Thank you for your feedback on all the proposed changes. Here’s a slightly altered list of things that we will be testing soon on the balance test map. Again, none of these are final so please don’t panic.
These are the ones we’d like to try for the reasons given earlier this week:
Terran Mech ground and air attack upgrades combined
Widow Mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.25
Siege Tank attack period decreased from 3 to 2.7
Roach speed upgrade also increases the burrowed roach movement speed from 1.41 to 2.25
We’d also like to try a different set of changes for the Oracle:
Speed increased from 3.375 to 4
Acceleration increased from 2 to 3
Revelation range increased from 9 to 10
The speed changes are something we’ve tried in the past and we believe this is a better direction than a straight cost reduction for the unit. The main reason is that we’d like the difference between someone who’s amazing with Oracle micro to be able to keep them alive the whole game to get the most out of them, whereas lesser skilled players won’t get as much out of this change. Not only that, this direction is a smaller buff to the all in case and/or early game use cases compared to the previously proposed 50 gas cost reduction.
Revelation right now is the main late game ability for Oracles, meaning if it’s a bit easier to use, we’d see a lot more Oracle usage in the late game as well.
The balance test map will be up for everyone to try soon, so please make sure to play with the changes as much as you can when it goes up. Thank you.
I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
These Oracle changes are 10x better than a gas cost reduction though, that's for damn sure.
Widow Mine change seems a lot more reasonable. Always better to undernerf than overnerf, IMO.
I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
On September 26 2013 04:03 DinoMight wrote: I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
I think it will be ok, Oracles are still ridiculously fragile, so if you have your defenses in place you'll still scare them away. However, if you're good enough at multitasking as P and don't lose your Oracles, you can maybe utilize Revelation a bit more reliably now? We'll have to see I guess.
I was kinda excited for the attempted DT change. I know a lot of people were complaining about it but I liked that it would reward people that could use them well. I do like the proposed changes though, including the oracle one.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Please, get that insane bias out of your head.. Just start working on it right now, please..
And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
These Oracle changes are 10x better than a gas cost reduction though, that's for damn sure.
Widow Mine change seems a lot more reasonable. Always better to undernerf than overnerf, IMO.
Your dream is unrealistic. Completely removing that tech path need is like saying I wish I could deal with templars efficiently as terran without every having to make a ghost academy.
On September 26 2013 04:09 ChristianS wrote: That WM nerf is pretty huge. Almost 50% reduction in area of effect.
Fortunately, the reduction from 1.75 radius to 1.25 isn't as bad as the previous reduction to 1.1, though I'd like Widow Mines to not be over-nerfed to the point of uselessness.
I LOVE the Oracle change. This was what I said they should do the moment they announced they were looking at buffing the Oracle. A cost reduction is boring, and most useful in the early game which isn't when the Oracle suffers. A speed/acceleration buff, on the other hand, makes it so the unit is more rewarding of players with skill and apm to stay active with it throughout the game and do everything they can to keep it alive as long as possible. Revelation is a cool and underused ability, and it can be very useful in certain compositions and situations (e.g. synergizing with Tempests, keeping track of large muta flocks).
Not really a fan of the Oracle as a design. Revelation is just super boring ability, and I don't mind not seeing it very often (though protoss as a race is quite boring to watch so probably doesn't matter that much).
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
On September 26 2013 04:17 awesomoecalypse wrote: I LOVE the Oracle change. This was what I said they should do the moment they announced they were looking at buffing the Oracle. A cost reduction is boring, and most useful in the early game which isn't when the Oracle suffers. A speed/acceleration buff, on the other hand, makes it so the unit is more rewarding of players with skill and apm to stay active with it throughout the game and do everything they can to keep it alive as long as possible. Revelation is a cool and underused ability, and it can be very useful in certain compositions and situations (e.g. synergizing with Tempests, keeping track of large muta flocks).
I'm really stoked about this patch now.
what does this even mean
how are you supposed to micro against AA that has over twice the range of pulsar beam
On September 26 2013 04:08 feardragon wrote: I was kinda excited for the attempted DT change. I know a lot of people were complaining about it but I liked that it would reward people that could use them well. I do like the proposed changes though, including the oracle one.
I would rather them try to focus on getting people to use Oracles more. DTs are already used a decent amount.
On September 26 2013 04:17 awesomoecalypse wrote: I LOVE the Oracle change. This was what I said they should do the moment they announced they were looking at buffing the Oracle. A cost reduction is boring, and most useful in the early game which isn't when the Oracle suffers. A speed/acceleration buff, on the other hand, makes it so the unit is more rewarding of players with skill and apm to stay active with it throughout the game and do everything they can to keep it alive as long as possible. Revelation is a cool and underused ability, and it can be very useful in certain compositions and situations (e.g. synergizing with Tempests, keeping track of large muta flocks).
I'm really stoked about this patch now.
what does this even mean
how are you supposed to micro against AA that has over twice the range of pulsar beam
Go around it, since it only covers part of the mineral line. Make them build more turrets/spores in each mineral line. Snipe small groups of light units. Be a boss?
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
These Oracle changes are 10x better than a gas cost reduction though, that's for damn sure.
Widow Mine change seems a lot more reasonable. Always better to undernerf than overnerf, IMO.
Your dream is unrealistic. Completely removing that tech path need is like saying I wish I could deal with templars efficiently as terran without every having to make a ghost academy.
I know, I know...but Robo play is so boring! Though, really, if Oracles can be good enough at spotting/tagging armies and be easier to keep alive for detection, it's a real possibility. Stargate + storm, no Colossus needed...it could happen!!!!
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
oooo I like this!
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Yeah, but not nearly as much as making them cost 50 less gas. Plus, these changes make them more viable overall, for more reasons than just being cheaper.
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Is there anything they can do for that unit that wouldn't promote some form of all in? I mean, if they buff the banshee, its promotes all ins. If they buff the zealot, also promotes all in. Marines too.
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
These Oracle changes are 10x better than a gas cost reduction though, that's for damn sure.
Widow Mine change seems a lot more reasonable. Always better to undernerf than overnerf, IMO.
Your dream is unrealistic. Completely removing that tech path need is like saying I wish I could deal with templars efficiently as terran without every having to make a ghost academy.
I know, I know...but Robo play is so boring! Though, really, if Oracles can be good enough at spotting/tagging armies and be easier to keep alive for detection, it's a real possibility. Stargate + storm, no Colossus needed...it could happen!!!!
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
oooo I like this!
I'd think that Observers and Warp Prisms are way too useful to completely neglect Robo tech, even if other units are able to replace the role of the boring old Colossus.
On September 26 2013 04:17 awesomoecalypse wrote: I LOVE the Oracle change. This was what I said they should do the moment they announced they were looking at buffing the Oracle. A cost reduction is boring, and most useful in the early game which isn't when the Oracle suffers. A speed/acceleration buff, on the other hand, makes it so the unit is more rewarding of players with skill and apm to stay active with it throughout the game and do everything they can to keep it alive as long as possible. Revelation is a cool and underused ability, and it can be very useful in certain compositions and situations (e.g. synergizing with Tempests, keeping track of large muta flocks).
I'm really stoked about this patch now.
what does this even mean
how are you supposed to micro against AA that has over twice the range of pulsar beam
Go around it, since it only covers part of the mineral line. Make them build more turrets/spores in each mineral line. Snipe small groups of light units. Be a boss?
Exactly right. Completely covering every mineral line in defense is a significant investment, and there's no rule saying you can only attack directly into a mineral line. If your Oracle forces a lot of static defense, and then you pick off small numbers of light units around the map throughout the game, and finally in the lategame use it for Revelations to help with positioning, then the unit is still a worthwhile investment, even if it didn't outright end the game by wiping out a whole mineral line early on.
Why do Blizzard want to buff the Oracle? It's a really bad unit spectator wise, from Widow Mines you at least get a explosion from a Oracle you simply get death. The DT change could have been better used imo.
Edit: Still wondering how the Terran mid/late game will fair with these changes. (TvP)
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Is there anything they can do for that unit that wouldn't promote some form of all in? I mean, if they buff the banshee, its promotes all ins. If they buff the zealot, also promotes all in. Marines too.
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Is there anything they can do for that unit that wouldn't promote some form of all in? I mean, if they buff the banshee, its promotes all ins. If they buff the zealot, also promotes all in. Marines too.
I'd like to see what all-ins could materialize from a Carrier buff
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Is there anything they can do for that unit that wouldn't promote some form of all in? I mean, if they buff the banshee, its promotes all ins. If they buff the zealot, also promotes all in. Marines too.
I'd like to see what all-ins could materialize from a Carrier buff
ya, lets give Carriers 4 move speed and Phoenix acceleration.
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Is there anything they can do for that unit that wouldn't promote some form of all in? I mean, if they buff the banshee, its promotes all ins. If they buff the zealot, also promotes all in. Marines too.
Well I'd suggest keeping the current speed and increasing revelation range by 2/3 but my opinion is far from relevant.
Otherwise, whatever goes, goes. Just need to adjust to it accordingly and accept change.
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Is there anything they can do for that unit that wouldn't promote some form of all in? I mean, if they buff the banshee, its promotes all ins. If they buff the zealot, also promotes all in. Marines too.
I'd like to see what all-ins could materialize from a Carrier buff
ya, lets give Carriers 4 move speed and Phoenix acceleration.
These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring.
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring.
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: From B.net:
"These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring."
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
You should quote that thing like I did above, to make sure people know what it is. It kinda looks like you wrote it till the end.
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: From B.net:
"These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring."
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
You should quote that thing like I did above, to make sure people know what it is. It kinda looks like you wrote it till the end.
I wanted to see how many people are able to read such bullshit till the end before they start to flame. :-)
On September 26 2013 04:23 ElhayM wrote: Much more reasonable. Increasing the speed / acceleration for the Oracle still promotes early game all ins, but the revelation range is awesome.
Is there anything they can do for that unit that wouldn't promote some form of all in? I mean, if they buff the banshee, its promotes all ins. If they buff the zealot, also promotes all in. Marines too.
They need to stop designing units (oracles, banshees, hellions) that are too fragile for even small scale encounters but have insane dps against workers. They could try an hp boost combined with a dps nerf.
Thank god they scrapped the DTs, I was legitimately going to quit StarCraft if they got the buff. I don't even know how they came to that conclusion. Everyone knows it's Risk/Reward and Stimmed DTs seem intense.
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: From B.net:
"These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring."
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
You should quote that thing like I did above, to make sure people know what it is. It kinda looks like you wrote it till the end.
I wanted to see how many people are able to read such bullshit till the end before they start to flame. :-)
I started to read and thought "what a retard" then i saw your name and was confused knowing you don't usually post like that lol
On September 26 2013 04:58 ::Rhapsody wrote: Thank god they scrapped the DTs, I was legitimately going to quit StarCraft if they got the buff. I don't even know how they came to that conclusion. Everyone knows it's Risk/Reward and Stimmed DTs seem intense.
So DTs that move as fast as Hydras make you quit StarCraft, but BL Infestor didn't make you quit?
On September 26 2013 04:58 ::Rhapsody wrote: Thank god they scrapped the DTs, I was legitimately going to quit StarCraft if they got the buff. I don't even know how they came to that conclusion. Everyone knows it's Risk/Reward and Stimmed DTs seem intense.
A little speed boost would have been cool. Just enough so they went a little faster than they do right now.
I'm liking these changes far, far more than the previously posted ones. Thank god the DT buff was (rightfully) removed. This oracle change I'm liking quite a bit more then the previously posted one, too.
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: From B.net:
"These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring."
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
You should quote that thing like I did above, to make sure people know what it is. It kinda looks like you wrote it till the end.
I wanted to see how many people are able to read such bullshit till the end before they start to flame. :-)
I started to read and thought "what a retard" then i saw your name and was confused knowing you don't usually post like that lol
I was confused too. That's not how Everlong writes :D.
On September 26 2013 04:08 feardragon wrote: I was kinda excited for the attempted DT change. I know a lot of people were complaining about it but I liked that it would reward people that could use them well.
On September 26 2013 04:58 ::Rhapsody wrote: Thank god they scrapped the DTs, I was legitimately going to quit StarCraft if they got the buff.
And nothing of value would've been lost. Because if a single balance change would make you quit playing, rather than trying to figure out how to play against it, then you're not really that much into the game, are you?
On September 26 2013 04:58 ::Rhapsody wrote: Thank god they scrapped the DTs, I was legitimately going to quit StarCraft if they got the buff. I don't even know how they came to that conclusion. Everyone knows it's Risk/Reward and Stimmed DTs seem intense.
A little speed boost would have been cool. Just enough so they went a little faster than they do right now.
I would love to see people micro DTs so that you could stutter step melee to kill more workers as they ran away.
As someone who isn't as informed about the state of Terran as I'd like to be, how drastic can one expect the buff to Siege Tank attack time to be? A 0.3 second difference between volleys seems almost negligible to me, given how quickly a battle can start and finish, and the number of different units that can quickly close the gap and get inside a tank's blind spot.
On September 26 2013 05:25 Archas wrote: As someone who isn't as informed about the state of Terran as I'd like to be, how drastic can one expect the buff to Siege Tank attack time to be? A 0.3 second difference between volleys seems almost negligible to me, given how quickly a battle can start and finish, and the number of different units that can quickly close the gap and get inside a tank's blind spot.
It may affect situations when Siege Tanks are spreaded on a big territory
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring.
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
These Oracle changes are 10x better than a gas cost reduction though, that's for damn sure.
Widow Mine change seems a lot more reasonable. Always better to undernerf than overnerf, IMO.
Your dream is unrealistic. Completely removing that tech path need is like saying I wish I could deal with templars efficiently as terran without every having to make a ghost academy.
I know, I know...but Robo play is so boring! Though, really, if Oracles can be good enough at spotting/tagging armies and be easier to keep alive for detection, it's a real possibility. Stargate + storm, no Colossus needed...it could happen!!!!
On September 26 2013 04:19 awesomoecalypse wrote:
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
oooo I like this!
I'd think that Observers and Warp Prisms are way too useful to completely neglect Robo tech, even if other units are able to replace the role of the boring old Colossus.
Well, that's possibly true. But I would accept not having to use Immortals or Colossus in my army comp if I don't want to. That's really the core of what I want out of Protoss.
we will rename the Dark Shrine, now it will be Altar of Storms we will rename Dart Templars, now they will be Dark Tojara 1st skill: permanent wind walk 2nd skill: permanent critical hit 3rd skill: Archon mode
this seems to be a great working patch. let's see how it goes. I am a bit sad they scrapped thwe DT thing but super happy they changed their aproach to the oracle, since making it cheaper would have just further encouraged early game oracle cheese.
On September 26 2013 04:08 feardragon wrote: I was kinda excited for the attempted DT change. I know a lot of people were complaining about it but I liked that it would reward people that could use them well. I do like the proposed changes though, including the oracle one.
Yea but ever since people told them they don't listen they listend way to much. I wish they would just ignore the community on balance concerns as most of it is made up of below high master people who don't play random. They also removed the warhound that they worked for 2+ years on, because the community bitched for a week. Mech would probably be viable across the board if they hadn't, but hey that way we get to combine armory upgrades!
I like that they're sticking to their guns with the widow mine nerf. It might not be popular, but it's likely necessary, can't just buff zerg until TvZ is fine, it would just break PvZ.
Good changes to the oracle as well and thank the flying spaghetti monster for no sprinting DTs. Solid patch notes overall.
On September 26 2013 05:25 Archas wrote: As someone who isn't as informed about the state of Terran as I'd like to be, how drastic can one expect the buff to Siege Tank attack time to be? A 0.3 second difference between volleys seems almost negligible to me, given how quickly a battle can start and finish, and the number of different units that can quickly close the gap and get inside a tank's blind spot.
The buff will only really be significant in a long shootouts. For example it should make mech better against swarmhosts. Most other battles are decided way too fast for it to matter.
On September 26 2013 05:34 Lorch wrote: They also removed the warhound that they worked for 2+ years on, because the community bitched for a week. Mech would probably be viable across the board if they hadn't, but hey that way we get to combine armory upgrades!
That they removed it withing 2 weeks suggests that they didn't spent even 2 months on the unit.
On September 26 2013 05:39 Squat wrote: I like that they're sticking to their guns with the widow mine nerf. It might not be popular, but it's likely necessary, can't just buff zerg until TvZ is fine, it would just break PvZ.
That nerf is very popular and while it may leave PvZ alone it will break TvP instead. The difference being that it may take a year to fix terran while zerg/protoss problems are tackled much more quickly.
On September 26 2013 05:39 Squat wrote: I like that they're sticking to their guns with the widow mine nerf. It might not be popular, but it's likely necessary, can't just buff zerg until TvZ is fine, it would just break PvZ.
I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
On September 26 2013 05:39 Squat wrote: I like that they're sticking to their guns with the widow mine nerf. It might not be popular, but it's likely necessary, can't just buff zerg until TvZ is fine, it would just break PvZ.
Following that reasoning, it will break TvP no?
Except TvP is way more broken than ZvT, and none of these changes is even significant for TvP (except for PvT, where protoss gets free buffs)
On September 26 2013 05:39 Squat wrote: I like that they're sticking to their guns with the widow mine nerf. It might not be popular, but it's likely necessary, can't just buff zerg until TvZ is fine, it would just break PvZ.
Following that reasoning, it will break TvP no?
? Few TvP battles were decisively affected by the splash radius of the widow mine, while a lot of TvZ certainly were.
On September 26 2013 06:09 Lumi wrote: I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
If you've properly scouted and put defenses in place, this isn't a problem. No different than being caught unprepared against banshees or mutas, imo.
On September 26 2013 06:09 Lumi wrote: I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
If you've properly scouted and put defenses in place, this isn't a problem. No different than being caught unprepared against banshees or mutas, imo.
Except that this is faster than those units and it kills workers even quicker than both of them to begin with. It's faster to get in and faster to get away. The ability to shut it down even harder because a player really has to not be looking to lose this unit, with that speed. Do you like how banshee harass in tvt is close and scan radius and scan timings are relevant and sometimes people get the kill and sometimes they don't? Well that's not going to happen here. Zooooom. Plus it's a spellcaster with two other abilities. Come on now.
On September 26 2013 06:09 Lumi wrote: I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
If you've properly scouted and put defenses in place, this isn't a problem. No different than being caught unprepared against banshees or mutas, imo.
Except that this is faster than those units and it kills workers even quicker than both of them to begin with. Plus it's a spellcaster with two other abilities. Come on now.
And more easily shut down. Zzzzzz
On September 26 2013 06:21 Qwyn wrote: Ok, is the oracle now the fastest unit in the game with these changes? I would like to think that lings could outrun it if you microed >.>.
Ok well never mind the zergling still has 4.6 or so movement speed...but still, that level of speed is just absurd.
On September 26 2013 06:09 Lumi wrote: I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
If you've properly scouted and put defenses in place, this isn't a problem. No different than being caught unprepared against banshees or mutas, imo.
Except that this is faster than those units and it kills workers even quicker than both of them to begin with. Plus it's a spellcaster with two other abilities. Come on now.
Muta and the oracle will move at the exact same speed. And you can't mass oracles like you can mutas. The workers will still be able to get away.
Ugh, I need to stop taking people seriously in these threads. Any mind-numbing and irrelevant comparison that can be made without a further or remotely comprehensive appreciation of the details and differences that do exist... that can be put forward... seemingly is.
