|
My gut feeling about the changes:
Mech G and A Attack Upgrades combined - I feel like Blizzard is still trying to convince Terrans to combo Mech play with Medivac in order to cover the obvious weakness which is mobility. This is why we see Hellbats being Bio and the combined Ground and Air Armor Upgrade got through without much 2nd thought. Still, effective Mech play are mostly seen in maps with limited expansions and size. In larger maps, the supposed Medivac combo is just ineffective when it comes to supply, and Mech has no choice but to dump resources in combat units and turtle until they have enough to move out. If the change goes through, tech switches will always favor Terran and it's going to be hard to balance it out. In a mech TvZ, transitions into Broodlord would not be viable, and Viper would be relegated to one hit wonders, provided that the game actually get there without Mutas crippling the Mech player early. The MU will still be much more effective with marine mine medivac tank, and essentially a buff to Vikings to snipe Overseers and Vipers even quicker. For TvP, the old Marauders are too good and Ghost would be involved eventually, so there isn't any incentive to not focus on Barracks+Techlab infrastructures and units. Bottom line is that it still doesn't promote Mech play, while skewing TvZ slightly towards T.
Siege Tank and Widow Mines - Essentially less mines, more marines and tanks to compensate in TvZ. Mutas are now as important than ever, and the lull in replenishing Siege Tanks might lead to Infestor transitions. It could mean more diversity than the constant marine mine rally. DK explained that faster rate of fire is an attempt to make the Siege Tank better against hard counter, which is basically Immortals, or almost every Protoss units. I'm sure it would definitely help, but the real question is why would someone build Tanks in the first place for TvP? So far I only see tanks in All-ins, either executing one or defending one, and it doesn't seem like it is going to be changed by this.
I guess buffing Mech is always welcomed, but more than anything I would like to see Blizz experiment with a movement speed buff on Siege Tanks, from 2.25 to 2.75. This reduces the mobility issue Mech has. It enables quicker re-positioning, making tanks better defensively simultaneously increasing its survivability for retreats and better at reinforcing the front lines. It also gives it enough speed to outrun most Protoss composition, which would decimate siege lines in the middle of the map if not detected at the earliest possible moment. The idea is to have tanks as core units of the Terran army, and that requires tanks to be sustainable throughout the game, and hopefully leads to more Mech centric compositions. It wouldn't hurt if Marauders were given slight nerf to it's speed form 2.25 to 2.0. At least it makes building Marauders a choice, and a more interesting Bio ball with different speeds in the composition.
Oracle cost reduction - Blizz goal with Oracle was always 2 folds, harass options which was mentioned, and to take away supply from the deathball. Right now the Oracle is just a pseudo Banshee, and a big part of that is because it lacks utility in the later stages of the game. Envision only serve as an early insurance for Stargate openings, and Revelation is severely underutilized. Both phenomenon can be attributed to the overlapping nature of what an Observer provides, and the fact that Robobay is almost a must for every match-up. It would be great if there is a way for the Oracle to be effective in harass throughout the game, and also have important utility during the big fights. A Banish(WC3:FT) like ability (Etheral in Dota) that makes a single target unable to attack, use ability or receive damage might just fit the bill. 5 seconds of invulnerability would make Warp Prism with DT hit squad as potent as the proposed super speed buff. With good timing a drop and warp in can happen almost anywhere. It would also enable an Oracle with your army to save strays or expensive units in retreat. Imagine this ability on the Carrier with interceptors unhindered.
DT speed - It's nice to have speedier units that rewards attention and control. Or just go with the ideal Oracle I had in mind.
Roach burrow movement speed - I had suggested this before in the BW vs SC2 Pathing blog http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=429573¤tpage=5. This potentially rewards Roach micro greatly, compounded by the regenerating boost while Roaches are burrowed. I really hope this goes through.
|
I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius 
Barracks Selection Radius = 1.75, Reactor Selection Radius = 1.0
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/k1JKg8W.png)
|
On September 25 2013 05:11 ColtCommando wrote:I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius
and it's needed. A mine is supposed to blow your leg off not annihilate your platoon.
|
On September 25 2013 05:18 b0rt_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 05:11 ColtCommando wrote:I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius and it's needed. A mine is supposed to blow your leg off not annihilate your platoon.
