|
On September 24 2013 16:00 SsDrKosS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2013 15:58 Creager wrote:
protoss buff's not needed at all lol... widow mine nerf, don't know, welcome the siege tank buff, upgrade buff seems unnecessary, but if it helps mech, why not... but seriously, if oracle speed goes live, I want ravens to be faster as well! ummm its oracle 'cost' reduction, not speed buff. you mean, you want your raven to come out faster from starport?
hahaha, sorry, got that wrong, my bad! actually I meant wether lower production time or movement speed increase, where's the point in having a flying caster when it's almost impossible to get a decent number out, which aren't even that microable 
Siege tank also could also deal bonus shield damage instead (much like the widow mine)...
I overall welcome the intention of blizz to implement changes to shake the metagame up a bit, it's more needed than ever, the game feels so one-dimensional as Terran these days.
|
|
|
Tested: The tank buff makes 0 difference
I just tested in editor. I tested the a scenario with original tank and then tested the same scenario with 2.7 attack speed tank. The results are no difference.
-------------------------
First scenario:
Tank with 3.0 attack speed fires two shots before getting killed by immortal
Tank with 2.7 attack speed fires two shots before getting killed by immortal
-----------------------
Second scenario:
21 Tanks and 25 hellbats vs 10 Zealot, 5 Archons, 10 Immortals, and 5 colossus. Same supply of both sides. I repeat about 20 times with some twists of protoss composition.
It turned out that 3.0 attack speed has the exact same result as the 2.7 attack speed. If 3.0 loses, 2.7 loses. If 3.0 wins, 2.7 wins. There are no cases where 3.0 loses but 2.7 wins.
----------------------
People think that in mass number, tank will scale well with this buff. But the it is actually not the case. The 10% attack speed buff is so small that it really doesn't make any difference even in large numbers.
|
i think its a good idea to nerf mines a bit (from what you see on pro lvl right now they just seem to be too cost efficient against zerg), but why would they do such a drastic change!? i mean i am a zerg player and i hate mines, but that change seems to be too much even to me...
|
On September 24 2013 16:09 iEatWoofers wrote:
Feels like a lot of Zergs are voting. And yes, Protoss needs a buff. Aside from Stardust no Protoss seems to be able to win any big tournaments. I don't care if the pros are whining. It's time that Protoss can win some big tournaments too.
Seems like the buffs will make the game harder. I think that's a good thing.
The DT buff seems good to me because I think you sometimes get punished a little to hard in SC2. I think if a player is fast enough to react, they should be able to get out of detection range again. It'll mean that it's worth it to keep a rather close eye on your DTs (and not just send them in just hoping they don't have detection), which will require more multitasking and micro. It may also be possible to do more effective warp-prism harassment because you actually might be able to get your DTs back out and use them again later.
The only change I don't like is the widowmine nerf... but I guess if you buff tanks, it'd be a little OP if we just leave them as they are now.
Protoss won 3 premier tournaments and got 2nd place 7 times. One final was PvP - I really don't know what the Protoss guys are talking about. HerO/Finale/StarDust.
NaNiWa lost very close to Leenock
Rain choked against Maru
and I dare to say TaeJa against saN would be fine result-wise as well. You make it sound like Protoss has no chance, but its absolutely not true.
|
Widow mines should activate slightly faster if they are going to nerf the range to such extreme. I don't see how the tank buff will help, it such a minor buff but at least the upgrades change make mech a lot more relevant.
|
On September 24 2013 08:53 TyrantPotato wrote:
at first i was confused why would blizzard attempt to buff the gimmicky parts of protoss.
then i remembered the whole race is gimmicky stuff, so its damned if you do damned if you dont i guess.
lol a good one.
|
On September 24 2013 16:16 larse wrote:
Tested: The tank buff makes 0 difference
I just tested in editor. I tested the a scenario with original tank and then tested the same scenario with 2.7 attack speed tank. The results are no difference.
-------------------------
First scenario:
Tank with 3.0 attack speed fires two shots before getting killed by immortal
Tank with 2.7 attack speed fires two shots before getting killed by immortal
-----------------------
Second scenario:
21 Tanks and 25 hellbats vs 10 Zealot, 5 Archons, 10 Immortals, and 5 colossus. Same supply of both sides. I repeat about 20 times with some twists of protoss composition.
It turned out that 3.0 attack speed has the exact same result as the 2.7 attack speed. If 3.0 loses, 2.7 loses. If 3.0 wins, 2.7 wins. There are no cases where 3.0 loses but 2.7 wins.
----------------------
People think that in mass number, tank will scale well with this buff. But the it is actually not the case. The 10% attack speed buff is so small that it really doesn't make any difference even in large numbers.
Yes I suspected as much. Tanks will still be worthless vs Protoss and almost worthless vs Zerg.
|
It's awful how ppl are bashing DK no matter what he does. Blizz has changed their patching with HotS considerably. Patches are now rather buffs than nerfes, there is more time for things to establish and even more radical approaches are tested. now, is this appreciated? not really.