"Easier to shut down" than banshees is hilarious. And comparing whether you can or 'should' mass mutas or oracles as a way to attempt to compensate for or 'address' totally different matters is. lol. I'VE GOTTA GET OUT OF HERE
On September 26 2013 06:09 Lumi wrote: I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
If you've properly scouted and put defenses in place, this isn't a problem. No different than being caught unprepared against banshees or mutas, imo.
Except that this is faster than those units and it kills workers even quicker than both of them to begin with. Plus it's a spellcaster with two other abilities. Come on now.
On September 26 2013 06:21 Qwyn wrote: Ok, is the oracle now the fastest unit in the game with these changes? I would like to think that lings could outrun it if you microed >.>.
Ok well never mind the zergling still has 4.6 or so movement speed...but still, that level of speed is just absurd.
Pheonix is 4 speed, yes? edit: nope, 4.25
In my mind, I held the horrible image of stimmed DTs. Under fear of certain doom, I neglected to consider an even faster threat!
On September 26 2013 06:09 Lumi wrote: I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
If you've properly scouted and put defenses in place, this isn't a problem. No different than being caught unprepared against banshees or mutas, imo.
The problem is that it seems they add stuff into game that makes you react/scout perfectly or just die. It happens to be Protoss that has those options. So now this is another thing you have to scout for and prepare otherwise you instantly lose the game. Something like DTs. You could say build Missile Turrets to defend both DTs and Oracles, but there is difference in turret placement. In high level games, if you missplace your Turret, your opponent is going to exploit this and you could lose the game from there.
So you have to build more Missile Turrets (say 3), which is 300 minerals. Well, good luck defending some well thought Warpgate/Immortal bust.. Or Voidray allin, or you know, Blink allin, the list goes on..
This is the issue with Protoss allins. There are just so many of them. In early WoL days, 4gate was scary as fuck. I have died to it so many times, but then I learnt how to defend it and I was no longer scaret of it. Say there are 3 strong allins Protoss could do. Chances are you will learn them, defend them and start cutting corners, because noone would ever use them, because it is relatively easy to defend them if you scout them and react properly (this is how allin should work, right?). But if you cut too many corners, you will die from time to time to certain allin.
The problem is, there are literally like 10 very strong allins or openers if you want Protoss can do that you can't just scout or guess correctly every game. On the other side, what do we have as Terrans? 15 min mark SCV pull. Nothing else works really. That hits after Protoss is done allining..
edit: Im not complaining, I like this patch and I will play the game as it is. But I feel like people need to understeand that it is not certain allin that is problematic, it is the fact there are so many of them and you really need to play on top of your game to not die one of them.
I've had a few good giggles at work today reading this thread! :D
I am a little bummed about the removal of the DT change, though. Speed DT would have been hilarious. Although, I agree that unless it was tied to an updrade like Charge at Twilight or at Shrine, then it would likely be horrendously OP.
I do like the tweaks to the Oracle, though. Now, about reducing the mineral cost, Mr. Kim...
If you want to test the changes while were waiting for the official map to get published. On the US server, open the Custom Games and search for "Balance Update 9-13 Derelict v2 -Mitens-".
On September 26 2013 05:39 Squat wrote: I like that they're sticking to their guns with the widow mine nerf. It might not be popular, but it's likely necessary, can't just buff zerg until TvZ is fine, it would just break PvZ.
Following that reasoning, it will break TvP no?
Mines aren't nearly as big a part of TvP as they are in TvZ.
On September 26 2013 05:39 Squat wrote: I like that they're sticking to their guns with the widow mine nerf. It might not be popular, but it's likely necessary, can't just buff zerg until TvZ is fine, it would just break PvZ.
Following that reasoning, it will break TvP no?
Mines aren't nearly as big a part of TvP as they are in TvZ.
On September 26 2013 06:29 Everlong wrote: So you have to build more Missile Turrets (say 3), which is 300 minerals. Well, good luck defending some well thought Warpgate/Immortal bust.. Or Voidray allin, or you know, Blink allin, the list goes on..
I feel the need to point out the opportunity cost of mining for those 3 mineral turrets, which tacks on about 60 minerals of lost mining time, considering the time it takes to move the SCV into position to build it. So about 360 minerals is a better way of thinking of the cost. Reducing the missile turret to 75 minerals would definitely soften the cost of preparing for air-based protoss attacks, but it might also encourage building even more turrets that shut down drops in TvT, which would be sad. Balancing is hard
I wish that the Widow Mine kept its splash radius, but had a slightly (think 33% or so) slower projectile. This wouldn't make those exciting huge hits any less dramatic for the observer, but would more greatly enable an astute zerg player to micro lings and banelings that have been targeted away from the pack. Or better yet, straight into clumps of terran bio. This seems like a very reasonable thing to test, and I wish Blizzard would try it.
I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races
1.) Oracles are now the same speed as Mutas, except much harder to mass, with less regen and no splash. Anything that can catch a mutalisk can catch an Oracle 2.) You can still run away from Oracles, you just can't do it by move-commanding your entire worker line in one direction and expecting that to cut the Oracle dps in half. If you split your workers and send them in different directions, you're still going to make it much harder for the Oracle to kill them then if you just let your workers sit there. Countermicro hasn't been removed, but it has been made more challenging than a single move command.
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring.
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races
1.) Oracles are now the same speed as Mutas, except much harder to mass, with less regen and no splash. Anything that can catch a mutalisk can catch an Oracle 2.) You can still run away from Oracles, you just can't do it by move-commanding your entire worker line in one direction and expecting that to cut the Oracle dps in half. If you split your workers and send them in different directions, you're still going to make it much harder for the Oracle to kill them then if you just let your workers sit there. Countermicro hasn't been removed, but it has been made more challenging than a single move command.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all? That's a problem. So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units. We should definitely make it so that banshees are the same. And while we're at it, lets give them more spells to cast, too. And we don't want to leave the mutas out. Arbitrary / inaccurate comparisons for all!
I wish TL would implement a forum ladder system so low-league theorycrafting could be ignored before having to actually get into the post Not to be a dick about it but this is blatant ignorance / desperate attempts to rationalize things through whatever comparisons first pop into your minds. Not a lot of thinking things through thoroughly, here.
Edit: also, great job with putting effort into the OP, OP!
On September 26 2013 04:37 Everlong wrote: These changes do absolutely nothing to resolve the IMBA in T v P matchup. The 10 minute push is devastating to P, NOTHING u can do vs MMMM. Mass Marauder and Stim own P everytime. PERIOD. P either needs a unit to help this, or terran needs BUFFED ALA REDUCE DAMAGE VS ARMORED UNITS. Colossus does nothing, medivacs heal everything, u need at least 4-5 colossus to be effective and its impossible to get that many collasuss considering there cost. How everyone doesn't see this is beyond belief.. everyone knows terran is OP... especially vs P
And all you trolls can sit here and say stop crying, ur a noob, etc... but we all know its true.
I was hoping to read some good news that blizzard finally realizes how OP terran is with mules, medivacs, mines, SCANS, and just making marine mauarder and owning everything and everyone. It's ridiculous and boring.
P.S. I just had to copy this from Bnet forums, I find it hilarious :D
phew, almost thought you were thinking it for real while reading the first couple sentences.
yeah most of the ppl on bnet forums are damaged beyond repair...
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
I like were they're going with the power ratio of Tank vs. Widow mine. Preferably I'd like to see them equal in power and a T wanting both of them in an army. But if one is gonna be more powerful than the other, I'd rather see that it'd be the tank.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Yeah, unfortunately someone saw that DTs are used in every matchup as a one-hit kill or a lategame harass, which doesn't need to be buffed at all. But if you're in for useless changes, why wouldn't you make Lingspeed available without any upgrade? Or why wouldn't you remove the seeker missile? Or why wouldn't you buff the speed of a banshee, and shorten its acceleration?
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
But it's already not neutralized. It's already great in situations where the worker lines have to be abandoned, and a ton of damage is done from mining that is lost. Think ab out how quickly money comes in from a given mineral line, whatever saturation you'd like. That just stops. This is the backbone of worker harass damage - getting worker kills is the juicy bonus and before t his change the oracle was already doing fine there. It kills workers faster than banshees or mutas (by far with mutas, though, really, i have to maintain that it's really stupid to be comparing these units to begin with because they are fundamentally different. Banshee / oracle comparisons are valid.) Besides, you can't have everything in one unit. While this unit has a distinct profile of worker line harassment, it also has two spells to cast.
On September 26 2013 04:08 feardragon wrote: I was kinda excited for the attempted DT change. I know a lot of people were complaining about it but I liked that it would reward people that could use them well. I do like the proposed changes though, including the oracle one.
wat.
How do you "use DTs well" just because it became faster? You use DTs well by depriving the opponent of awareness and then fucking them in the ass as they go "oh shit" and it snowballs from there. Giving DTs super-speed doesn't reward people for doing that - it just gives them an escape mechanism when the above strategy doesn't work. The DT speed was never a good idea and it'll just annoy the shit out of peoples' timings.
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
These Oracle changes are 10x better than a gas cost reduction though, that's for damn sure.
Widow Mine change seems a lot more reasonable. Always better to undernerf than overnerf, IMO.
A good Terran opponent that scans regularly makes observer usage more difficult, the revelation is a more sure fire but skillful way of keeping tabs on an army.
But it's already not neutralized. It's already great in situations where the worker lines have to be abandoned, and a ton of damage is done from mining that is lost. Think ab out how quickly money comes in from a given mineral line, whatever saturation you'd like. That just stops. This is the backbone of worker harass damage - getting worker kills is the juicy bonus and before t his change the oracle was already doing fine there. It kills workers faster than banshees or mutas (by far with mutas, though, really, i have to maintain that it's really stupid to be comparing these units to begin with because they are fundamentally different. Banshee / oracle comparisons are valid.) Besides, you can't have everything in one unit. While this unit has a distinct profile of worker line harassment, it also has two spells to cast
I don't think this is "everything in one unit". It still has the exact same strengths and weaknesses, its just been made slightly better at its role. In particular, if you stay active with an Oracle and have good map sense, it should be a lot easier to keep it alive, which means that even if the initial harass isn't super successful, you can still make the unit pay for itself by keeping it alive and staying active with it throughout the game, picking off small groups of lights units here and there, and helping out with detection and revelation as needed. In other words, make it less of a coinflip situation where you either do game-ending damage, or else the investment is wasted, and rather make it something that skilled players can get a lot of mileage out of over the course of the game.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Yeah, unfortunately someone saw that DTs are used in every matchup as a one-hit kill or a lategame harass, which doesn't need to be buffed at all. But if you're in for useless changes, why wouldn't you make Lingspeed available without any upgrade? Or why wouldn't you remove the seeker missile? Or why wouldn't you buff the speed of a banshee, and shorten its acceleration?
Ah, obviously we have a protoss here.
Apparently you don't understand the point of the patch. And you like to throw racial accusations around as substitute for an argument with substance. The point of the patch is to buff underutilized things so that they get more usage. The community pointed out that DTs are used plenty, and the change was reverted.
Don't throw snide comments like that around without having any substance.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Yeah, unfortunately someone saw that DTs are used in every matchup as a one-hit kill or a lategame harass, which doesn't need to be buffed at all. But if you're in for useless changes, why wouldn't you make Lingspeed available without any upgrade? Or why wouldn't you remove the seeker missile? Or why wouldn't you buff the speed of a banshee, and shorten its acceleration?
Ah, obviously we have a protoss here.
Apparently you don't understand the point of the patch. And you like to throw racial accusations around as substitute for an argument with substance. The point of the patch is to buff underutilized things so that they get more usage. The community pointed out that DTs are used plenty, and the change was reverted.
Don't throw snide comments like that around without having any substance.
Calm down. I just saw that post and thought the same things that you just told me to think of. But obviously, you can express your thoughts much more politely than I can.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not because there are units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. When that's the case, we run away. Having a unit blur these distinctions like that would be a sure-sign of something bizarrely powerful going on.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
I haven't failed to explain so much as that you fail to comprehend and appreciate an existent distinction between these two dynamics that already exists and is well-shown throughout our game as it is. You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split. Imagine if DTs were like that.
I'm wondering if you're even considering the resource of APM as it pertains to having to split things up into several directions and send them places. Imagine if this was how people had to respond to DTs and banshees? I don't know what kind of godly split you're imagining in your mind, or how easy you think it is. Not to mention that you only have to pay as much money for this as you do, with an oracle, vs what you normally have to pay for hellions or a hellion drop, or a large quantity of banelings. Why on earth would you think that making this change into such bizarre and imba-indicative territory is nothing to take seriously? Just breeze over the full context of things as soon as you can latch onto a single arbitrary comparison between one unit and another? Or several others?
You really don't have a point beyond that it's technically possible for a person to split up workers in response to the presence of harassment. This is very rudimentary, and it's flying in the face of all of the detailed contrast that is being provided for you.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
I haven't failed to explain so much as that you fail to comprehend and appreciate an existent distinction between these two dynamics that already exists and is well-shown throughout our game as it is. You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split. Imagine if DTs were like that.
I'm wondering if you're even considering the resource of APM as it pertains to having to split things up into several directions and s end them places. I don't know what kind of godly split you're imagining in your mind, or how easy you think it is. Not to mention that you only have to pay as much money for this as you do, with an oracle, vs what you normally have to pay for hellions or a hellion drop, or a large quantity of banelings.
You really don't have a point beyond that it's technically possible for a person to split up workers in response to the presence of harassment. This is very rudimentary, and it's flying in the face of all of the detailed contrast that is being provided for you.
dude, you are complaining that you have to split versus protoss when you already split versus zerg and terran...
And you're complaint is that a 150 gas unit is not expensive enough.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
I haven't failed to explain so much as that you fail to comprehend and appreciate an existent distinction between these two dynamics that already exists and is well-shown throughout our game as it is. You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split. Imagine if DTs were like that.
I'm wondering if you're even considering the resource of APM as it pertains to having to split things up into several directions and s end them places. I don't know what kind of godly split you're imagining in your mind, or how easy you think it is. Not to mention that you only have to pay as much money for this as you do, with an oracle, vs what you normally have to pay for hellions or a hellion drop, or a large quantity of banelings.
You really don't have a point beyond that it's technically possible for a person to split up workers in response to the presence of harassment. This is very rudimentary, and it's flying in the face of all of the detailed contrast that is being provided for you.
dude, you are complaining that you have to split versus protoss when you already split versus zerg and terran...
And you're complaint is that a 150 gas unit is not expensive enough.
Stop and think.
Sorry, but while I'm busy thinking and appreciating all details, you're continuously ignoring them in full while reducing this would-be critical analysis to even further generalized and plainly inaccurate degrees. "You split vs one race, so you split vs the others." If that's the kind of logic you're using to figure out balance, and it seems to be so - I have to stop interacting with you. Nothing personal, you're just observably making less and less sense.
I hate their speed increases they started since HotS. rather slow everything else down to reduce the pace of the game and make it easier for people to make decisions. As even pros are constantly to slow to react.
Can't wait to see Roaches ignore force fields though and Protoss being just dead and tanks being useless since there is nothing to attack for them until its to late. I mean you can Roach Terran to death already if they don't get tanks. Not worried though since people ignore upgrades like burrow despite it being totally overpowered. But its a trend to not use upgrades that don't directly increase the stats of a unit. Imo if the game would be slower you could make those type of upgrades pay for themself easier. But they actually increase the pace of the game and it gets even more unlikely that people use things that need control to pay for itself. Upgrades like Burrow though easily pay for themself already, but no one uses it either way. Leaves me always a bit baffled, as it allows me to be higher then I should on ladder. But atleast there are a few pros that still give me hope and win with stuff like that regularly and funny enough people hating those wins often.
On the bright side, the changes are not as bad as the ones they did in WoL!
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
I haven't failed to explain so much as that you fail to comprehend and appreciate an existent distinction between these two dynamics that already exists and is well-shown throughout our game as it is. You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split. Imagine if DTs were like that.
I'm wondering if you're even considering the resource of APM as it pertains to having to split things up into several directions and s end them places. I don't know what kind of godly split you're imagining in your mind, or how easy you think it is. Not to mention that you only have to pay as much money for this as you do, with an oracle, vs what you normally have to pay for hellions or a hellion drop, or a large quantity of banelings.
You really don't have a point beyond that it's technically possible for a person to split up workers in response to the presence of harassment. This is very rudimentary, and it's flying in the face of all of the detailed contrast that is being provided for you.
dude, you are complaining that you have to split versus protoss when you already split versus zerg and terran...
And you're complaint is that a 150 gas unit is not expensive enough.
Stop and think.
Sorry, but while I'm busy thinking and appreciating all details, you're continuously ignoring them in full while reducing this would-be critical analysis to even further generalized and plainly inaccurate degrees. "You split vs one race, so you split vs the others." If that's the kind of logic you're using to figure out balance, and it seems to be so - I have to stop interacting with you. Nothing personal, you're just observably making less and less sense.
Well, being that you first responded with me by talking about the cost of Hellions and then responded to other posters about how hellions have splash and oracles are too fast (Hellions have 4.25 speed making them faster even than these speed oracles) you don't really have an argument.
Hellions move faster Hellions have splash Hellions cost less gas Hellions need less tech diversion
But you are okay with splitting against Hellions than an oracle that needs energy to shoot, can only do it from short range, and dies to single widowmine shot (Banshees require 2 widowmine shots)
On September 26 2013 04:03 DinoMight wrote: I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
it was .6 vs .5 How big is this anyways? I don't even know if it will do anything at all. I don't think the problem is their splash radius..
On September 26 2013 06:48 awesomoecalypse wrote: [quote]
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
[quote]
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
I haven't failed to explain so much as that you fail to comprehend and appreciate an existent distinction between these two dynamics that already exists and is well-shown throughout our game as it is. You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split. Imagine if DTs were like that.
I'm wondering if you're even considering the resource of APM as it pertains to having to split things up into several directions and s end them places. I don't know what kind of godly split you're imagining in your mind, or how easy you think it is. Not to mention that you only have to pay as much money for this as you do, with an oracle, vs what you normally have to pay for hellions or a hellion drop, or a large quantity of banelings.
You really don't have a point beyond that it's technically possible for a person to split up workers in response to the presence of harassment. This is very rudimentary, and it's flying in the face of all of the detailed contrast that is being provided for you.
dude, you are complaining that you have to split versus protoss when you already split versus zerg and terran...
And you're complaint is that a 150 gas unit is not expensive enough.
Stop and think.
Sorry, but while I'm busy thinking and appreciating all details, you're continuously ignoring them in full while reducing this would-be critical analysis to even further generalized and plainly inaccurate degrees. "You split vs one race, so you split vs the others." If that's the kind of logic you're using to figure out balance, and it seems to be so - I have to stop interacting with you. Nothing personal, you're just observably making less and less sense.
Well, being that you first responded with me by talking about the cost of Hellions and then responded to other posters about how hellions have splash and oracles are too fast (Hellions have 4.25 speed making them faster even than these speed oracles) you don't really have an argument.
Hellions move faster Hellions have splash Hellions cost less gas Hellions need less tech diversion
But you are okay with splitting against Hellions than an oracle that needs energy to shoot, can only do it from short range, and dies to single widowmine shot (Banshees require 2 widowmine shots)
So no, you don't have an argument at all.
I'll give you props to your enduring creativity. But merely coming up with the latest wave of random and invalid criteria for comparison is not going to do much to help your quest to know what the hell you're talking about :\ I'm legitimately curious about how your brain works and makes the connections that it has been. The part where you just ignore everything you don't like is hardly mysterious, though.
