wrong and I have to retract my statement of him choosing better.
Mutalisks are giving us a hard time in exactly one matchup. The mirror matchup. There is no reason to make any change that is not ZvZ specific at this point.
The most logical choice is to do something along the lines of what they are doing, which is why I commented in the first place. The logical change to take back is Fungal if you'd wanted to solve the problem by taking back a change (but you won't get that as you have never played ZvZ at any reasonable level). Obviously it's a stupid one due to the other matchups. Obviously muta regeneration is a stupid one as well, due to the other matchups. We are back to "make it ZvZ specific".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