There is a test map and already ppl (int his case Terrans mostly) are whining about basically everthing that concerns their race. I don't think the wm nerf breaks TvZ it rather fixes it. How annoying is it to see a 20 to 30 minute TvZ just end because all of a sudden there were just the right wm detonations to kill off everthing Zerg has and then 2/2 or 3/3 marines clean up the rest...great...
|
YESSSS maybe i will go back to mech now :D
|
Could it be that DK think Protoss is a bit weaker in base race situations and DTs can help them in that regard? P indeed looks weaker than T/Z once a base race commences. Fast DTs certainly can play a role there making the game more dramatic. (don't shoot me)
|
On September 24 2013 16:29 tar wrote:
It's awful how ppl are bashing DK no matter what he does. Blizz has changed their patching with HotS considerably. Patches are now rather buffs than nerfes, there is more time for things to establish and even more radical approaches are tested. now, is this appreciated? not really.
There is a test map and already ppl (int his case Terrans mostly) are whining about basically everthing that concerns their race. I don't think the wm nerf breaks TvZ it rather fixes it. How annoying is it to see a 20 to 30 minute TvZ just end because all of a sudden there were just the right wm detonations to kill off everthing Zerg has and then 2/2 or 3/3 marines clean up the rest...great...
Maybe you should actually watch games instead of typing dumb shit. TvZ besides INnoVation is not Terran favored really. The game did switch insanely since Zergs figured out that you can delay the biomine parade at expansions very well with spines, also they have learned to effectively micro against it. In addition to that, INnoVation still seems to go, but he doesn't look nearly as good as in the past.
I explained the winrates in proleague TvZ when INnoVation and Flash seemed untouchable and the winrates at 60% or above. They had over 50 games combined not losing TvZ while other Terrans very well did lose TvZ. Now we see INnoVation and Flash falling down or Zergs rising. Also, when you talk about buffs, why is it that Terran got no buff in the match up they really struggle in ? TvP?
No word about the photon overcharge, yet more reward for Protoss and still little risk. Maybe you should educate yourself about teh game and the scene as well as about the metagame, before telling Terrans to shut up when they are underperforming below the top level and that severely. The Terrans that really hold up are INnoVation, TaeJa, Polt, Bomber and a few others more or less. I dare to say Protoss and Zerg perform a lot better on average and especially on the lower-top levels.
|
I like all the changes, except the dark templar one. They are quite pesky to deal with even now, I don't think they need more peskyness.
All the other changes are positive though, finally the siege tank is getting some buff, though even that I feel may be a little bit too little.
|
On September 24 2013 16:16 larse wrote:
Tested: The tank buff makes 0 difference
I just tested in editor. I tested the a scenario with original tank and then tested the same scenario with 2.7 attack speed tank. The results are no difference.
-------------------------
First scenario:
Tank with 3.0 attack speed fires two shots before getting killed by immortal
Tank with 2.7 attack speed fires two shots before getting killed by immortal
-----------------------
Second scenario:
21 Tanks and 25 hellbats vs 10 Zealot, 5 Archons, 10 Immortals, and 5 colossus. Same supply of both sides. I repeat about 20 times with some twists of protoss composition.
It turned out that 3.0 attack speed has the exact same result as the 2.7 attack speed. If 3.0 loses, 2.7 loses. If 3.0 wins, 2.7 wins. There are no cases where 3.0 loses but 2.7 wins.
----------------------
People think that in mass number, tank will scale well with this buff. But the it is actually not the case. The 10% attack speed buff is so small that it really doesn't make any difference even in large numbers.
Why are you testing tank/hellbat vs that kind of an army?
Why not 10 tanks, 30 marines, 10 medivacs, 10 marauders, 5 ghosts or something? Why no vikings (since the vikings would be able to take out the colossus before the army even engages, especially since they could have +3 attack at that point too)? I mean your composition is basically "here is the ultimate counter composition to mech" and ignores that you have 15 robo units with almost no AA.
|
Oracle change is the only I don't like. Increase the build time slightly and increase its HP so it can actually be used outside of just harass or something like that. Making it cheaper will only reinforce that it is good for All-ins.
|
On September 24 2013 10:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Such stupid ideas for Protoss buff -.-' The ones for Terran and Zerg are at least sensible.
As a Protoss player, I've never had a problem with my dark templar being "too slow". What a silly random buff. You use dark templar for harassing and catching your opponent off guard and all that good stuff, but he doesn't need to be any faster. Now if high templars were faster, then that would be awesome... they wouldn't get sniped from behind due to them being slower than my whole frickin army.
And making the oracle cheaper is supposed to make them appear more frequently in the mid and late game? I don't think so. We don't make oracles after the early game because any anti-air wrecks them, not because they're too expensive. And quite frankly, I'm okay with them just being an early game option. If I want to incorporate air into my main army, I can add a few phoenixes or void rays.
Im wondering when the day comes when we see pro players keep their hts in warp prism so they cannot be emped / sniped until dropped out to storm the army. Will be sick 
|
On September 24 2013 03:24 GreenMash wrote:
DT change so Random WTF. All the other changes seem cool though
Agreed.
|
Aside from the mech weapon upgrade change (which makes sense since armor is already currently combined), I don't understand what is going on with these proposed changes. It seems like Blizzard is trying to remove Terran from the game ala Wings of Liberty.
|
widow mine splash radius reduction is too much
tank buff will not change anything
dt buff is so random
oracle buff will improve allins
my 2 cents
|
DT change is just nuts, you'd never be able to leave your base again against well controlled DTs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