On September 26 2013 04:03 DinoMight wrote: I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
it was .6 vs .5 How big is this anyways? I don't even know if it will do anything at all. I don't think the problem is their splash radius..
1.75 radius is 3.50 diameter 1.25 radius is 2.50 diameter
I'm happy with the changes they made since the last post, all of them are for the better. I'd prefer if they gave the tank a different buff than firing speed (maybe even lowering the firing speed and increasing splash, so you can bait out tank shots with a few units and then attack before the next volley, or something), but otherwise it's all good.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
I haven't failed to explain so much as that you fail to comprehend and appreciate an existent distinction between these two dynamics that already exists and is well-shown throughout our game as it is. You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split. Imagine if DTs were like that.
I'm wondering if you're even considering the resource of APM as it pertains to having to split things up into several directions and s end them places. I don't know what kind of godly split you're imagining in your mind, or how easy you think it is. Not to mention that you only have to pay as much money for this as you do, with an oracle, vs what you normally have to pay for hellions or a hellion drop, or a large quantity of banelings.
You really don't have a point beyond that it's technically possible for a person to split up workers in response to the presence of harassment. This is very rudimentary, and it's flying in the face of all of the detailed contrast that is being provided for you.
dude, you are complaining that you have to split versus protoss when you already split versus zerg and terran...
And you're complaint is that a 150 gas unit is not expensive enough.
Stop and think.
Sorry, but while I'm busy thinking and appreciating all details, you're continuously ignoring them in full while reducing this would-be critical analysis to even further generalized and plainly inaccurate degrees. "You split vs one race, so you split vs the others." If that's the kind of logic you're using to figure out balance, and it seems to be so - I have to stop interacting with you. Nothing personal, you're just observably making less and less sense.
So here is the real question, why is the oracle so again? Its a cracked out muta that runs out of ammo and can't be massed. It is also made of glass and Christmas wishes, has not shields and can't heal. Its also comes out of a dead end tech tree that doesn't have any AOE.
I was hoping for more HP for oracle but nerf the damage. Really annoying in PvP ladder when your units are a bit out of position. its kinda auto win for the other that just "who got lucky" and kill your workers in an instant.
what does this even mean
how are you supposed to micro against AA that has over twice the range of pulsar beam
I think he is referring to Revelation usage for vision for your 'own' tempests.
On September 26 2013 07:20 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
For 350 more minerals you get 4 units that are unaffected by turrets, have a tendency to one shot clumps of workers, are easily replaceable for minerals only, and is not a deviation from standard tech.
But that's beside the point.
People are already willing to split workers to minimize hellion harass. Why are you against splitting workers when harassed by non-hellions?
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves because a single target dps monster is going to swiftly hunt everything down. How does this notion sound legit to you?
You have failed to explain why splitting for splash damage harass is totally ok, but splitting vs. fast, high damage single target harass is somehow some unholy abomination. In terms of the countermicro response, they're very similar.
I haven't failed to explain so much as that you fail to comprehend and appreciate an existent distinction between these two dynamics that already exists and is well-shown throughout our game as it is. You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split. Imagine if DTs were like that.
I'm wondering if you're even considering the resource of APM as it pertains to having to split things up into several directions and s end them places. I don't know what kind of godly split you're imagining in your mind, or how easy you think it is. Not to mention that you only have to pay as much money for this as you do, with an oracle, vs what you normally have to pay for hellions or a hellion drop, or a large quantity of banelings.
You really don't have a point beyond that it's technically possible for a person to split up workers in response to the presence of harassment. This is very rudimentary, and it's flying in the face of all of the detailed contrast that is being provided for you.
dude, you are complaining that you have to split versus protoss when you already split versus zerg and terran...
And you're complaint is that a 150 gas unit is not expensive enough.
Stop and think.
Sorry, but while I'm busy thinking and appreciating all details, you're continuously ignoring them in full while reducing this would-be critical analysis to even further generalized and plainly inaccurate degrees. "You split vs one race, so you split vs the others." If that's the kind of logic you're using to figure out balance, and it seems to be so - I have to stop interacting with you. Nothing personal, you're just observably making less and less sense.
Well, being that you first responded with me by talking about the cost of Hellions and then responded to other posters about how hellions have splash and oracles are too fast (Hellions have 4.25 speed making them faster even than these speed oracles) you don't really have an argument.
Hellions move faster Hellions have splash Hellions cost less gas Hellions need less tech diversion
But you are okay with splitting against Hellions than an oracle that needs energy to shoot, can only do it from short range, and dies to single widowmine shot (Banshees require 2 widowmine shots)
So no, you don't have an argument at all.
I'll give you props to your enduring creativity. But merely coming up with the latest wave of random and invalid criteria for comparison is not going to do much to help your quest to know what the hell you're talking about :\ I'm legitimately curious about how your brain works and makes the connections that it has been. The part where you just ignore everything you don't like is hardly mysterious, though.
You first say
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
Which is silly since Hellions cost no gas and medivacs are a mass produced unit in terran compositions whether you're doingdrops or not.
You then say
Well, it's not the only reason, but to get to the essence of the matter - splitting workers is what you do against splash damage, because of splash damage. Not units that are so fast that you send everyone running to the hills to fend for themselves
Despite the fact that Hellions are already faster than Oracles and 3 of them kill clumps of workers in 1 shot. That's literally the maximum DPS you can do to a target, to kill it in one shot.
You then say
You're blurring contexts and refusing to appreciate the obscurity of a single target unit that is actually so high dps and so fast that the best thing you can do is split
Which is silly when 3-4 hellions kills clumps of workers in one shot, move faster than oracles, and does not cost gas.
You follow this by thensaying
Sorry, but while I'm busy thinking and appreciating all details, you're continuously ignoring them
When you have not actually made a factual statement for about 5 posts in a row.
On September 26 2013 04:03 DinoMight wrote: I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
it was .6 vs .5 How big is this anyways? I don't even know if it will do anything at all. I don't think the problem is their splash radius..
1.75 radius is 3.50 diameter 1.25 radius is 2.50 diameter
28.4% circumference reduction.
AREA is what matters.
1.75 radius = 9.6 area 1.25 radius = 4.9 area
That's a 49% reduction in area.
(1.1 radius = 3.8 which was a 60% area reduction)
e: How is anyone comparing units that can be blocked and attacked by almost all other units (hellions) to something that can fly right into a worker line.
Also, hellions need to hit 4 light units to do the same dps as an oracle.
On September 26 2013 04:03 DinoMight wrote: I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
it was .6 vs .5 How big is this anyways? I don't even know if it will do anything at all. I don't think the problem is their splash radius..
1.75 radius is 3.50 diameter 1.25 radius is 2.50 diameter
28.4% circumference reduction.
Area is what matters and it almost got cut in half:
1.25 radius = 4.9 area 1.75 radius = 9.6 area
And @dino: of course the radius matters. Its an AOE weapon. The only time it gets built to snipe single targets are for oracles.
On September 26 2013 08:15 Sabu113 wrote: Fantastic op.
As usual protoss gets little and less haha. Admittedly a full on DT buff was a touch extreme.
Protoss don't have mouths. So, even when we do complain it goes unheard at Blizzard HQ.
Only the Brotoss hear it over the Psi-network. Hence, the Sad Zealot club.
Jokes aside though, it's all good. I'd prefer no changes. The only changes I am really in favour of are the changes to the Tank and the Oracle. But, most of these seem good to test and look reasonable if and when implemented (tweaked) in the game.
I am looking forward to testing these out on the test map.
On September 26 2013 04:03 DinoMight wrote: I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
I think it will be ok, Oracles are still ridiculously fragile, so if you have your defenses in place you'll still scare them away. However, if you're good enough at multitasking as P and don't lose your Oracles, you can maybe utilize Revelation a bit more reliably now? We'll have to see I guess.
Oracles are ridiculously fragile? How fragile are banshees then? i just dont get the point in further buffing that unit because compared to a banshee its already 2-3 times better in the big picture (mid game usage, harass, speed, hp). Protoss players should fricken learn how to use that thing and they dont use it because its still "hard" for them. This is ridiculous.
Still feel that the Roach buff will be lolstomp. Maybe a more modest buff to say 1.75 or 2.0. 2.25 is standard unit speed, and that's a bit much. I feel like it's much harder to notice than Cloak unless you use crazy graphics settings.
Nerf the Oracle HP and/or damage, then you can buff it's speed as much as you'd like. As it is, 1 Oracle left unchecked for 2 seconds is half your mineral line gone. Same could be said about DTs, but come on... At least DTs don't fly and don't move at the speed of light (just CLOSE to the speed of light).
On September 26 2013 08:38 shin_toss wrote: Nerf the marauders blizz yo. And put all its power to tanks! Marine- Tank it is !
I normally don't like getting all Blizzard Forums up in here, but I have to say that it makes me so sad that marauders are not a protoss unit. Like, seriously, the bulky, ranged unit that can kite has been a Protoss mainstay since the fucking dragoon and its Terran that gets him? Terran?
Like really?
Sigh....
Okay, blizz-whine out, I'll try being more objective. Sorry about that.
Chill out guys it's a test map for a reason because obviously no one knows what will happen if these changes are made. But apparently there's plenty of people who think they've mastered the game so completely they know exactly what will happen
On September 26 2013 04:03 DinoMight wrote: I'm glad the widow mine nerf is not as severe as they originally planned.. seemed a little too much. Also the Oracle range buff is a little better than the cost reduction, but I think 4 speed may be a bit much.
it was .6 vs .5 How big is this anyways? I don't even know if it will do anything at all. I don't think the problem is their splash radius..
1.75 radius is 3.50 diameter 1.25 radius is 2.50 diameter
28.4% circumference reduction.
AREA is what matters.
1.75 radius = 9.6 area 1.25 radius = 4.9 area
That's a 49% reduction in area.
(1.1 radius = 3.8 which was a 60% area reduction)
e: How is anyone comparing units that can be blocked and attacked by almost all other units (hellions) to something that can fly right into a worker line.
Also, hellions need to hit 4 light units to do the same dps as an oracle.
I wasn't trying to compare them. As I said, having to split workers is not an argument against the oracle because you already have to spread against other forms of harass. As you noticed from the quotes I posted, Rabiator was the one who brought up hellion costs, oracle speed, and splash damage.
Also, hellions don't need to "match" an oracle's DPS when they literally kill packs of workers in one shot... This is the problem with the WoW mindset bleeding into starcraft, terms start getting thrown around without context.
Siege Tanks deal more DPS in Tank Mode than in Siege Mode but that doesn't mean you should never siege up tanks.... its about attack breakpoints people.
I agree with all the attenuations. I was honestly curious what a speed buff to DT would do. Guess it doesn't even warrant a week on a test map; even full energy Vipers seemed more reasonable to Blizzard.
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
Revelation is to be used when you don't have access to observers, pretty much.
Something like .. an Air to Air AOE burst attack thats energy based (like units within 2 range radius of the oracle are affected). Might give protoss an incentive to atleast keep early game oracles til mid game for muta switches instead...
Some sort of interaction with air units would be good.
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
Revelation is to be used when you don't have access to observers, pretty much.
No, Revelation is to be used when you have an Oracle left-over from the early/mid game. It can be really useful because Observers die to scans and Protoss/Zerg armies will usually have mobile detection to deny Observers. The problem is it's very easy to lose your Oracle by barely flying past Vikings or something, the speed/Revelation change is good for making the Oracle a much more useful unit that a good player can utilise all game instead of not bothering because it's too easy to lose it.
The DT change gets axed, which is probably a good thing. DTs are playing pretty well in all matchups right now and quite honestly, I feel that if the change went through it would just make your opponents more mindful of it and be more careful about detection.
I like the tank change as I prefer using them to widow mines in general. The mine nerf is fairly substantial which is disappointing as a terran player but I think it might be justified. Of course I love the mech changes.
Burrow roach change is ok imo because rarely do people actually get tunneling claws, and this could make for some cool new strats.
Oracles are a little iffy. They are incredibly annoying harassment tools in the early game but are very fragile. With increased movement/acceleration, it will be so difficult to defend against them with marines. I don't know we'll see how it works out.
Spreading workers doesn't help against oracles. You spread workers to mitigate splash damage. A fast flying single target attacker that kills 30 workers per minute does not care. In general, you want to evacuate your workers to your closest source of anti-air as fast as possible. You don't spread them out and have them be picked off one after the other. You shouldn't waste your APM on such a futile task.
Hellions are entirely different. Their single target dps is very low. If your units are not clumped up, even 4 hellions take about 4-5 seconds per worker kill. Not to mention that more units can attack hellions then oracles, hellions can't fight back efficiently, and as the hellions die, the dps decreases significantly. They also can't retreat as easily.
..and proxy oracle hits much earlier than a 4 hellion medivac drop.
The Oracle buff is of course better, glad they pulled this old buff out of their bag of tricks. I am disappointed we couldn't see how the DT change panned out and reduced the speed till it made sense. DT remains a coinflip first and foremost in all matches still. We are all still waiting for more solid play choices for Protoss. Been waiting a long time here. Oracle change is nice but not enough.
Am I the only person here who thinks the upgrade-merger is a terrible idea that will do virtually nothing for non-mirrors, and remove what little is left of the bio vs mech dynamic in TvT? Does Blizzard really not know why they made the upgrades separate to begin with?
Why are you worrying about oracles, anyways? They're trashy units that, like the Reaper, should be removed from the game in LotV. There's no way they can't be.
Oh boy. You think it's reasonable to compare these to mutalisks at all?
When someone says "nothing can catch this unit", when the unit is the exact same speed as another unit that fills a similar role for another race, then yes pointing out their equivalent speed is relevant. Obviously there are significant differences, but "OMG a 150/150 harass unit with speed 4 is so imba!!11!" is just not really a supportable statement.
So is you thinking that having to do extreme micro as if this is some intense avoid-the-banelings game is now the new way people should be handling 150/150 harass air harass units.
Correct, I think an expensive harass unit being effectively neutralized by a single move command given to a whole worker line is silly, and that countermicro should be somewhat more involved than that. Its not like "split your workers when you see an Oracle" is some sort of impossible task.
Works for Hellion drops.
Which cost 500/100, 10 supply, the mineral and gas cost of more tech infrastructure, and involves ground units. I think I'm actually becoming a fan of these absurd comparisons.
Hellions and medivacs are permenantly useful to virtually any army and the tech cost for them is zero (most hellion drops involve a starport and factory at normal times). Building an Oracle is 300/300 with possibly no further utility for either the stargate or the oracle. An Oracle is also much more fragile and easier to stop. Stopping an Oracle requires warping in a stalker, sending a handful of marines or moving a queen over. There is usually no real lost mining time with Oracle harass, Oracles die fast enough for it to not really be an issue.
Is it just me, or is changing the rate of fire on the tank from 3.0 to 2.7 not really doing much? That being said, I wouldn't want it much faster than that either, bc then TvT would become even more of a camp fest.
I think maybe decreasing the amount of time it takes to siege the tank, perhaps from like 4 to 2.75, would be a better way to go.
I like the new changes they are a bit more realistic; in terms of setting a new standard without completely overhauling certain aspects the window mine specifically. I wish they looked at keeping the dark templar buff with a slightly slower speed around 3 instead but this is definitely a good step forward. Hope blizzard considers adding dark templar speed in the future; I feel the DT speed buff slightly more moderate could of really revolutionized the protoss race. Solid improvements though just wish window mine was a bit less of a drastic change. (But I'm happy they ad least made it better then the 1.15 :D.)
Props to blizzard though for considering community feedback.
Please look at future dt speed implement and maybe look at giving the window mine a bit more attention.
On September 26 2013 09:24 PineapplePizza wrote: Am I the only person here who thinks the upgrade-merger is a terrible idea that will do virtually nothing for non-mirrors, and remove what little is left of the bio vs mech dynamic in TvT? Does Blizzard really not know why they made the upgrades separate to begin with?
Why are you worrying about oracles, anyways? They're trashy units that, like the Reaper, should be removed from the game in LotV. There's no way they can't be.
I disagree that it will do virtually nothing for the non-mirrors, but I think there are definitely problems with combining them.
I think Blizzard just wants to increased the synergy despite the problems, allowing hellbat transitions for bio and easier air transitions for mech, I think the techlab based upgrades is where they really want people to have to specialize, not the + upgrades and they're willing to balance accordingly if this goes through.
I'm optimistic that the Terran changes will help swing some diversity their way. It's getting really boring to watch the exact same fights in the TvZ matchup. The ling-bane vs Marine-mine back and forth. Some tanks would be awesome to see. Also I hope zerg gets a change up as well so we can see some change in their composition too.
But no DT change because everyone whined about it. So Zerg and Terran should be able to do devastating damage with their respective Mutas and drops, yet when the thought of buffing one of the very few good forms of harass for toss everyone freaks out and they decide to not even bother testing it. Great, buff the oracle some more..... Then they build two turrets and its completely worthless.
On September 26 2013 09:56 SicPro wrote: But no DT change because everyone whined about it. So Zerg and Terran should be able to do devastating damage with their respective Mutas and drops, yet when the thought of buffing one of the very few good forms of harass for toss everyone freaks out and they decide to not even bother testing it. Great, buff the oracle some more..... Then they build two turrets and its completely worthless.
"yet when the thought of buffing one of the very few good forms of harass for toss everyone freaks out and they decide to not even bother testing it."
"Great, buff the oracle some more..... Then they build two turrets and its completely worthless"
The irony.
Complaining before even testing / before all the changes are done.
On September 26 2013 09:27 beesinyoface wrote: Ah yes, good goy, keep buffing Protoss because they really need it.
They're not trying to "buff" protoss; they're trying to make a build viable that doesn't involve the same units in every matchup/composition. But you're right, just fix/change every other race because protoss is perfect and shouldn't be tweaked whatsoever. Great logic there, bud.
On September 26 2013 09:27 beesinyoface wrote: Ah yes, good goy, keep buffing Protoss because they really need it.
They're buffing every race though, so you can't really tell how the resulting balance will look like.
Exactly. Honestly, game balance at the moment is not bad, if you look purely at winrates. But what is bad, is the diversity in a number of matchups. PvT in particular has been the same damn thing basically since the WoL beta, and the only major change has been Terrans countering the addition of the Mothership Core by adding SCV all-ins. In terms of tech and units though, its always been gateway+robo vs. bio+medivacs and vikings. Making mech and stargate better is necessary if they ever want to fix that. This is the first step..
I'm glad they decided to cancel the oracle cost buff and DT speed. Both openers 'could' be very all-in from toss and IMO didn't need to be buffed. However, I wouldn't mind seeing buffs come from upgrades (such as giving DTs the speed when charge is researched and/or an oracle buff from the fleet beacon - my knee-jerk is to be scared of faster oracles... but I'm much less scared of oracles than I am DTs so I'm trying to be more open minded to the change).
On September 26 2013 09:56 SicPro wrote:But no DT change because everyone whined about it. So Zerg and Terran should be able to do devastating damage with their respective Mutas and drops, yet when the thought of buffing one of the very few good forms of harass for toss everyone freaks out and they decide to not even bother testing it. Great, buff the oracle some more..... Then they build two turrets and its completely worthless.
Oracle will be as fast as mutalisks, deals more devastating damage than mutalisks has most of the health regen of mutalisks yet oracles suck and mutas OP.