From liquipedia
In siege mode, Siege Tanks do 35 (+15 against armored) splash damage. This damage has three different levels: units (whether hostile or friendly) within .4687 matrices of the target are dealt full damage, units between .4687 and .7812 matrices of the target receive 50% of full damage, and units between .7812 and 1.25 matrices from the target suffer just 25% of the full damage.
|
On September 25 2013 05:18 b0rt_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 05:11 ColtCommando wrote:I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius and it's needed. A mine is supposed to blow your leg off not annihilate your platoon.
I'm sorry but what is the mine actually useful for if this change goes through? Even if you give the mine a range buff or something terrans won't have an effective way of countering mutas (before 3-3).
|
a 35% blast radius decrease in WM and 10% buff for a sieged tank rate of fire?
I have no idea how could this work out, the tanks are dead before they siege up anyway... unless you move them up the map slowly - then the zerg can stall long enough to get ultras and/or 200/200 of whatever he wants.
|
I like everything except for the Oracle change. I think it needs to switch out either Revelation or Envision for something else like the guy on top said.
Perhaps make Revelation on a single target but permanent, similar to Brood War's Parasite?
|
Anyone know when the test map will be up? I'm keen to try out these changes - even though I dislike most of them.
|
we are not happy with oracles are really only an early game unit so we decided to make it easier for people to build oracles in the early game and not fix the fact that they statistically scale awfully late
|
On September 25 2013 02:57 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2013 02:52 NarutO wrote:On September 25 2013 02:50 Teoita wrote:
My point was, it's not a REACTION to the protoss 2base build. The terran will not scan a toss base and say "oh double forge, time to pull scv's" or "welp single forge, can't do that!" or whatever.
Terran players do NOT pull scv's because protoss players play greedy on 2bases. They do it because it's an incredibly strong all-in, no matter what the toss is doing. That is not true. While I agree that it doesn't need to be a reaction, it might very well be one. This is the best argument of semantics I have seen in a while. I think we all can agree that it is sometimes an reaction and sometimes it is a blind all-in. Sometimes it works and other teams it looks silly. Lets just agree I won't waste time explaining, because whenever I do some players come around the corner and try to explain my race to me. When I collect statistics I fake them, so why bother?
Cool, behaving immature again?! Sorry, but please don't wonder why people don't take you as seriously as you wish they would...
On certain points and as fellow Terran I often think I can understand where you're coming from, but you should really work on your attitude, man.
|
On September 25 2013 05:29 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 02:57 NarutO wrote:On September 25 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2013 02:52 NarutO wrote:On September 25 2013 02:50 Teoita wrote:
My point was, it's not a REACTION to the protoss 2base build. The terran will not scan a toss base and say "oh double forge, time to pull scv's" or "welp single forge, can't do that!" or whatever.
Terran players do NOT pull scv's because protoss players play greedy on 2bases. They do it because it's an incredibly strong all-in, no matter what the toss is doing. That is not true. While I agree that it doesn't need to be a reaction, it might very well be one. This is the best argument of semantics I have seen in a while. I think we all can agree that it is sometimes an reaction and sometimes it is a blind all-in. Sometimes it works and other teams it looks silly. Lets just agree I won't waste time explaining, because whenever I do some players come around the corner and try to explain my race to me. When I collect statistics I fake them, so why bother? Cool, behaving immature again?! Sorry, but please don't wonder why people don't take you as seriously as you wish they would... On certain points and as fellow Terran I often think I can understand where you're coming from, but you should really work on your attitude, man.
I thought his response was quite witty. I can respect self deprecating sarcasm to make light of the futility of internet debates. People pull svcs when they are behind, or when they are ahead, or when they are on even footing, anytime they think it is the best option to win the game. I don't understand why you guys are arguing.
|
On September 25 2013 05:18 b0rt_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 05:11 ColtCommando wrote:I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius and it's needed. A mine is supposed to blow your leg off not annihilate your platoon.
No this nerf is not only unnecessary but actually crippling to terran non-mirrors.
Even if we lived in the universe where siege tanks can take over in TvZ for offensive and defensive roles they will never play a part in drop-play.