I know they are different units and all, but the oracle changes are going to be scary.
Anytime the oracle is given a straight up buff, I cringe. It's such a powerful early-game cheesy proxy unit that any buffs you give it will improve its early (already incredibly strong) cheeses way more than its late game utility.
These oracle changes might be interesting in PvT, but I don't think a gimmicky harassment tech path like the oracle is worth delaying your key tech paths. The bottom line is, oracles are a gamble - they're too expensive for a unit that might deal no real damage, and you're forced into a delayed transition to aoe tech + upgrades anyway because your stargate becomes useless.
Blizzard should make stargate tech less one dimensional in PvT and turned oracles into a truly useful unit if they want oracles to become popular. Revelation doesn't help much in the mid game if you're good at defending. In macro PvT, they feel like wasted resources nowadays.
Buffing things such as the range of revelation or something is an interesting choice though. It could be a super awesome spellcaster if given more useful abilities. Why not give it a new lategame spell that requires a fleet beacon or a fleet beacon upgrade? Something cool and useful, but not op. Or maybe allow protoss to morph it into a more useful unit mid-late game unit or something - e.g. remove pulsar beam and give it a new skill.
I hope oracles will not ruin PvP, because they represent a huge gamble in the matchup - they can cost you the game in stargate mirror, yet they can be a build order win depending on how you play against someone that went 1 gate FE. Buffing their speed will only make these silly all ins stronger. If they were just a safe harassment rather than such an extreme unit, it wouldn't matter much.
They should just give recall and time warp to the oracle and do away with the mothership core. Remove pulsar beam and revelation, and suddenly you now have an air caster that is actually useful for more than revealing units around the map after failing/succeeding a coin-flip gamble.
Then afterwards figure out how to make PvP less of a cesspool without such a bludgeon of a solution which describes the MSC's role.
On September 26 2013 04:03 KrazyTrumpet wrote: I mean, trying to buff Revelation is nice and all, but I can't really imagine a situation in which I would rather use Revelation instead of having better Observer placement. idk, perhaps I'm underestimating things. My dream would be to have Stargate tech be so viable that you can skip out on Robo tech entirely if you choose to
These Oracle changes are 10x better than a gas cost reduction though, that's for damn sure.
Widow Mine change seems a lot more reasonable. Always better to undernerf than overnerf, IMO.
A good Terran opponent that scans regularly makes observer usage more difficult, the revelation is a more sure fire but skillful way of keeping tabs on an army.
hm, this is true. I hadn't thought of it that way!
Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
At least it looks like they're listening to the community. As a Protoss player I didn't like the DT change either, they are fast enough as it is. Hell, I don't even know about the oracle speed changes, but we'll see. Props to Blizzard for putting more effort in.
as sick as having speedier burrow roach, i think that doesn't really affect the biggest issue people are having with zerg right now which is the ZvT matchup. perhaps it might make roach/hydra armies more powerful and harder to deal with, but other than that i see the burrow roach buff to have an effect on style more than on results.
i just want to see either hive, the ultralisk cavern, or the ultralisks themselves to have shorter build time. i think that would be a pretty welcome and high impact, but not damaging, change to the metagame.
On September 26 2013 11:33 ETisME wrote: omg another oracle speed increase? how about just give them a mid - late game upgrade or something, stop buffing speed
Agree with this - oracle opening doesn't need a buff. Mid to late-game oracle usage needs a buff.
A cheap upgrade from twilight council, hell put it on the cybernetics core even.
On September 26 2013 09:40 mikumegurine wrote: try making tanks do extra +damage to shields or something? lol
might make mech more viable vs P
They avoid doing changes where units have unintuitive special cases and don't function as described.
Widow Mines deal +damage vs shields.
+15 damage vs shields sounds pretty nice for a tank. I'm kind of worried it would make Stalkers exceptionally crummy, but I guess that unit has always had issues :/
On September 26 2013 11:24 rd wrote: They should just give recall and time warp to the oracle and do away with the mothership core. Remove pulsar beam and revelation, and suddenly you now have an air caster that is actually useful for more than revealing units around the map after failing/succeeding a coin-flip gamble.
Then afterwards figure out how to make PvP less of a cesspool without such a bludgeon of a solution which describes the MSC's role.
I think PvP is doomed for this expansion. You could exchange the production rate of Warp Gates with normal Gateways and kill the problem dead, but I'm not sure how P would handle bio and such...
Have they ever considered merging DT tech with the Templar Archives? That would solve the problem of DT's being a dead-end coinflip before the late-game. It's not like detection is a premium in HotS.
This is nice! I do think the speed buff to the oracle is a bit much, but acceleration buff is pretty neat. Makes micro a lot easier against marines. Like the mine nerf, which seems reasonable and the slight tank buff. really like the armor upgrades being combined! transitioning or having a mech/sky army will be much easier.
On September 26 2013 11:28 TheRabidDeer wrote: Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
In the time it takes to get 4 oracles, you should have scouted what Protoss is doing and easily have defenses ready in time...
On September 26 2013 11:39 megapants wrote: as sick as having speedier burrow roach, i think that doesn't really affect the biggest issue people are having with zerg right now which is the ZvT matchup. perhaps it might make roach/hydra armies more powerful and harder to deal with, but other than that i see the burrow roach buff to have an effect on style more than on results.
i just want to see either hive, the ultralisk cavern, or the ultralisks themselves to have shorter build time. i think that would be a pretty welcome and high impact, but not damaging, change to the metagame.
You do know the mine is getting heavily nerfed, which is a huge buff for ZvT?
Its not actually that weird. You could say that the spores are extra virulent in biological hosts causing them to be more damaging to non-mechanical units.
Ie; you get sick due to spores in the air.
It's only funny because it only affects 2 units in the whole game.... both zerg....
On September 26 2013 09:40 mikumegurine wrote: try making tanks do extra +damage to shields or something? lol
might make mech more viable vs P
They avoid doing changes where units have unintuitive special cases and don't function as described.
Widow Mines deal +damage vs shields.
+15 damage vs shields sounds pretty nice for a tank. I'm kind of worried it would make Stalkers exceptionally crummy, but I guess that unit has always had issues :/
On September 26 2013 11:24 rd wrote: They should just give recall and time warp to the oracle and do away with the mothership core. Remove pulsar beam and revelation, and suddenly you now have an air caster that is actually useful for more than revealing units around the map after failing/succeeding a coin-flip gamble.
Then afterwards figure out how to make PvP less of a cesspool without such a bludgeon of a solution which describes the MSC's role.
I think PvP is doomed for this expansion. You could exchange the production rate of Warp Gates with normal Gateways and kill the problem dead, but I'm not sure how P would handle bio and such...
Have they ever considered merging DT tech with the Templar Archives? That would solve the problem of DT's being a dead-end coinflip before the late-game. It's not like detection is a premium in HotS.
I get where you're coming from... however DT aren't used only as openers. Late game zealot + dt harass is very common in all 3 matches. Second, without any additional tech you're theoretically able to get to 3-3-3 chargelot archon (yeah, it's not the ideal way to get that composition but it's far from a dead end tech choice) Last, since you already have twilight you're just one building away from HT. (I'll keep saying that I'm open to the idea of DT speed upgrade with charge...)
I agree with the problems caused by WG tech.. been discussed forever :D (Maybe LotV will see some sort of change...maybe...)
Also, regarding giving tanks +dmg vs shields... they already did the exact same thing with widow mines anyway (for the single target damage).
On September 26 2013 11:28 TheRabidDeer wrote: Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
In the time it takes to get 4 oracles, you should have scouted what Protoss is doing and easily have defenses ready in time...
Same goes for any number of mutalisks, yet they are still effective harassment. Now, why is that?
A comparison between the buffed tank and BW tank: are they close now?
I am not very familiar with BW, so please correct me.
Buffed tank DPS vs armored:
*0 =18.52 *+1 =20.4 *+2 =22.23 *+3 =24.07
BW tank DPS vs large unit:
*0 =22.4 *+1 =24 *+2 =25.6 *+3 =27.2
It looks like the DPS of the BW tank is higher. But we know that BW tanks over kill and SC2 tanks use smart fire. So I guess the effective DPS is actually quite similar or even higher in the case of SC2 tanks.
Buffed tank DPS vs non-armored:
*0 =12.96 *+1 =14.07 *+2 =15.19 *+3 =16.30
BW tank DPS vs small unit:
*0 =11.2 *+1 =12 *+2 =12.8 *+3 =13.6
BW tank DPS vs medium unit:
*0 =16.8 *+1 =18 *+2 =19.2 *+3 =20.4
Buffed SC2 tank's DPS vs non-armored unit is similar to the average of BW tank's DPS vs small unit and vs medium unit.
One thing I am not sure is the splash damage. Does BW tank's splash have reduced damages in drop-off points where the splash damage dealt drops from 100% to 50% and 50% to 25%. According to wiki, it has. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Damage#Splash_Damage
Also, last thing is the difference between Protoss shields in BW and SC2. In BW, all protoss shields take full damage while in SC2 the unit type affects how many damage shields take as well.
But I guess the buffed tank now is quite close to BW tank? Is it?
On September 26 2013 09:40 mikumegurine wrote: try making tanks do extra +damage to shields or something? lol
might make mech more viable vs P
They avoid doing changes where units have unintuitive special cases and don't function as described.
Widow Mines deal +damage vs shields.
+15 damage vs shields sounds pretty nice for a tank. I'm kind of worried it would make Stalkers exceptionally crummy, but I guess that unit has always had issues :/
On September 26 2013 11:24 rd wrote: They should just give recall and time warp to the oracle and do away with the mothership core. Remove pulsar beam and revelation, and suddenly you now have an air caster that is actually useful for more than revealing units around the map after failing/succeeding a coin-flip gamble.
Then afterwards figure out how to make PvP less of a cesspool without such a bludgeon of a solution which describes the MSC's role.
I think PvP is doomed for this expansion. You could exchange the production rate of Warp Gates with normal Gateways and kill the problem dead, but I'm not sure how P would handle bio and such...
Have they ever considered merging DT tech with the Templar Archives? That would solve the problem of DT's being a dead-end coinflip before the late-game. It's not like detection is a premium in HotS.
Well, theres the general issue of PvP being volatile, and the underlying problem of warpgates and how it affects Protoss. Ultimately, warp gates are the reason PvP is so coin flippy and unforgiving, but it's not really a realistic solution to consider. It's becoming increasingly more evident however that PvP may never truly be solved with just a band-aid fix(aka the MSC). But for the benefit of other match-ups (mainly PvT), The return of a true air caster (a pseudo arbiter) and the removal of the MSC to be replaced with a new band-aid is more desirable than our current situation. I just have NFC what that band-aid for PvP is without the MSC nexi cannon.
Unrelated, I like the irony that the solution to most of Protoss's problems is actually the revertion of Protoss back towards it's BW form.
On September 26 2013 11:28 TheRabidDeer wrote: Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
In the time it takes to get 4 oracles, you should have scouted what Protoss is doing and easily have defenses ready in time...
Same goes for any number of mutalisks, yet they are still effective harassment. Now, why is that?
Because zerg makes 10-20 of them at a time and protoss anti-air sucks complete ass?
Blizzard needs to make units stronger yet more difficult to use. "Buffs" should come via skill, so players who play exactly the same do not benefit.
They say that they want more diversity, but buffs and nerfs like these only temporarily change things up. It will get dull quickly, though. Exciting gameplay should come from skill, not things that players/viewers have not seen before that will eventually be the same every game because it is undoubtedly the best way to play and easy enough for everyone to do.
On September 26 2013 11:28 TheRabidDeer wrote: Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
In the time it takes to get 4 oracles, you should have scouted what Protoss is doing and easily have defenses ready in time...
Same goes for any number of mutalisks, yet they are still effective harassment. Now, why is that?
Because zerg makes 10-20 of them at a time and protoss anti-air sucks complete ass?
I dont just mean ZvP, but also ZvZ and ZvT.
New oracle should be as effective if not more effective at harassing when compared to mutalisks and you should only need 3-5 of them instead of 15 or more.
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
That last idea is the best idea for a DT speed buff, however I think blizzard doesnt get that tanks are never going to be used unless they are worth using, you have to get 11 tank volleys off for this patch to even be relevant, meaning the only matchup where it matters is TvT. mixing tanks into bio mine will not happen, no one wants to make a unit that does way less for way more cost and way more supply, only reason bio tank was usable in Wings was because of the OPfestor, and better mutas means tanks are awful units now.
On September 26 2013 12:20 KirkSC wrote: It seems David Kim is going to get off his ass and attempt to fix his broken game now. It only took an entire month of record low stream viewership
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
That last idea is the best idea for a DT speed buff, however I think blizzard doesnt get that tanks are never going to be used unless they are worth using, you have to get 11 tank volleys off for this patch to even be relevant, meaning the only matchup where it matters is TvT. mixing tanks into bio mine will not happen, no one wants to make a unit that does way less for way more cost and way more supply, only reason bio tank was usable in Wings was because of the OPfestor, and better mutas means tanks are awful units now.
Math doesn't work that way. You don't have to fire 11 times and get an extra shot to receive benefits from increased attack speed.
On September 26 2013 12:20 KirkSC wrote: It seems David Kim is going to get off his ass and attempt to fix his broken game now. It only took an entire month of record low stream viewership
Question is, Is it already too late?
Number tweaks will do nothing. Ditto for an expansion. It all started with SC2 at its very core, so anything based around it is just hanging off something broken.
Its not actually that weird. You could say that the spores are extra virulent in biological hosts causing them to be more damaging to non-mechanical units.
Ie; you get sick due to spores in the air.
It's only funny because it only affects 2 units in the whole game.... both zerg....
5 units including mutas, ovies, corruptors, broodlords, and overseers.
More if you include neuraling a probe, rebuilding the protoss tech tree up to stargate, and using phoenixes to pick up any number of ground-based biological units.
On September 26 2013 04:19 Hider wrote: Not really a fan of the Oracle as a design. Revelation is just super boring ability, and I don't mind not seeing it very often (though protoss as a race is quite boring to watch so probably doesn't matter that much).
The Oracle is a terrible design. Protoss already has it's gimmick unit with the DT, and the Oracle is redundant. If your opponent isn't prepared and doesn't scout well, you'll do a lot of damage. If your opponent is prepared, you're just behind.
Its not actually that weird. You could say that the spores are extra virulent in biological hosts causing them to be more damaging to non-mechanical units.
Ie; you get sick due to spores in the air.
It's only funny because it only affects 2 units in the whole game.... both zerg....
5 units including mutas, ovies, corruptors, broodlords, and overseers.
More if you include neuraling a probe, rebuilding the protoss tech tree up to stargate, and using phoenixes to pick up any number of ground-based biological units.
yeah... They should have give zerg more anti air GROUND unit option and remove stupid spore buff. All blames to hydra being lair tech! I'm still waiting for expansion to fix this :p BUFF HYDRA!!! + Show Spoiler +
(how about hydra have +bio tag both ground and air?)
On September 26 2013 04:19 Hider wrote: Not really a fan of the Oracle as a design. Revelation is just super boring ability, and I don't mind not seeing it very often (though protoss as a race is quite boring to watch so probably doesn't matter that much).
The Oracle is a terrible design. Protoss already has it's gimmick unit with the DT, and the Oracle is redundant. If your opponent isn't prepared and doesn't scout well, you'll do a lot of damage. If your opponent is prepared, you're just behind.
I miss cloaking field I wish they remove mothership (is this still exist?) and give that to oracle (fleet beacon upgrade!)
David Kim... if only your job was based on your performance like most peoples...we spoon fed you solutions to the game during the HOTS Beta and you ignored them. Good thing you aren't held accountable.
Where is the 50% area nerf for storm and banelings? How about reverting the siege tank damage nerfs first? Why not give Banshee's 4 speed as well for the lulz?
On September 26 2013 13:00 Loccstana wrote: Where is the 50% area nerf for storm and banelings? How about reverting the siege tank damage nerfs first? Why not give Banshee's 4 speed as well for the lulz?
they should twice the speed of every air unit. Its funny how marines and zerglings can run faster than rockets and planes.
The BW tank dealt 70 (75% vs medium, 50% vs small) damage with a cooldown of 75 in siege mode. In SC2 time, that would mean a cooldown of 4.3 and brings us to the dps:
Now it's even higher, the normal damage being higher then the medium damage with the BW tank. The SC2 tank also has 10 more health, 1 more range, and waaaay more dps in tank mode. So if you asked me, I'd say the Crucio Siege Tank is better then the Arclite Siege Tank.
I'm really digging these changes on paper, and can't wait to see how it plays out. As a zerg player, I'm happy about mines; as a new terran player, I'm sad. Also can't wait to play with buffed burrowed roaches. With tunneling claws, they're now the same speed as vanilla roaches off-creep.
I really hope the oracle speed buff goes through...observers late game V Terran are sooo hard to keep alive (Rain v Taeja - whirlwind wcs S2 finals) the range buff plus speed buff means Toss will have reliable detection in the crucial moments that cannot be removed by a simple scan....
And these changes to the oracle will give full game relevance...approve u TL heads!
I always have this idea that siege tank should be the unit that has concussive shell. This should allow the tank to do a lot better against ground unit and make player think twice before attacking siege line. It wilk probably be very strong against bling but it might be better than just straight out increase attack speed or raw damage of the tank.
tadada dada tadada dadan~ I'm about to drop the hammer... ...and dispense some indiscriminate justice! Edit: forgot to thank about op. I love dat picture~
Its not actually that weird. You could say that the spores are extra virulent in biological hosts causing them to be more damaging to non-mechanical units.
Ie; you get sick due to spores in the air.
It's only funny because it only affects 2 units in the whole game.... both zerg....
5 units including mutas, ovies, corruptors, broodlords, and overseers.
More if you include neuraling a probe, rebuilding the protoss tech tree up to stargate, and using phoenixes to pick up any number of ground-based biological units.
Oh right... I always forget those other units show up in a zvz....
On September 26 2013 14:07 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Now: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 With Speed Upgrade: 2.1562 Proposed Changes: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 (?) With Speed Upgrade: 2.25
4.35% faster. Am I missing something?
Got some problem with your wording. They want to change the base burrow speed. From ~1,4 to 2,25. That´s more then ~4% faster. It just mean that the new base burrow speed is the same as the normal movement speed off creep of a un-upgraded normal roach if i´m correct.
After this patch Burrowed Roach speed (unupgraded): 1.4062 Burrowed Roach speed (upgrade): 2.25 Burrowed Roach speed (upgrade+creep): 2.65 approx. about 60+% faster!!! Edit:@ xxjcdentonxx. before this proposed patch, there was no speed upgrade for 'burrowed' roach. only for 'unburrowed' roach.
On September 26 2013 14:07 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Now: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 With Speed Upgrade: 2.1562 Proposed Changes: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 (?) With Speed Upgrade: 2.25
4.35% faster. Am I missing something?
Got some problem with your wording. They want to change the base burrow speed. From ~1,4 to 2,25. That´s more then ~4% faster. It just mean that the new base burrow speed is the same as the normal movement speed off creep of a un-upgraded normal roach if i´m correct.
That's what I mean. DK wrote roach speed upgrade so he specifically was not referring to the base speed.
Quote from OP: Roach speed upgrade also increases the burrowed roach movement speed from 1.41 to 2.25
Edit: Maybe my information is just wrong. TL's Roach Wiki does not list any speed for upgraded, burrowed roaches, and I referred to Starcraft.Wikia.com instead, which appeared to have more detailed information.
before this proposed patch, there was no speed upgrade for 'burrowed' roach. only for 'unburrowed' roach.
On September 26 2013 14:07 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Now: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 With Speed Upgrade: 2.1562 Proposed Changes: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 (?) With Speed Upgrade: 2.25
4.35% faster. Am I missing something?
Got some problem with your wording. They want to change the base burrow speed. From ~1,4 to 2,25. That´s more then ~4% faster. It just mean that the new base burrow speed is the same as the normal movement speed off creep of a un-upgraded normal roach if i´m correct.
That's what I mean. DK wrote roach speed upgrade so he specifically was not referring to the base speed.
Roach speed upgrade also increases the burrowed roach movement speed from 1.41 to 2.25
Edit: Maybe my information is just wrong. TL's Roach Wiki does not list any speed for upgraded, burrowed roaches, and I referred to Starcraft.Wikia.comstarcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Roach instead, which appeareded to have more detailed information.
The BW tank dealt 70 (75% vs medium, 50% vs small) damage with a cooldown of 75 in siege mode. In SC2 time, that would mean a cooldown of 4.3 and brings us to the dps:
Now it's even higher, the normal damage being higher then the medium damage with the BW tank. The SC2 tank also has 10 more health, 1 more range, and waaaay more dps in tank mode. So if you asked me, I'd say the Crucio Siege Tank is better then the Arclite Siege Tank.
Just quickly mathing out the 0 attack upgrades and 3 attack upgrades, BW tanks did 22.4 dps at 0 and 27.2 dps at +3. This compares somewhat similarly, but noticeably higher than SC2 tanks at 18.5 dps at 0 and 24 dps at +3.
SC2 tanks would have to do at least 73 damage per shot at +3 in order to stack up with BW tanks if their cooldown was to stay at 2.7. 35 + 23 armored damage could do it pretty comfortably, and would have the bonus of having extremely similar dps to BW tanks at +0, at 21.5.
On September 26 2013 11:28 TheRabidDeer wrote: Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
In the time it takes to get 4 oracles, you should have scouted what Protoss is doing and easily have defenses ready in time...
Same goes for any number of mutalisks, yet they are still effective harassment. Now, why is that?
Because zerg makes 10-20 of them at a time and protoss anti-air sucks complete ass?
I dont just mean ZvP, but also ZvZ and ZvT.
New oracle should be as effective if not more effective at harassing when compared to mutalisks and you should only need 3-5 of them instead of 15 or more.
They won't be. Not even close. Oracles can't kill buildings well at all, are energy dependant unlike the muta, don't self heal as quickly, don't have a bounce attack, and aren't helpful in the straight up fights. Mutalisks when they get up to 12 or more just start kililng turrets or cannons super easily and then go in to the mineral line. If I have enough oracles to kill defensive buildings and go in, I won't have the energy to do jack shit after, and you just pull your damn workers away and laugh. Not to mention that all that gas for toss in oracles means I have far fewer combat units: toss doesn't do so hot with mass zealot like zerg does with mass zergling. Mutalisks are the most versatile and useful harass unit in the game apart from dropships. They're good in fights, can kill buildings, can kill workers, can kill small groups of defenders by themselves, their very fast, they fly, and they heal super fast. In what way can the oracle match up with that? It's fast.... and it can kill workers if they sit still?
The BW tank dealt 70 (75% vs medium, 50% vs small) damage with a cooldown of 75 in siege mode. In SC2 time, that would mean a cooldown of 4.3 and brings us to the dps:
Now it's even higher, the normal damage being higher then the medium damage with the BW tank. The SC2 tank also has 10 more health, 1 more range, and waaaay more dps in tank mode. So if you asked me, I'd say the Crucio Siege Tank is better then the Arclite Siege Tank.
Just quickly mathing out the 0 attack upgrades and 3 attack upgrades, BW tanks did 22.4 dps at 0 and 27.2 dps at +3. This compares somewhat similarly, but noticeably higher than SC2 tanks at 18.5 dps at 0 and 24 dps at +3.
SC2 tanks would have to do at least 73 damage per shot at +3 in order to stack up with BW tanks if their cooldown was to stay at 2.7. 35 + 23 armored damage could do it pretty comfortably, and would have the bonus of having extremely similar dps to BW tanks at +0, at 21.5.
How are you getting different numbers than he got in that post? And how does 35 + 23 compare to 73 damage? Your post confuses me and I am not sure if it is just because it is late.
On September 26 2013 14:07 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Now: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 With Speed Upgrade: 2.1562 Proposed Changes: Burrowed Roach Speed Without Speed Upgrade: 1.4062 (?) With Speed Upgrade: 2.25
4.35% faster. Am I missing something?
Got some problem with your wording. They want to change the base burrow speed. From ~1,4 to 2,25. That´s more then ~4% faster. It just mean that the new base burrow speed is the same as the normal movement speed off creep of a un-upgraded normal roach if i´m correct.
That's what I mean. DK wrote roach speed upgrade so he specifically was not referring to the base speed.
Roach speed upgrade also increases the burrowed roach movement speed from 1.41 to 2.25
Edit: Maybe my information is just wrong. TL's Roach Wiki does not list any speed for upgraded, burrowed roaches, and I referred to Starcraft.Wikia.comstarcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Roach instead, which appeareded to have more detailed information.
before this proposed patch, there was no speed upgrade for 'burrowed' roach. only for 'unburrowed' roach.
There is nothing listed for speed upgraded burrowed roaches because they were the same with and without speed upgrade before the change.
Okay so that other website has outdated information. Apparently, the roach speed upgrade did once affect burrowed roaches, sometime in the WoL beta. So they're kinda trying this for a second time.
On September 26 2013 11:28 TheRabidDeer wrote: Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
In the time it takes to get 4 oracles, you should have scouted what Protoss is doing and easily have defenses ready in time...
Same goes for any number of mutalisks, yet they are still effective harassment. Now, why is that?
Because zerg makes 10-20 of them at a time and protoss anti-air sucks complete ass?
I dont just mean ZvP, but also ZvZ and ZvT.
New oracle should be as effective if not more effective at harassing when compared to mutalisks and you should only need 3-5 of them instead of 15 or more.
They won't be. Not even close. Oracles can't kill buildings well at all, are energy dependant unlike the muta, don't self heal as quickly, don't have a bounce attack, and aren't helpful in the straight up fights. Mutalisks when they get up to 12 or more just start kililng turrets or cannons super easily and then go in to the mineral line. If I have enough oracles to kill defensive buildings and go in, I won't have the energy to do jack shit after, and you just pull your damn workers away and laugh. Not to mention that all that gas for toss in oracles means I have far fewer combat units: toss doesn't do so hot with mass zealot like zerg does with mass zergling. Mutalisks are the most versatile and useful harass unit in the game apart from dropships. They're good in fights, can kill buildings, can kill workers, can kill small groups of defenders by themselves, their very fast, they fly, and they heal super fast. In what way can the oracle match up with that? It's fast.... and it can kill workers if they sit still?
12 mutas kill turrets at the same speed as 4 oracles (4 oracles can kill turrets in 4 seconds, just like 12 mutas). They self heal at the same rate for shields (so 60hp instead of 120). They dont have a bounce attack but are just as useful as mutas in straight up fights they just have different armies with them and usually not in as many numbers which makes them look weaker since they disappear more quickly. Oracles are going to be the same speed with more total hp and kill workers faster.
Mutalisk: 9 damage 1.5246 cooldown DPS: 5.9 Range: 3 120 HP (regen at 1 point per game second) Speed: 4
Attacks to kill a turret with 1 muta: 43 (65.56 seconds) Attacks to kill a turret with 12 mutas: 3 (4.5738 seconds) Attacks to kill a turret with 24 mutas: 2 (3.0492 seconds) 28 mutalisks to kill a turret in 1 hit
Oracle: 15 damage .86 cooldown DPS: 17.4 (bonus 10 dmg vs light armor yielding 29 dps vs light) Range: 4 100 hp 60 shields (regen at 2 points per game second after 10 seconds of no damage) Speed: 4
Attacks to kill a turret with 1 oracle: 17 (14.62 seconds) Attacks to kill a turret with 4 oracles: 5 (4.3 seconds) Attacks to kill a turret with 8 oracles: 3 (2.58 seconds) 17 oracles to kill a turret in 1 hit 9 oracles to kill a turret in 2 hits (8 leaves it with 10hp)
The BW tank dealt 70 (75% vs medium, 50% vs small) damage with a cooldown of 75 in siege mode. In SC2 time, that would mean a cooldown of 4.3 and brings us to the dps:
Now it's even higher, the normal damage being higher then the medium damage with the BW tank. The SC2 tank also has 10 more health, 1 more range, and waaaay more dps in tank mode. So if you asked me, I'd say the Crucio Siege Tank is better then the Arclite Siege Tank.
Just quickly mathing out the 0 attack upgrades and 3 attack upgrades, BW tanks did 22.4 dps at 0 and 27.2 dps at +3. This compares somewhat similarly, but noticeably higher than SC2 tanks at 18.5 dps at 0 and 24 dps at +3.
SC2 tanks would have to do at least 73 damage per shot at +3 in order to stack up with BW tanks if their cooldown was to stay at 2.7. 35 + 23 armored damage could do it pretty comfortably, and would have the bonus of having extremely similar dps to BW tanks at +0, at 21.5.
I never played BW, but weren't for example speedlings there significantly slower than in SC2? If so then the attack speed calculation is erronous and should for comparison be alot higher in BW.
The BW tank dealt 70 (75% vs medium, 50% vs small) damage with a cooldown of 75 in siege mode. In SC2 time, that would mean a cooldown of 4.3 and brings us to the dps:
Now it's even higher, the normal damage being higher then the medium damage with the BW tank. The SC2 tank also has 10 more health, 1 more range, and waaaay more dps in tank mode. So if you asked me, I'd say the Crucio Siege Tank is better then the Arclite Siege Tank.
Just quickly mathing out the 0 attack upgrades and 3 attack upgrades, BW tanks did 22.4 dps at 0 and 27.2 dps at +3. This compares somewhat similarly, but noticeably higher than SC2 tanks at 18.5 dps at 0 and 24 dps at +3.
SC2 tanks would have to do at least 73 damage per shot at +3 in order to stack up with BW tanks if their cooldown was to stay at 2.7. 35 + 23 armored damage could do it pretty comfortably, and would have the bonus of having extremely similar dps to BW tanks at +0, at 21.5.
I never played BW, but weren't for example speedlings there significantly slower than in SC2? If so then the attack speed calculation is erronous and should for comparison be alot higher in BW.
Siege tanks in BW overkilled, which honestly nullifies almost any argument about DPS of tanks in SC2 being weaker than BW. The units of other races is the main problem.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
I am a zerg player and i blame myself for not having good enough micro vs Terran. I would agree with WM nerf but not to that extend. Would say 1.35 would be optimum nerf of mines, 1.1 or 1.25 makes mines useless in general. 1.25 = %50 radius nerf.
Very nice, blizzard immidiatly listening and: - not increasing the cheesiness of the oracle, but the longevity instead - not going through with the DT change - weakening the nerf to WMs
This looks much better than the original proposed changes!
On September 26 2013 16:38 saltis wrote: I am a zerg player and i blame myself for not having good enough micro vs Terran. I would agree with WM nerf but not to that extend. Would say 1.35 would be optimum nerf of mines, 1.1 or 1.25 makes mines useless in general. 1.25 = %50 radius nerf.
Dont lie we know u are terran just try to play a test map. Mines supposed to be a support not a kill-all unit. Now u need use tanks+mines, not just pure stupid no control unit.
On September 26 2013 16:42 Big J wrote: Very nice, blizzard immidiatly listening and: - not increasing the cheesiness of the oracle, but the longevity instead - not going through with the DT change - weakening the nerf to WMs
This looks much better than the original proposed changes!
Faster oracle is cheesy too, its even more attractive than cost reduction. But on the brightside its less allinish.
We're probably going to see a lot more oracle hallucinations now. They are nearly as fast as phoenix now, so in terms of scouting they will get the same done and additionally they add a minor threat to the opponent
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
a speed buff for DT's doesn't fix their main issue which is that there are two kinds of Protoss units. Deathball units and other, and there's very limited role overlap. Mutalisks and Medivacs have tons of use in regular fights and they also happen to make for fine harassment. The other issue is that a Protoss can only allocate so much gas away from his deathball without losing the ability for it to just steamroll the opponent at the correct time (in tvp anyway, the strength of a 3/3 200/200 protoss army isn't just that it's incredibly fucking powerful and kinda simple to use, it's that the protoss hits you with it whilst terran is only at 2/2 which is massively problematic).
Making DT's faster doesn't fix that they're a kind of inefficient combat unit. Same goes for DT's. It needs a stronger contribution to the main army before Protoss use them in any not early game harassment/all-in purpose. Unfortunately Blizzard really cannot make the deathball any stronger then it is now which would probably occur if they made the oracle/dt a real combat unit.
So as a terran the speed change doesn't bother me that much. I already accepted that dealing with oracles is more about throwing a block in the way more so then being faster then them, and actually killing them is usually the result of a careless Protoss. Kind of like Stalkers vs Marines early game.
Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
On September 26 2013 16:55 padiseal2 wrote: We're probably going to see a lot more oracle hallucinations now. They are nearly as fast as phoenix now, so in terms of scouting they will get the same done and additionally they add a minor threat to the opponent
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
a speed buff for DT's doesn't fix their main issue which is that there are two kinds of Protoss units. Deathball units and other, and there's very limited role overlap. Mutalisks and Medivacs have tons of use in regular fights and they also happen to make for fine harassment. The other issue is that a Protoss can only allocate so much gas away from his deathball without losing the ability for it to just steamroll the opponent at the correct time (in tvp anyway, the strength of a 3/3 200/200 protoss army isn't just that it's incredibly fucking powerful and kinda simple to use, it's that the protoss hits you with it whilst terran is only at 2/2 which is massively problematic).
Making DT's faster doesn't fix that they're a kind of inefficient combat unit. Same goes for DT's. It needs a stronger contribution to the main army before Protoss use them in any not early game harassment/all-in purpose. Unfortunately Blizzard really cannot make the deathball any stronger then it is now which would probably occur if they made the oracle/dt a real combat unit.
So as a terran the speed change doesn't bother me that much. I already accepted that dealing with oracles is more about throwing a block in the way more so then being faster then them, and actually killing them is usually the result of a careless Protoss. Kind of like Stalkers vs Marines early game.
I've still seen VERY effective late game harass with zealots and a few DTs. Zealots kill the spore/turret/cannon and DT's clean up. (Maybe I just watch too much welmu and elfi...)
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
a speed buff for DT's doesn't fix their main issue which is that there are two kinds of Protoss units. Deathball units and other, and there's very limited role overlap. Mutalisks and Medivacs have tons of use in regular fights and they also happen to make for fine harassment. The other issue is that a Protoss can only allocate so much gas away from his deathball without losing the ability for it to just steamroll the opponent at the correct time (in tvp anyway, the strength of a 3/3 200/200 protoss army isn't just that it's incredibly fucking powerful and kinda simple to use, it's that the protoss hits you with it whilst terran is only at 2/2 which is massively problematic).
Making DT's faster doesn't fix that they're a kind of inefficient combat unit. Same goes for DT's. It needs a stronger contribution to the main army before Protoss use them in any not early game harassment/all-in purpose. Unfortunately Blizzard really cannot make the deathball any stronger then it is now which would probably occur if they made the oracle/dt a real combat unit.
So as a terran the speed change doesn't bother me that much. I already accepted that dealing with oracles is more about throwing a block in the way more so then being faster then them, and actually killing them is usually the result of a careless Protoss. Kind of like Stalkers vs Marines early game.
I've still seen VERY effective late game harass with zealots and a few DTs. Zealots kill the spore/turret/cannon and DT's clean up. (Maybe I just watch too much welmu and elfi...)
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Worked well for the last 6 months of WoL...
I meant in terms of gas, zealots are a bit of a exception to what I said. It's similar to mech vs bio where the mech player is happy to trade minerals for minerals, just so long as he gets more time to harvest gas and turn it into winning.
The mass dt warp in shenanigans is generally when the game has got to a stalematey cross map situation where the Protoss and terran have both assembled huge armies and it's very difficult to just attack your opponent without eating loads of storms or EMP's/pforts. TvP rarely gets to that stage though thanks to tempests forcing terran to have to do stuff.
Some Protoss do like just chucking a few DT's around to confound the terran late game though. I guess it's fun?
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
a speed buff for DT's doesn't fix their main issue which is that there are two kinds of Protoss units. Deathball units and other, and there's very limited role overlap. Mutalisks and Medivacs have tons of use in regular fights and they also happen to make for fine harassment. The other issue is that a Protoss can only allocate so much gas away from his deathball without losing the ability for it to just steamroll the opponent at the correct time (in tvp anyway, the strength of a 3/3 200/200 protoss army isn't just that it's incredibly fucking powerful and kinda simple to use, it's that the protoss hits you with it whilst terran is only at 2/2 which is massively problematic).
Making DT's faster doesn't fix that they're a kind of inefficient combat unit. Same goes for DT's. It needs a stronger contribution to the main army before Protoss use them in any not early game harassment/all-in purpose. Unfortunately Blizzard really cannot make the deathball any stronger then it is now which would probably occur if they made the oracle/dt a real combat unit.
So as a terran the speed change doesn't bother me that much. I already accepted that dealing with oracles is more about throwing a block in the way more so then being faster then them, and actually killing them is usually the result of a careless Protoss. Kind of like Stalkers vs Marines early game.
I don't understand why all units need to be fit multiple roles. While the medivac often times or always is useful to have in fights and can be used to harass, dark templars can be brought up nearly at any place. At any if you have pylons or warpprisms. They are cloaked at any given time and while they are insanely good for harassing, you can choose to make a gas-cheaper archon with them compared to the HT-merched archon. They do have their role and I don't see why someone would feel the need to point out that they should be an addition to the main army as well.
Protoss actually has amazing synergie in their units. Zealots are easily the most/best tool you can get for 100 minerals. No other race can get a unit that powerful for just 100 minerals, that is as easily massed and as mobile as the zealot. Zealot/DT raids are insanely powerful already and can potentially force scans which is always good. I realize the problematic situations in PvT, but the 3-3 timings that hit Terran often consist of a ton of zealots, as they benefit greatly from upgrades and depending on the game you can also hit 3-3 vs 1-1 so you really don't need to rely on gas units all that much. I think the balance of gas/minerals for Protoss is actually the best in the game.
Yet back to the original point of the post. DT drops already hit before stim, if they run faster than anything Terran has on the field at that point, they become even more rewarding and with a lesser risk. DTs were viable and powerful before and that would just increase their value. They can roam the map and scout with good speed, they can harass and in emergency situations can be merched into archons which would fit the deathball well. In addition while Terrans usually have a scan, if they don't DTs are quiet powerful as fighting units as they deal massive damage so I believe buffing the speed of the DT was unneccessary.
The BW tank dealt 70 (75% vs medium, 50% vs small) damage with a cooldown of 75 in siege mode. In SC2 time, that would mean a cooldown of 4.3 and brings us to the dps:
Now it's even higher, the normal damage being higher then the medium damage with the BW tank. The SC2 tank also has 10 more health, 1 more range, and waaaay more dps in tank mode. So if you asked me, I'd say the Crucio Siege Tank is better then the Arclite Siege Tank.