Simple fact is that mine has become vital for putting early drop-pressure and banshees are nowhere near close in their level of cost-effectiveness.
|
On September 25 2013 05:46 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 05:18 b0rt_ wrote:On September 25 2013 05:11 ColtCommando wrote:I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius and it's needed. A mine is supposed to blow your leg off not annihilate your platoon. No this nerf is not only unnecessary but actually crippling to terran non-mirrors. Even if we lived in the universe where siege tanks can take over in TvZ for offensive and defensive roles they will never play a part in drop-play. Simple fact is that mine has become vital for putting early drop-pressure and banshees are nowhere near close in their level of cost-effectiveness.
Well since it seems we like to calculate the area of circles, a siege tanks splash area (4.9) is a bit more than half that of mines (9.6). Jeez, no wonder terrans don't want to use tanks.
|
On September 25 2013 05:24 DusTerr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 05:18 b0rt_ wrote:On September 25 2013 05:11 ColtCommando wrote:I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius and it's needed. A mine is supposed to blow your leg off not annihilate your platoon. I'm sorry but what is the mine actually useful for if this change goes through? Even if you give the mine a range buff or something terrans won't have an effective way of countering mutas (before 3-3).
Did you ever hear of that unit called a marine, or that building called a turret? I might not be a pro at this game, but I feel like some marines are indeed able to keep your mineral line clear in a standard situation.
(Ofcourse, mutas can backstab easily when you want to move out. So get 3 turrets!)
|
I do like the reduction of mine radius if it only means that muta harass can delay or stop the parade push.
Tank pushes are more interesting anyway.
|
So let me get this straight.
To date in the history of SC2 there has never been a foreign Terran to compete at the highest level of play.
You have had Stephano, you have had Naniwa - go ahead and try to name a Terran player that has had even close to their results. Code S balance is about as perfect as it ever has been since the game came out.. and the conclusion you draw from these facts is that we should make the widow mine unusable to set Terran back to WOL status (because that ended so well and balanced) against a zerg that now has vipers, faster overseers, a defense built into standard play to any possible early game all in outside of 11/11, better mutas, and worse infestors that are only worse now because they actually take micro to use? How is it not brutally obvious that this is an awful idea?
And oh yeah resetting the meta game every 3 months with nerfs and buffs to "make the game more fun to watch" is really helpful to the casual gamer.. believe me.. it's easy to stay masters MMR playing a few ladder games a week after work when the meta game changes every 3 months for no reason.
Keep up the awesome work.
|
On September 25 2013 06:18 DomeGetta wrote:
Keep up the awesome work.
Keep up the awesome sarcasm.
/meta
|
widow mine nerf is a bit harsh..... maybe sth like 1.5 radius?
the DT buff is ridiculous. ^^
|
On September 25 2013 06:18 DomeGetta wrote:
So let me get this straight.
To date in the history of SC2 there has never been a foreign Terran to compete at the highest level of play.
You have had Stephano, you have had Naniwa - go ahead and try to name a Terran player that has had even close to their results. Code S balance is about as perfect as it ever has been since the game came out.. and the conclusion you draw from these facts is that we should make the widow mine unusable to set Terran back to WOL status (because that ended so well and balanced) against a zerg that now has vipers, faster overseers, a defense built into standard play to any possible early game all in outside of 11/11, better mutas, and worse infestors that are only worse now because they actually take micro to use? How is it not brutally obvious that this is an awful idea?
And oh yeah resetting the meta game every 3 months with nerfs and buffs to "make the game more fun to watch" is really helpful to the casual gamer.. believe me.. it's easy to stay masters MMR playing a few ladder games a week after work when the meta game changes every 3 months for no reason.
Keep up the awesome work.
Jinro GSL round of 4.
|
United Kingdom12042 Posts
On September 25 2013 05:24 DusTerr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2013 05:18 b0rt_ wrote:On September 25 2013 05:11 ColtCommando wrote:I was curious what 1.75 radius looked like versus 1.1 so I fired up the editor for reference. That's a pretty big hit to the mine blast radius and it's needed. A mine is supposed to blow your leg off not annihilate your platoon. I'm sorry but what is the mine actually useful for if this change goes through? Even if you give the mine a range buff or something terrans won't have an effective way of countering mutas (before 3-3).
We could see more thors mixed in which would be really cool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