Just quickly mathing out the 0 attack upgrades and 3 attack upgrades, BW tanks did 22.4 dps at 0 and 27.2 dps at +3. This compares somewhat similarly, but noticeably higher than SC2 tanks at 18.5 dps at 0 and 24 dps at +3.
SC2 tanks would have to do at least 73 damage per shot at +3 in order to stack up with BW tanks if their cooldown was to stay at 2.7. 35 + 23 armored damage could do it pretty comfortably, and would have the bonus of having extremely similar dps to BW tanks at +0, at 21.5.
How are you getting different numbers than he got in that post? And how does 35 + 23 compare to 73 damage? Your post confuses me and I am not sure if it is just because it is late.
SC1 runs at 24 frames per second at the "fastest" setting, according to that same poster. BW tank cooldown is 75. 75/24=3.125. 70, the +0 attack score of the BW seige tank, is divided by 3.125 to equal 22.4, and similar deal for the +3 attack score, which is 85. The reason why 35 + 23 armored compares with 73 is that the 73 is really 44 + 29 armored damage, which is a seige tank at +3 upgrades, in my hypothetical example. 35 + 23 obviously still equals 58, but I didn't bother including the unupgraded damage, because I couldn't think of anything particularly important that in factors into. I guess it 3-hit kills opposing seige tanks, as well as roaches, stalkers, just misses the 3HKO on the queen, kills the thor in 7 hits, etc. But those late-game units are more affected by the fully-upgraded damage, such as the 5 shots to kill a colossus and the 7 shots to kill an ultralisk.
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Its strange Protoss manage to get into the finals, but lose there. Maybe not winning the tournament also depends on the players and the situation / how the series goes rather than the race. 9 times in final of 18 tournaments is 50% presence there, I don't think thats too bad. Also that is for premier, in major tournaments Protoss actually dominates.
Oracle longevity issue is supply cost. No one is going to convince me that an oracle casting revelation is better than 3 obs. Or 2 oracles for constant revelation vs 6 observers!!
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Its strange Protoss manage to get into the finals, but lose there. Maybe not winning the tournament also depends on the players and the situation / how the series goes rather than the race. 9 times in final of 18 tournaments is 50% presence there, I don't think thats too bad. Also that is for premier, in major tournaments Protoss actually dominates.
Sick job completly missing the point here: Enough people qq -> Blizzard shifts plans
And that is soooooo dangerous. If Blizzard would just ignore the community (lets be fucking honest here as if they listened to anyone during bw patching) we'd probably have a totally different game now, and imo probably a better one. You can't just change your game plans based on some masters and below forum goers who don't even play random for the most part, it will just make for a shittier game. We now get a tank buff + combined upgrades to "help mech", where we could have just balanced out the warhound and have had mech as an option since the dawn of hots in all matchups, but hey people qqd hard enough for a week on reddit and they actually scrapped 2 years of work within a week.
On top of that I doubt anyone would actually take who wins most tournaments as an indicator for balance, that's beyond ridiculous.
On September 26 2013 16:38 saltis wrote: I am a zerg player and i blame myself for not having good enough micro vs Terran. I would agree with WM nerf but not to that extend. Would say 1.35 would be optimum nerf of mines, 1.1 or 1.25 makes mines useless in general. 1.25 = %50 radius nerf.
Dont lie we know u are terran just try to play a test map. Mines supposed to be a support not a kill-all unit. Now u need use tanks+mines, not just pure stupid no control unit.
And that is imo the problem you describe. This isn't a nerf to make 4M less effective. It is one to kill it as viable option. Then saying you need to use tanks is easy, but that is an enormous nerf that completely alters the dynamics of the entire matchup (TvZ). Currently in a direct fight it is already doubtful if tanks are as good as widow mines unless you really have a critical number of tanks. But then you need to add that tanks are horribly slow and easily picked off by hots mutas.
Marine - tank and pure mech builds aren't simply different that they don't have WMs which can with some luck kill alot of banelings. They need to be played completely different, and I doubt that is viable in HotS with all the boosts zerg got to specifically counter that. 10% faster cycle rate of tanks isn't going to change that.
On September 26 2013 17:29 Kharnage wrote: Oracle longevity issue is supply cost. No one is going to convince me that an oracle casting revelation is better than 3 obs. Or 2 oracles for constant revelation vs 6 observers!!
Maybe a fleet beacon upgrade that reduces supply from 3 to 2? That probably sounds retarded and there's nothing of that sort in the game as of now, but I think it may help.
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Its strange Protoss manage to get into the finals, but lose there. Maybe not winning the tournament also depends on the players and the situation / how the series goes rather than the race. 9 times in final of 18 tournaments is 50% presence there, I don't think thats too bad. Also that is for premier, in major tournaments Protoss actually dominates.
Sick job completly missing the point here: Enough people qq -> Blizzard shifts plans
And that is soooooo dangerous. If Blizzard would just ignore the community (lets be fucking honest here as if they listened to anyone during bw patching) we'd probably have a totally different game now, and imo probably a better one. You can't just change your game plans based on some masters and below forum goers who don't even play random for the most part, it will just make for a shittier game. We now get a tank buff + combined upgrades to "help mech", where we could have just balanced out the warhound and have had mech as an option since the dawn of hots in all matchups, but hey people qqd hard enough for a week on reddit and they actually scrapped 2 years of work within a week.
On top of that I doubt anyone would actually take who wins most tournaments as an indicator for balance, that's beyond ridiculous.
Really? Because I see the point who wins most tournaments brought up at any time in the balance discussion thread. I agree people QQ very hard, but increasing the speed of a already viable and good unit was bogus nonetheless. I agree people QQ too much, but if you see that 95% of the people dislike the change and even Protoss question it, it might be time to re-think.
I don't believe the changes made are good but I am willing to see how it goes, but I cannot say that I would have been willing to do so with the DT change, it was unreasonable and thats when people need to speak out.
On September 26 2013 16:42 Big J wrote: Very nice, blizzard immidiatly listening and: - not increasing the cheesiness of the oracle, but the longevity instead - not going through with the DT change - weakening the nerf to WMs
This looks much better than the original proposed changes!
Faster oracle is cheesy too, its even more attractive than cost reduction. But on the brightside its less allinish.
at least.. it wouldn't be super rush oracle then just hold position above mineral line. Good control will reward it more
Please consider infestor's Neural Parasite to be available while burrowed! It doesn't ruin any timing and it can prove a lot of fun. This spell isn't used anymore!
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
a speed buff for DT's doesn't fix their main issue which is that there are two kinds of Protoss units. Deathball units and other, and there's very limited role overlap. Mutalisks and Medivacs have tons of use in regular fights and they also happen to make for fine harassment. The other issue is that a Protoss can only allocate so much gas away from his deathball without losing the ability for it to just steamroll the opponent at the correct time (in tvp anyway, the strength of a 3/3 200/200 protoss army isn't just that it's incredibly fucking powerful and kinda simple to use, it's that the protoss hits you with it whilst terran is only at 2/2 which is massively problematic).
Making DT's faster doesn't fix that they're a kind of inefficient combat unit. Same goes for DT's. It needs a stronger contribution to the main army before Protoss use them in any not early game harassment/all-in purpose. Unfortunately Blizzard really cannot make the deathball any stronger then it is now which would probably occur if they made the oracle/dt a real combat unit.
So as a terran the speed change doesn't bother me that much. I already accepted that dealing with oracles is more about throwing a block in the way more so then being faster then them, and actually killing them is usually the result of a careless Protoss. Kind of like Stalkers vs Marines early game.
I don't understand why all units need to be fit multiple roles. While the medivac often times or always is useful to have in fights and can be used to harass, dark templars can be brought up nearly at any place. At any if you have pylons or warpprisms. They are cloaked at any given time and while they are insanely good for harassing, you can choose to make a gas-cheaper archon with them compared to the HT-merched archon. They do have their role and I don't see why someone would feel the need to point out that they should be an addition to the main army as well.
Protoss actually has amazing synergie in their units. Zealots are easily the most/best tool you can get for 100 minerals. No other race can get a unit that powerful for just 100 minerals, that is as easily massed and as mobile as the zealot. Zealot/DT raids are insanely powerful already and can potentially force scans which is always good. I realize the problematic situations in PvT, but the 3-3 timings that hit Terran often consist of a ton of zealots, as they benefit greatly from upgrades and depending on the game you can also hit 3-3 vs 1-1 so you really don't need to rely on gas units all that much. I think the balance of gas/minerals for Protoss is actually the best in the game.
Yet back to the original point of the post. DT drops already hit before stim, if they run faster than anything Terran has on the field at that point, they become even more rewarding and with a lesser risk. DTs were viable and powerful before and that would just increase their value. They can roam the map and scout with good speed, they can harass and in emergency situations can be merched into archons which would fit the deathball well. In addition while Terrans usually have a scan, if they don't DTs are quiet powerful as fighting units as they deal massive damage so I believe buffing the speed of the DT was unneccessary.
It's not about units fulfilling multiple roles per se it's about how much gas can a Protoss allocate away from assembling his initial deathball. A protoss who keeps making DT's/oracles is just going to have a weaker army if his opponent is playing a normalish macro style. Making them faster doesn't really change what an oracle is about it just makes it harder for the terran to punish the Protoss when he's being careless.
Dunno where all the zealot love came from. Making a direct 100 mineral to 100 mineral comparison is silly. Terran have mules, we naturally tend to mine more minerals mid-late game so we're allowed to have our 100 mins not be quite the same.
Oh and the revelation buff is meant to increase their late game power but I predict this won't really be used in tvp. As it is now most Terran don't want to go late against Protoss, and if the Protoss has the luxury to just add in occasional oracles he's probably doing pretty well already.
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Its strange Protoss manage to get into the finals, but lose there. Maybe not winning the tournament also depends on the players and the situation / how the series goes rather than the race. 9 times in final of 18 tournaments is 50% presence there, I don't think thats too bad. Also that is for premier, in major tournaments Protoss actually dominates.
Sick job completly missing the point here: Enough people qq -> Blizzard shifts plans
And that is soooooo dangerous. If Blizzard would just ignore the community (lets be fucking honest here as if they listened to anyone during bw patching) we'd probably have a totally different game now, and imo probably a better one. You can't just change your game plans based on some masters and below forum goers who don't even play random for the most part, it will just make for a shittier game. We now get a tank buff + combined upgrades to "help mech", where we could have just balanced out the warhound and have had mech as an option since the dawn of hots in all matchups, but hey people qqd hard enough for a week on reddit and they actually scrapped 2 years of work within a week.
On top of that I doubt anyone would actually take who wins most tournaments as an indicator for balance, that's beyond ridiculous.
Really? Because I see the point who wins most tournaments brought up at any time in the balance discussion thread. I agree people QQ very hard, but increasing the speed of a already viable and good unit was bogus nonetheless. I agree people QQ too much, but if you see that 95% of the people dislike the change and even Protoss question it, it might be time to re-think.
I don't believe the changes made are good but I am willing to see how it goes, but I cannot say that I would have been willing to do so with the DT change, it was unreasonable and thats when people need to speak out.
Well not saying people don't use it (as erm unreasonable as it is), just that his point was that blizzard abonds ship the second enough people bitch, which imo is really dangerous way to balance your game. No one here actually made the game, so we don't even know what they saw in which version of the game, or whether they actually had dts with that movement speed before etc. pp. 99% don't even get why reavers were removed or why they had to add the marauder etc. pp. And I think you actually need to fully comprehend the making of star 2 and get why they made every change they ever did to even get a somewhat solid opinion on any change they propose. However Blizzard are the only people who fully get it, and David Kim has proven by predicting a lot of things that did happen before hots release that he does get the game very well, and I think they 100% see how that dt change would play out, while most people within the community only see a buff to a unit they probably find annoying already (I have played all three races decently and not once did I actually like playing vs dt, in fact I bitched about them most of the time unless I was using them, and even then I hated getting dtd in pvp). I think people should speak out when they find it fitting, I just don't think their opinion should be valued this highly, given most don't even understand why the game is the way it is atm.
On September 26 2013 16:42 Big J wrote: Very nice, blizzard immidiatly listening and: - not increasing the cheesiness of the oracle, but the longevity instead - not going through with the DT change - weakening the nerf to WMs
This looks much better than the original proposed changes!
Faster oracle is cheesy too, its even more attractive than cost reduction. But on the brightside its less allinish.
at least.. it wouldn't be super rush oracle then just hold position above mineral line. Good control will reward it more
Good control as in a-move over the worker line? With that speed good control of the defender is alot less rewarding, since the oracle is much faster than the workers anyway.
Anyway I just stick to WM in the mineral line, dodge that.
On September 26 2013 16:42 Big J wrote: Very nice, blizzard immidiatly listening and: - not increasing the cheesiness of the oracle, but the longevity instead - not going through with the DT change - weakening the nerf to WMs
This looks much better than the original proposed changes!
Faster oracle is cheesy too, its even more attractive than cost reduction. But on the brightside its less allinish.
I disagree. First, it's not cheesy, because of what the term means. Cheeserefers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. The speed buff doesn't alter something in the expectation of the opponent, while the cost reduction does, as such oracle builds are harder to distinguish from other builds afterwards, due to allowing for a different setup. Second, I can just hope it's more attractive than cost reduction, given how little oracle use we see and how little a cost reduction would alter in a macro game, compared to the speed+revelation buff.
On September 26 2013 06:09 Lumi wrote: I hate to rain on the party of everyone who is excited about the oracle, but this acceleration and speed buff actually means that you literally can't run your workers away from them, ever. Before there was room for an oracle user to stutter step micro in the same direction as the workers, to kill off as many as it could before they actually got out of its range and stayed there. Now it really doesn't matter if you move your drones or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view / 'defend' in the game, lol. Not to mention that there's like nothing that can catch this thing now. Complete silliness. Blizzard seems to love pulling random changes out of their bum to try with Protoss even more than with the other races.
Yeah agree mutalisk is so retarted unit. It doesnt matter if you move your probes or not. This makes this the dumbest harass to view /'defend' in the game.
On September 26 2013 11:24 rd wrote: They should just give recall and time warp to the oracle and do away with the mothership core. Remove pulsar beam and revelation, and suddenly you now have an air caster that is actually useful for more than revealing units around the map after failing/succeeding a coin-flip gamble.
Then afterwards figure out how to make PvP less of a cesspool without such a bludgeon of a solution which describes the MSC's role.
I'm pretty sure what you basically want from the oracle used to be called an arbiter.
On September 26 2013 11:24 rd wrote: They should just give recall and time warp to the oracle and do away with the mothership core. Remove pulsar beam and revelation, and suddenly you now have an air caster that is actually useful for more than revealing units around the map after failing/succeeding a coin-flip gamble.
Then afterwards figure out how to make PvP less of a cesspool without such a bludgeon of a solution which describes the MSC's role.
I'm pretty sure what you basically want from the oracle used to be called an arbiter.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
a speed buff for DT's doesn't fix their main issue which is that there are two kinds of Protoss units. Deathball units and other, and there's very limited role overlap. Mutalisks and Medivacs have tons of use in regular fights and they also happen to make for fine harassment. The other issue is that a Protoss can only allocate so much gas away from his deathball without losing the ability for it to just steamroll the opponent at the correct time (in tvp anyway, the strength of a 3/3 200/200 protoss army isn't just that it's incredibly fucking powerful and kinda simple to use, it's that the protoss hits you with it whilst terran is only at 2/2 which is massively problematic).
Making DT's faster doesn't fix that they're a kind of inefficient combat unit. Same goes for DT's. It needs a stronger contribution to the main army before Protoss use them in any not early game harassment/all-in purpose. Unfortunately Blizzard really cannot make the deathball any stronger then it is now which would probably occur if they made the oracle/dt a real combat unit.
So as a terran the speed change doesn't bother me that much. I already accepted that dealing with oracles is more about throwing a block in the way more so then being faster then them, and actually killing them is usually the result of a careless Protoss. Kind of like Stalkers vs Marines early game.
I don't understand why all units need to be fit multiple roles. While the medivac often times or always is useful to have in fights and can be used to harass, dark templars can be brought up nearly at any place. At any if you have pylons or warpprisms. They are cloaked at any given time and while they are insanely good for harassing, you can choose to make a gas-cheaper archon with them compared to the HT-merched archon. They do have their role and I don't see why someone would feel the need to point out that they should be an addition to the main army as well.
Protoss actually has amazing synergie in their units. Zealots are easily the most/best tool you can get for 100 minerals. No other race can get a unit that powerful for just 100 minerals, that is as easily massed and as mobile as the zealot. Zealot/DT raids are insanely powerful already and can potentially force scans which is always good. I realize the problematic situations in PvT, but the 3-3 timings that hit Terran often consist of a ton of zealots, as they benefit greatly from upgrades and depending on the game you can also hit 3-3 vs 1-1 so you really don't need to rely on gas units all that much. I think the balance of gas/minerals for Protoss is actually the best in the game.
Yet back to the original point of the post. DT drops already hit before stim, if they run faster than anything Terran has on the field at that point, they become even more rewarding and with a lesser risk. DTs were viable and powerful before and that would just increase their value. They can roam the map and scout with good speed, they can harass and in emergency situations can be merched into archons which would fit the deathball well. In addition while Terrans usually have a scan, if they don't DTs are quiet powerful as fighting units as they deal massive damage so I believe buffing the speed of the DT was unneccessary.
It's not about units fulfilling multiple roles per se it's about how much gas can a Protoss allocate away from assembling his initial deathball. A protoss who keeps making DT's/oracles is just going to have a weaker army if his opponent is playing a normalish macro style. Making them faster doesn't really change what an oracle is about it just makes it harder for the terran to punish the Protoss when he's being careless.
Dunno where all the zealot love came from. Making a direct 100 mineral to 100 mineral comparison is silly. Terran have mules, we naturally tend to mine more minerals mid-late game so we're allowed to have our 100 mins not be quite the same.
Oh and the revelation buff is meant to increase their late game power but I predict this won't really be used in tvp. As it is now most Terran don't want to go late against Protoss, and if the Protoss has the luxury to just add in occasional oracles he's probably doing pretty well already.
Personally I believe Protoss is not allocating gas from his main army, as dark templars are either used as opening or semi-opening (Tails Build) and often have a good transition. The dark shrine got buffed as the costs were decreased, so its a lesser risk while Protoss is also allowed to play greedier which makes up for the gas you would invest early into dark templars. Protoss has more gas at their hands, because there is no need to actually make sentries/stalkers at least not in numbers you would need in WoL.
Personally I believe this already leaves them with a pretty stable game which they can only destroy themselves by doing mistakes and/or being too greedy against certain stuff and end up being punished for it. I would agree that dark templars are more fitting endgame harassment (warpprism raid, runbys) or when approaching unit max. I would put their use into the earlier stages of the game and the early late/very late. I don't feel their use in midgame is as valueable because as you pointed out, they cost gas and they can't do anything zealots wouldn't be able to achieve in a raid for just minerals.
My comparison wasn't to adjucate people about economy, but about synergie. Ofcourse Terran has mules, still the zealot holds amazing synergie as most Protoss units cost a lot of gas and with the zealot you get a powerful combat / harass unit which can also be massed with the ressource being worth less to you (Protoss).
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Its strange Protoss manage to get into the finals, but lose there. Maybe not winning the tournament also depends on the players and the situation / how the series goes rather than the race. 9 times in final of 18 tournaments is 50% presence there, I don't think thats too bad. Also that is for premier, in major tournaments Protoss actually dominates.
Sick job completly missing the point here: Enough people qq -> Blizzard shifts plans
And that is soooooo dangerous. If Blizzard would just ignore the community (lets be fucking honest here as if they listened to anyone during bw patching) we'd probably have a totally different game now, and imo probably a better one. You can't just change your game plans based on some masters and below forum goers who don't even play random for the most part, it will just make for a shittier game. We now get a tank buff + combined upgrades to "help mech", where we could have just balanced out the warhound and have had mech as an option since the dawn of hots in all matchups, but hey people qqd hard enough for a week on reddit and they actually scrapped 2 years of work within a week.
On top of that I doubt anyone would actually take who wins most tournaments as an indicator for balance, that's beyond ridiculous.
Really? Because I see the point who wins most tournaments brought up at any time in the balance discussion thread. I agree people QQ very hard, but increasing the speed of a already viable and good unit was bogus nonetheless. I agree people QQ too much, but if you see that 95% of the people dislike the change and even Protoss question it, it might be time to re-think.
I don't believe the changes made are good but I am willing to see how it goes, but I cannot say that I would have been willing to do so with the DT change, it was unreasonable and thats when people need to speak out.
Well not saying people don't use it (as erm unreasonable as it is), just that his point was that blizzard abonds ship the second enough people bitch, which imo is really dangerous way to balance your game. No one here actually made the game, so we don't even know what they saw in which version of the game, or whether they actually had dts with that movement speed before etc. pp. 99% don't even get why reavers were removed or why they had to add the marauder etc. pp. And I think you actually need to fully comprehend the making of star 2 and get why they made every change they ever did to even get a somewhat solid opinion on any change they propose. However Blizzard are the only people who fully get it, and David Kim has proven by predicting a lot of things that did happen before hots release that he does get the game very well, and I think they 100% see how that dt change would play out, while most people within the community only see a buff to a unit they probably find annoying already (I have played all three races decently and not once did I actually like playing vs dt, in fact I bitched about them most of the time unless I was using them, and even then I hated getting dtd in pvp). I think people should speak out when they find it fitting, I just don't think their opinion should be valued this highly, given most don't even understand why the game is the way it is atm.
I agree. Thats why I will often times post my thoughts and explanation on buffs/nerfs Blizzard suggests. I will think about the effect in the match ups and voice my concerns. I believe this is the feedback Blizzard needs but I would agree that most people are blatantly whining because they dislike something and solely for that purpose. I also agree that its a dangerous approach to listen too much, but it would be as dangerous to not listen enough.
I think PvP is doomed for this expansion. You could exchange the production rate of Warp Gates with normal Gateways and kill the problem dead, but I'm not sure how P would handle bio and such...
Oh my God! [Suggestion] New Ability (Immortal): The Immortal Grudge In the Golden Age of the Immortal-kin they had the ability to be warped-in from the Warp Gate. But they were left out, always been bearing a grudge, they gain a +50 damage vs Warp Gate units.
Seems nice, but I'm not sure the buff of the tank compensate enough the nerf of the Widow mine, I guess it has to be tested, hard to see how much it changes the engagement.
About the widow mine, I had several suggestions, while keeping the same damage+AOE (not all at the same time!) :
- increases the AI priority. - remove drilling claws upgrade (or nerf) - increase the time between the activation and the attack : Easier for the terran to switch target, easier for the zerg to snipe the mine before it attack. - OR : reduce this time, easier to trigger for the zerg, but it will punish zerg mistakes (with mutalisk for example). - show which units are targeted (same as when your unit is targeted by hunter seeker missile)
Oh, and not going ahead with the DT buff is a good idea. Not because of balance but because I'm fairly certain if you asked most starcraft players what the most infuriating unit in the game is they'd probably answer DT's. At least that's what I like to think because seriously, FUCK DARK TEMPLAR.
Seems nice, but I'm not sure the buff of the tank compensate enough the nerf of the Widow mine, I guess it has to be tested, hard to see how much it changes the engagement.
About the widow mine, I had several suggestions, while keeping the same damage+AOE (not all at the same time!) :
- increases the AI priority. - remove drilling claws upgrade (or nerf) - increase the time between the activation and the attack : Easier for the terran to switch target, easier for the zerg to snipe the mine before it attack. - OR : reduce this time, easier to trigger for the zerg, but it will punish zerg mistakes (with mutalisk for example). - show which units are targeted (same as when your unit is targeted by hunter seeker missile)
thoughts?
They could also add a normal AOE instead of constant 40 damage. By this I mean have a 100%/50%/25% of damage areas. This would mean that in the epicenter it deals 125+35shields to the target it hits, 62.5 damage in a small area around that and lastly a 31 damage in the remainder of the area. This would still kill big clumps of Banes, but would not kill massive amounts of Lings or Probes on one hit.
On September 26 2013 17:54 Vanadiel wrote: Seems nice, but I'm not sure the buff of the tank compensate enough the nerf of the Widow mine, I guess it has to be tested, hard to see how much it changes the engagement.
About the widow mine, I had several suggestions, while keeping the same damage+AOE (not all at the same time!) :
- increases the AI priority. - remove drilling claws upgrade (or nerf) - increase the time between the activation and the attack : Easier for the terran to switch target, easier for the zerg to snipe the mine before it attack. - OR : reduce this time, easier to trigger for the zerg, but it will punish zerg mistakes (with mutalisk for example). - show which units are targeted (same as when your unit is targeted by hunter seeker missile)
thoughts?
I personally believe, its very hard to judge changes to the widowmine. I believe there are a lot of viable changes or combination of changes. I could point out that I believe reducing damage, but in addition decrease activation time and remove friendly fire would make the mine a better tool and more reliable, and especially would help mech against Protoss, but there is no use to discuss it, becaue its really hard to actually gather information about how it will play out.
To your changes thats what I believe
Increased AI priority:
I believe thats the last thing you want. The mine isn't a very low-hp unit, so increasing their priority might mean your units actually gather around it, so more units get hit. Is that really what you want? I don't think so haha. Other thing ofcourse if you believe you can take it down beforehand!
Remove drilling claws or nerf:
I believe Starcraft 2 is a very fast game, before reducing speed of anything (be it attack or movement) you should look into another approach of the unit. Reducing speed is a crucial nerf and might be even worse than reducing splash/damage. Same goes for the increase of the activation time. Zerg can already close the gap to the Terran army often times resulting in friendly fire, if you increase the time, the fight might be already over or the mine will simply trigger/retrigger (switch targets all the time and not fire at all)
Reduce this time:
I like it, but it would also need to come with another change I believe. Either damage or splash, because switch-target automatically becomes a lot more powerful if the mine is fast-triggering.
Show which units are targetted:
Personally I believe its not needed, but I would also be willing to look into the game and show how this playes out.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Because DTs don't need a buff. They are perfectly viable, often seen and powerful.
a speed buff for DT's doesn't fix their main issue which is that there are two kinds of Protoss units. Deathball units and other, and there's very limited role overlap. Mutalisks and Medivacs have tons of use in regular fights and they also happen to make for fine harassment. The other issue is that a Protoss can only allocate so much gas away from his deathball without losing the ability for it to just steamroll the opponent at the correct time (in tvp anyway, the strength of a 3/3 200/200 protoss army isn't just that it's incredibly fucking powerful and kinda simple to use, it's that the protoss hits you with it whilst terran is only at 2/2 which is massively problematic).
Making DT's faster doesn't fix that they're a kind of inefficient combat unit. Same goes for DT's. It needs a stronger contribution to the main army before Protoss use them in any not early game harassment/all-in purpose. Unfortunately Blizzard really cannot make the deathball any stronger then it is now which would probably occur if they made the oracle/dt a real combat unit.
So as a terran the speed change doesn't bother me that much. I already accepted that dealing with oracles is more about throwing a block in the way more so then being faster then them, and actually killing them is usually the result of a careless Protoss. Kind of like Stalkers vs Marines early game.
I don't understand why all units need to be fit multiple roles. While the medivac often times or always is useful to have in fights and can be used to harass, dark templars can be brought up nearly at any place. At any if you have pylons or warpprisms. They are cloaked at any given time and while they are insanely good for harassing, you can choose to make a gas-cheaper archon with them compared to the HT-merched archon. They do have their role and I don't see why someone would feel the need to point out that they should be an addition to the main army as well.
Protoss actually has amazing synergie in their units. Zealots are easily the most/best tool you can get for 100 minerals. No other race can get a unit that powerful for just 100 minerals, that is as easily massed and as mobile as the zealot. Zealot/DT raids are insanely powerful already and can potentially force scans which is always good. I realize the problematic situations in PvT, but the 3-3 timings that hit Terran often consist of a ton of zealots, as they benefit greatly from upgrades and depending on the game you can also hit 3-3 vs 1-1 so you really don't need to rely on gas units all that much. I think the balance of gas/minerals for Protoss is actually the best in the game.
Yet back to the original point of the post. DT drops already hit before stim, if they run faster than anything Terran has on the field at that point, they become even more rewarding and with a lesser risk. DTs were viable and powerful before and that would just increase their value. They can roam the map and scout with good speed, they can harass and in emergency situations can be merched into archons which would fit the deathball well. In addition while Terrans usually have a scan, if they don't DTs are quiet powerful as fighting units as they deal massive damage so I believe buffing the speed of the DT was unneccessary.
It's not about units fulfilling multiple roles per se it's about how much gas can a Protoss allocate away from assembling his initial deathball. A protoss who keeps making DT's/oracles is just going to have a weaker army if his opponent is playing a normalish macro style. Making them faster doesn't really change what an oracle is about it just makes it harder for the terran to punish the Protoss when he's being careless.
Dunno where all the zealot love came from. Making a direct 100 mineral to 100 mineral comparison is silly. Terran have mules, we naturally tend to mine more minerals mid-late game so we're allowed to have our 100 mins not be quite the same.
Oh and the revelation buff is meant to increase their late game power but I predict this won't really be used in tvp. As it is now most Terran don't want to go late against Protoss, and if the Protoss has the luxury to just add in occasional oracles he's probably doing pretty well already.
Personally I believe Protoss is not allocating gas from his main army, as dark templars are either used as opening or semi-opening (Tails Build) and often have a good transition. The dark shrine got buffed as the costs were decreased, so its a lesser risk while Protoss is also allowed to play greedier which makes up for the gas you would invest early into dark templars. Protoss has more gas at their hands, because there is no need to actually make sentries/stalkers at least not in numbers you would need in WoL.
Personally I believe this already leaves them with a pretty stable game which they can only destroy themselves by doing mistakes and/or being too greedy against certain stuff and end up being punished for it. I would agree that dark templars are more fitting endgame harassment (warpprism raid, runbys) or when approaching unit max. I would put their use into the earlier stages of the game and the early late/very late. I don't feel their use in midgame is as valueable because as you pointed out, they cost gas and they can't do anything zealots wouldn't be able to achieve in a raid for just minerals.
My comparison wasn't to adjucate people about economy, but about synergie. Ofcourse Terran has mules, still the zealot holds amazing synergie as most Protoss units cost a lot of gas and with the zealot you get a powerful combat / harass unit which can also be massed with the ressource being worth less to you (Protoss).
On September 26 2013 17:06 Littlesheep wrote: Enough Terran/Zerg players complained so the DT change was scrapped, that's why Protoss players never win any tournaments, we don't have enough forum whiners.
Terrans have the poundforpound best forum whiners, keeps them on top of the power rankings.
Its strange Protoss manage to get into the finals, but lose there. Maybe not winning the tournament also depends on the players and the situation / how the series goes rather than the race. 9 times in final of 18 tournaments is 50% presence there, I don't think thats too bad. Also that is for premier, in major tournaments Protoss actually dominates.
Sick job completly missing the point here: Enough people qq -> Blizzard shifts plans
And that is soooooo dangerous. If Blizzard would just ignore the community (lets be fucking honest here as if they listened to anyone during bw patching) we'd probably have a totally different game now, and imo probably a better one. You can't just change your game plans based on some masters and below forum goers who don't even play random for the most part, it will just make for a shittier game. We now get a tank buff + combined upgrades to "help mech", where we could have just balanced out the warhound and have had mech as an option since the dawn of hots in all matchups, but hey people qqd hard enough for a week on reddit and they actually scrapped 2 years of work within a week.
On top of that I doubt anyone would actually take who wins most tournaments as an indicator for balance, that's beyond ridiculous.
Really? Because I see the point who wins most tournaments brought up at any time in the balance discussion thread. I agree people QQ very hard, but increasing the speed of a already viable and good unit was bogus nonetheless. I agree people QQ too much, but if you see that 95% of the people dislike the change and even Protoss question it, it might be time to re-think.
I don't believe the changes made are good but I am willing to see how it goes, but I cannot say that I would have been willing to do so with the DT change, it was unreasonable and thats when people need to speak out.
Well not saying people don't use it (as erm unreasonable as it is), just that his point was that blizzard abonds ship the second enough people bitch, which imo is really dangerous way to balance your game. No one here actually made the game, so we don't even know what they saw in which version of the game, or whether they actually had dts with that movement speed before etc. pp. 99% don't even get why reavers were removed or why they had to add the marauder etc. pp. And I think you actually need to fully comprehend the making of star 2 and get why they made every change they ever did to even get a somewhat solid opinion on any change they propose. However Blizzard are the only people who fully get it, and David Kim has proven by predicting a lot of things that did happen before hots release that he does get the game very well, and I think they 100% see how that dt change would play out, while most people within the community only see a buff to a unit they probably find annoying already (I have played all three races decently and not once did I actually like playing vs dt, in fact I bitched about them most of the time unless I was using them, and even then I hated getting dtd in pvp). I think people should speak out when they find it fitting, I just don't think their opinion should be valued this highly, given most don't even understand why the game is the way it is atm.
I agree. Thats why I will often times post my thoughts and explanation on buffs/nerfs Blizzard suggests. I will think about the effect in the match ups and voice my concerns. I believe this is the feedback Blizzard needs but I would agree that most people are blatantly whining because they dislike something and solely for that purpose. I also agree that its a dangerous approach to listen too much, but it would be as dangerous to not listen enough.
My guts tell me if Bomber/Taeja/Innovation succesfully kill 3-4 dts, they just pull all SCVs and smack down the protoss, since there will be less colossi/templars. DTs are too risky, you just send them in and hope opponent will fuck up defense, whereas muta or banshees have a lot more room to harass and run around.
Only time when dts work is very very late game or base race scenarios. I guess DK attempted to make DTs more viable, like in BW PvZ.
On September 26 2013 12:28 rd wrote: Math doesn't work that way. You don't have to fire 11 times and get an extra shot to receive benefits from increased attack speed.
Correct. If a unit is killed say one second earlier, then it doesn't have time to deal its next shot, when results in one of your units being able to shoot a couple more times, and so on. That sort of advantage may or may not matter, depending on the battle, but an increase in attack speed gives starts bringing benefits on the second shot.
On September 26 2013 11:28 TheRabidDeer wrote: Oracles do 3x+ the DPS of mutalisks, if you get 4 oracles they decimate static defense and worker lines SOOOOOOOOOOOOO quickly. At the beginning of HotS I didnt take oracles seriously but they do tons of damage.
In the time it takes to get 4 oracles, you should have scouted what Protoss is doing and easily have defenses ready in time...
Same goes for any number of mutalisks, yet they are still effective harassment. Now, why is that?
Because zerg makes 10-20 of them at a time and protoss anti-air sucks complete ass?
I now have in mind a picture of 10-15 oracles spawning at once and flying toward a mineral line. My brain is melting from the horror of that thought.
Lol, Oracle speed buff. When blizzard changes something once, then tries something else it's generally just making it faster Anyway, Should be interesting to see what happens!
like the way they try to tweak the little things with terran and zerg, but they really need to stop this toss bullshit. now oracles can give you permanent vision on all your enemies without even having the slightest threat of losing it, whereas now you at least need to micro them a little. combined with observers it's impossible to surprise a toss. you might as well just give them maphack. If it was just maphack for 3 supply it might not be so bad though, but having maphack+ the ability to clear workerlines in less than 5 sec + permanent stealth detection for just 3 supply is madness. either stop buffing toss all the time, or nerf other things along with the buffs!
I agree, it's really hard to see how changes would affect the games because the mine is a "tricky" unit, but a step in a good direction would be to reduces the randomness of the mine, the question is how to do it.
On September 26 2013 17:54 Vanadiel wrote: Seems nice, but I'm not sure the buff of the tank compensate enough the nerf of the Widow mine, I guess it has to be tested, hard to see how much it changes the engagement.
About the widow mine, I had several suggestions, while keeping the same damage+AOE (not all at the same time!) :
- increases the AI priority. - remove drilling claws upgrade (or nerf) - increase the time between the activation and the attack : Easier for the terran to switch target, easier for the zerg to snipe the mine before it attack. - OR : reduce this time, easier to trigger for the zerg, but it will punish zerg mistakes (with mutalisk for example). - show which units are targeted (same as when your unit is targeted by hunter seeker missile)
thoughts?
I personally believe, its very hard to judge changes to the widowmine. I believe there are a lot of viable changes or combination of changes. I could point out that I believe reducing damage, but in addition decrease activation time and remove friendly fire would make the mine a better tool and more reliable, and especially would help mech against Protoss, but there is no use to discuss it, becaue its really hard to actually gather information about how it will play out.
To your changes thats what I believe
Increased AI priority:
I believe thats the last thing you want. The mine isn't a very low-hp unit, so increasing their priority might mean your units actually gather around it, so more units get hit. Is that really what you want? I don't think so haha. Other thing ofcourse if you believe you can take it down beforehand!
mmmh, I don't know about this one, I was also talking about unburrow widow mine which has a IA priority so low that if you don't target all of them manually your army never attack it. For burrowed WM, the way Zerg play against widow mine these day is by manually detonate baneling on top of the widow mine.
Remove drilling claws or nerf:
I believe Starcraft 2 is a very fast game, before reducing speed of anything (be it attack or movement) you should look into another approach of the unit. Reducing speed is a crucial nerf and might be even worse than reducing splash/damage. Same goes for the increase of the activation time. Zerg can already close the gap to the Terran army often times resulting in friendly fire, if you increase the time, the fight might be already over or the mine will simply trigger/retrigger (switch targets all the time and not fire at all)
While it's true, WM is already very fast to burrow if you compare to what tank push was in WoL, plus a low IA priority and the speed medivacs, it's very hard to deny terran a position near your base.
Reduce this time:
I like it, but it would also need to come with another change I believe. Either damage or splash, because switch-target automatically becomes a lot more powerful if the mine is fast-triggering.
Show which units are targetted:
Personally I believe its not needed, but I would also be willing to look into the game and show how this playes out.
Well that the point, I don't know if it's needed or if it would make the game better, but it would be nice to see it tested. I thought that some very fast player like Life/DRG/Soulkey would be able to split their units away from the targeted unit, and, at least from a spectator point of view , it would be interesting to see (if they do) terran switching targets.
Other question, I don't know much about TvT :
If it's mech vs Bio tank, which player would benefit the most of the attack rate change of the tank?
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
if used whisely, the DTs are already a very very strong unit, so why further buff it to a point it almost makes it stupidly easy to use, do even more/faster damage (or make escape easier)and all that. Together with warp prism etc they are still very strong, I almost would say not used enough for harass. Any buffs of these units (oracle, DT etc) would maybe make them finally as good as there is no other tactics needed anymore -> for 99% of the players (the non Pro or GM Players) buffing these units brings more cheese to the games you face on ladder and that would be disappointing - at least to me, cause I already hate it when coinflip-players win from time to time against me, with like 30 apm just because I didn't scout the somewhere hidden Shrine or whatever :D
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Uh... wouldn't that mean that all the 'buff' changes would be under the 'Disapprove' category? as 2/3 of the people would vote against it?
Oh wait, no, that's not what happened. Way to be wrong.
Shame on Blizzard for listening to the community and trying to create a better game.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Uh... wouldn't that mean that all the 'buff' changes would be under the 'Disapprove' category? as 2/3 of the people would vote against it?
Oh wait, no, that's not what happened. Way to be wrong.
Shame on Blizzard for listening to the community and trying to create a better game.
Those are often two different things. Why are you generalizing so much? We don't live in the world where you can either scrap anything the community down votes or they don't listen at all. The point wasn't that every time people cry the immediatly jump ship, but rather that there are times where they get super bad feedback and immediatly abondon an idea rather than trying to tweak it. Best exmplae for this is the warhound: They spent 2+ fucking years working on that thing, then everyone qqd for one week when only pros had beta and they just removed the entire unit. Obv there are cases, like this time around the oracle (though they have been talking about an oracle change for months now) they do adjust when bad feedback comes in, people are just complaing that it isn't happening often enough.
Terran. 1. BC are interstellar spaceships. They should move instant to any part of the map with a 20 second cool down for realism purposes 2. Tank should hit air as well as ground 3. Nuke can be send straight from tech building no more laser pointing by ghost. Terran advanced since dessert storm!
But seriously.
The changes much much better then first proposed. Would be nice to somehow make mech also possible vs toss. Think since hots zerg have vipers mech much easyer to stop. But have to wait and see what will happen.
this looks better however my concern is still the widow mine nerf that. zvt feels pretty balanced in my eyes, we see more and more top level zergs doing well against it. the initial hard days were expected not being used to having to use that type of micro but now when zergs are used to it we deal with it fine and both players can be punished for being distracted/not controlling equally with banes and widow mine evenening each other out. Tanks are pretty weak right now in zvt primarily bc of mutas being able to snipe them of and while widow mines could help with this and the tank buff may be in the right direction i feel it doesn't compensate for the widow mine nerf at all. And I rather see both styles being viable (marine mine & marine mine tank) than one or as I suspect this change will do.. noone.
As for the other changes i approve of anything. 4 speed oracle may be to much but it should enable it to survive longer and maybe that way we see it live on until lategame.
On September 26 2013 20:05 Mutineer wrote: I do not undestand why area effect of widow mine have to be cut in half, but siege tank buf is only 10% dps.
Because Widow Mine shoots every 40 seconds, when Siege Tank can shoot every 2.7 seconds
I do not undestand why area effect of widow mine have to be cut in half, but siege tank buf is only 10% dps.
Because the current state of the Siege Tank is not only 45% as useful as the Widow Mine. Even though Widow Mines sees a lot more play could mean that they're just a measly 10% better than the unit it overrides.
I do not undestand why area effect of widow mine have to be cut in half, but siege tank buf is only 10% dps.
Because the current state of the Siege Tank is not only 45% as useful as the Widow Mine. Even though Widow Mines sees a lot more play could mean that they're just a measly 10% better than the unit it overrides.
They aren't.
There's a whole slew of reasons why the Tank is being completely overridden by the Widow Mine in TvZ. The radius nerf only changes one of them.
The Widow Mine is still much easier to produce, faster to deploy and relocate, much cheaper, attacks air, and benefits from burrow which requires detection to defeat.
The changes won't change a thing in TvZ in terms of seeing more tank usage or less Widow Mine usage for Bio play. If anything all these changes do is improve Mech enough that we'll start seeing it more in the match up, but as far as Bio play is concerned the Widow Mine is just superior to the Siege Tank in every possible way in the standard meta right now.
Perhaps if Roach/Hydralisk becomes more common we'll see Tanks return to Bio play but as long as Zergling/Baneling/Mutalisk is the standard, tanks have no place.
On September 26 2013 20:05 Mutineer wrote: I do not undestand why area effect of widow mine have to be cut in half, but siege tank buf is only 10% dps.
same.
Windows mines splash surface is nerfed BY HALF, and they compensate it by one more tank shoot every 10 times. I wonder if new Siege tank will actually fire one more time than the old in a TvZ engagement, probably not in most case. Maybe the last shot will not splash your marines as before, that's all.
So it's a very hard nerf of TvZ, while the MU is actually pretty fun and balanced. One the other hand there are one boring and imbalanced MU in PvT, where Protoss wins 95% of late-game situations ( however Toss have 150 1or2 base powerfuls all-ins if they want to win earlier), and... they just buff toss all-ins. Yeah, right.
I think the movement speed increase for the oracle is fine but I think giving it more acceleration will just make it too easy to control. It will make it easier for the oracle to escape for players that don't pay attention just sending it to the mineral line and move it when it start to take damage. It also make it more crucial to keep the oracle constantly moving or else it will lose speed.
On September 26 2013 20:50 goody153 wrote: isnt 10% dps increase too small ? i mean tanks last only a few in a engagement .. i dont think this will make a difference
it is 10% more attack speed, which means they might get off one shot more. Which is a 50% damage increase (atleast most of the times tanks only do 2 shots when in the open). Might not affect TvP or TvZ to much, but it will break Bio play in TvT since there tanks fire alot before dieing. And how often do wee see Marines just barely breaking through. But thats the problem they face with mech anyway, Bio is sooooo bad against Mech that they would turn TvT into Mech only if they buff the AoE part.
On September 26 2013 20:05 Mutineer wrote: I do not undestand why area effect of widow mine have to be cut in half, but siege tank buf is only 10% dps.
Well widow mine are getting nerfed because they're an extremely obnoxious crutch Terrans have been using to make TvZ extremely punishing and difficult for the zerg and extremely easy and forgiving for the Terran.
Tanks are getting buffed because blizz would really like us to make them vs Protoss. And zerg.
At least the radius nerf will make less friendly fire!
I saw heromarine marine-helbat-thor vs muta-ling-bling yesterday, maybe anticipating the patch? He won quite convincingly against a GM zerg on bel-shir. Looked fun, no units to siege or burrow, just position the thors and helbats tank the blings.
On September 26 2013 20:50 goody153 wrote: isnt 10% dps increase too small ? i mean tanks last only a few in a engagement .. i dont think this will make a difference
Especially when tanks suck in the first place because they often get surrounded and killed in TvZ before they can shoot a second time, and I don't think such a buff will make a big difference. It will also buff the friendly fire they do by the same amount. It will make mech stronger in TvT, cause the engagements last longer, and I'm not sure I want that. But heh, whatever they say. Can't wait for light speed oracles and DTs, may be time to switch to toss for the lulz.
Windows mines splash surface is nerfed BY HALF, and they compensate it by one more tank shoot every 10 times. I wonder if new Siege tank will actually fire one more time than the old in a TvZ engagement, probably not in most case. Maybe the last shot will not splash your marines as before, that's all.
So it's a very hard nerf of TvZ, while the MU is actually pretty fun and balanced. One the other hand there are one boring and imbalanced MU in PvT, where Protoss wins 95% of late-game situations ( however Toss have 150 1or2 base powerfuls all-ins if they want to win earlier), and... they just buff toss all-ins. Yeah, right.
Yes.. despite the tank buff they will remain useless vs. muta ling bane.. mines will remain better than tanks despite the nerf, since they can actually hit mutas. PvT is broken right now and I think ghosts/vikings should be buffed considering how painful it is to get enough of them. As BS as storm/colo is vs. T their effectiveness I think is needed in PvZ when dealing w/ swarm hosts..
On September 26 2013 21:02 Slydie wrote: At least the radius nerf will make less friendly fire!
I saw heromarine marine-helbat-thor vs muta-ling-bling yesterday, maybe anticipating the patch? He won quite convincingly against a GM zerg on bel-shir. Looked fun, no units to siege or burrow, just position the thors and helbats tank the blings.
Doesn't seem to like Mines in general, atleast I often see him using Tanks etc. But maybe he is just having fun while streaming.
Hmm if they test this stuff off season, they could organize a small test map tournament. Might be funny as hell and maybe a few pros would try to break the test map with some op strat for the easy money.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Uh... wouldn't that mean that all the 'buff' changes would be under the 'Disapprove' category? as 2/3 of the people would vote against it?
Oh wait, no, that's not what happened. Way to be wrong.
Shame on Blizzard for listening to the community and trying to create a better game.
Those are often two different things. Why are you generalizing so much? We don't live in the world where you can either scrap anything the community down votes or they don't listen at all. The point wasn't that every time people cry the immediatly jump ship, but rather that there are times where they get super bad feedback and immediatly abondon an idea rather than trying to tweak it. Best exmplae for this is the warhound: They spent 2+ fucking years working on that thing, then everyone qqd for one week when only pros had beta and they just removed the entire unit. Obv there are cases, like this time around the oracle (though they have been talking about an oracle change for months now) they do adjust when bad feedback comes in, people are just complaing that it isn't happening often enough.
You have absolutely no idea how video game development works. Blizzard worked 2 years on the WHOLE expansion, including all changes to battle.net. The warhound is just this tiny little asset that they created, which still appears in the campaign mode, so it wasn't even scrapped. The same thing happens to many other units such as the diamondback, the lurker, the firebat, the wraith, etc.
Moreover, Blizzard realized that the warhound's role overlaps too much with the marauder and takes away from what makes Mech play different from bio.
Windows mines splash surface is nerfed BY HALF, and they compensate it by one more tank shoot every 10 times. I wonder if new Siege tank will actually fire one more time than the old in a TvZ engagement, probably not in most case. Maybe the last shot will not splash your marines as before, that's all.
So it's a very hard nerf of TvZ, while the MU is actually pretty fun and balanced. One the other hand there are one boring and imbalanced MU in PvT, where Protoss wins 95% of late-game situations ( however Toss have 150 1or2 base powerfuls all-ins if they want to win earlier), and... they just buff toss all-ins. Yeah, right.
They don't compensate at all, it is a fun and balanced matchup and turns heavily into the favor of Terran if a Mine hits a giant mass of lings (or in favor of the Zerg if a giant group of Marines or Medivacs is hit), other then that it is a back and forth. That would not be prevented as the Pro games usually revolves around small ling baneling teams running in and the nerfed splash is more then enough for it. So it actually only removes the gamebreaking moments Widow Mines have. (Actually it is also a buff, since your whole Marine army doesn't die to an hallucination or an speed Overseer anymore ... I will miss this)
So it actually helps noobs. The only factor that could happen is that the splash is so weak now, that a-moving over the Terran army becomes viable. (in that case the patch would have to be changed)
The only thing where the reduced range becomes critical is against Busts, thats probably why we saw the Attack speed increase, since a Tank hits the Banelings twice now before reaching the Depots. (100% damage increase against slow banelings without creep yay !)
So we might actually see an combination of Siege tanks and Widowmines in TvZ and that would be awesome and super hard to control, so probably not since the game is to fast for hard to control stuff.
What about keeping the splash radious vs air but reducing it on the ground? An explosion in mid-air spread farther, right? Minesniping with mutas should feel risky imo.
On September 26 2013 21:46 Slydie wrote: What about keeping the splash radious vs air but reducing it on the ground? An explosion in mid-air spread farther, right? Minesniping with mutas should feel risky imo.
Minesniping with mutas is even riskier than simply flying near random widow mine, since you ALWAYS stack dem mutas to snipe the mine. So if rocket does get off, it does TERRIBLE TERRIBLE damage all the time.
I like the suggestions of people I have read from the threads:
1. how about charge upgrade to give a bit of movement speed to DTs too? just a little bit like zealot's movement buff after upgrade ? say 3.1 not 3.375
2. bigger shields and less life for oracle for more regen. change it up 100 shields / 60 life?
3. a bit quicker transformation for the transformers, maybe a transformation upgrade for tanks, vikings and hellions.
On September 26 2013 21:46 Slydie wrote: What about keeping the splash radious vs air but reducing it on the ground? An explosion in mid-air spread farther, right? Minesniping with mutas should feel risky imo.
Agree to an extent. Medivacs and Mutas cost the same. Both got (mostly) defensive buffs in the add-on, Medivacs speed and Mutas regen. Still looking at progames, it seems to me it's much easier to keep Medivacs alive than Mutas.
That said, I like the mine and the gameplay it encourages in TvZ. Would have preferred a Bio or Medivac nerf instead to go with a tank buff, but whatever.
Windows mines splash surface is nerfed BY HALF, and they compensate it by one more tank shoot every 10 times. I wonder if new Siege tank will actually fire one more time than the old in a TvZ engagement, probably not in most case. Maybe the last shot will not splash your marines as before, that's all.
So it's a very hard nerf of TvZ, while the MU is actually pretty fun and balanced. One the other hand there are one boring and imbalanced MU in PvT, where Protoss wins 95% of late-game situations ( however Toss have 150 1or2 base powerfuls all-ins if they want to win earlier), and... they just buff toss all-ins. Yeah, right.
They don't compensate at all, it is a fun and balanced matchup and turns heavily into the favor of Terran if a Mine hits a giant mass of lings (or in favor of the Zerg if a giant group of Marines or Medivacs is hit), other then that it is a back and forth. That would not be prevented as the Pro games usually revolves around small ling baneling teams running in and the nerfed splash is more then enough for it. So it actually only removes the gamebreaking moments Widow Mines have. (Actually it is also a buff, since your whole Marine army doesn't die to an hallucination or an speed Overseer anymore ... I will miss this)
So it actually helps noobs. The only factor that could happen is that the splash is so weak now, that a-moving over the Terran army becomes viable. (in that case the patch would have to be changed)
The only thing where the reduced range becomes critical is against Busts, thats probably why we saw the Attack speed increase, since a Tank hits the Banelings twice now before reaching the Depots. (100% damage increase against slow banelings without creep yay !)
So we might actually see an combination of Siege tanks and Widowmines in TvZ and that would be awesome and super hard to control, so probably not since the game is to fast for hard to control stuff.
Sorry but I don't beleive for a moment this isn't a huge nerf to widow mines, also at pro level. Sure if the widow mine now already only hits one ling it is not a difference, but when that would happen generally then widow mines would already be horrible. In general they hit more, even if the zerg doesn't clump everything up and a-moves. With a 50% reduction in splash area that is a huge nerf.
On September 26 2013 21:46 Slydie wrote: What about keeping the splash radious vs air but reducing it on the ground? An explosion in mid-air spread farther, right? Minesniping with mutas should feel risky imo.
Minesniping with mutas is even riskier than simply flying near random widow mine, since you ALWAYS stack dem mutas to snipe the mine. So if rocket does get off, it does TERRIBLE TERRIBLE damage all the time.
Which barely ever happens. And if it does happen, then they go back for 10 seconds and regenerate HP. For WoL mutas splashing the whole muta ball is relevant, for HotS mutas not so much.
Acceleration buffs makes units that are microed move more faster and react faster than non microed but same units?
If yes then blizzard should check all accelaration speeds and apply a good bit of buffs to all units, that way, a microed unit is better than an attack move mode unit. Example, even a thor, when microed since the acceleration change would be better than A mode thor. This way distinction from players with great micro can still make a difference and would give distinction. Say Hero's Warp prisms.
On September 26 2013 21:46 Slydie wrote: What about keeping the splash radious vs air but reducing it on the ground? An explosion in mid-air spread farther, right? Minesniping with mutas should feel risky imo.
Minesniping with mutas is even riskier than simply flying near random widow mine, since you ALWAYS stack dem mutas to snipe the mine. So if rocket does get off, it does TERRIBLE TERRIBLE damage all the time.
Which barely ever happens. And if it does happen, then they go back for 10 seconds and regenerate HP. For WoL mutas splashing the whole muta ball is relevant, for HotS mutas not so much.
It does happen often enough, especially in 10-15 muta clumps minesniping situations. Also, 40 seconds, not 10, learntehgame.
On September 26 2013 21:59 woreyour wrote: Am i right with this?
Acceleration buffs makes units that are microed move more faster and react faster than non microed but same units?
If yes then blizzard should check all accelaration speeds and apply a good bit of buffs to all units, that way, a microed unit is better than an attack mode unit. Example, even a thor, when microed since the acceleration change would be better than A mode thor. This way distinction from players with great micro can still make a difference and would give distinction. Say Hero's Warp prisms.
these are units that are supposed to be large, slow, and lumbering. it would be silly if a thor could move and attack like a marine.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Uh... wouldn't that mean that all the 'buff' changes would be under the 'Disapprove' category? as 2/3 of the people would vote against it?
Oh wait, no, that's not what happened. Way to be wrong.
Shame on Blizzard for listening to the community and trying to create a better game.
Those are often two different things. Why are you generalizing so much? We don't live in the world where you can either scrap anything the community down votes or they don't listen at all. The point wasn't that every time people cry the immediatly jump ship, but rather that there are times where they get super bad feedback and immediatly abondon an idea rather than trying to tweak it. Best exmplae for this is the warhound: They spent 2+ fucking years working on that thing, then everyone qqd for one week when only pros had beta and they just removed the entire unit. Obv there are cases, like this time around the oracle (though they have been talking about an oracle change for months now) they do adjust when bad feedback comes in, people are just complaing that it isn't happening often enough.
You have absolutely no idea how video game development works. Blizzard worked 2 years on the WHOLE expansion, including all changes to battle.net. The warhound is just this tiny little asset that they created, which still appears in the campaign mode, so it wasn't even scrapped. The same thing happens to many other units such as the diamondback, the lurker, the firebat, the wraith, etc.
Moreover, Blizzard realized that the warhound's role overlaps too much with the marauder and takes away from what makes Mech play different from bio.
so i guess they didn't realize how much the widow mine overlaps with the siege tank in those two years?
On September 26 2013 21:59 woreyour wrote: Am i right with this?
Acceleration buffs makes units that are microed move more faster and react faster than non microed but same units?
If yes then blizzard should check all accelaration speeds and apply a good bit of buffs to all units, that way, a microed unit is better than an attack mode unit. Example, even a thor, when microed since the acceleration change would be better than A mode thor. This way distinction from players with great micro can still make a difference and would give distinction. Say Hero's Warp prisms.
these are units that are supposed to be large, slow, and lumbering. it would be silly if a thor could move and attack like a marine.
it was just an example, but even though. A microed unit should always be better because of the animation cancelling involved. It does not mean it would be a very big thing, lets just say that when you micro it it would profit you with 1 or 2 more shots (not sure what is the impact) but the point is a microed unit would always be better than left attacking in attack move mode. This way people with extra effort of microing can reap more rewards, he can always choose to multitask better or just choose straight macroing.
On September 26 2013 20:05 Mutineer wrote: I do not undestand why area effect of widow mine have to be cut in half, but siege tank buf is only 10% dps.
Because Widow Mine shoots every 40 seconds, when Siege Tank can shoot every 2.7 seconds
the problem with the siege tank/widow mine comparison is ling bling muta play where zerg just runs into the terran army for close combat. the siege tank's attack speed doesnt mean a thing in the end if it only attacks once or twice before its surrounded by lings and blings.
the difference here being the one siege tank shot does incredibly less damage than the widow mine shot, for 3x the cost, and it doesnt even hit mutas.
Where are the stats that show Terran being overpowered? Can someone please link? If there aren't any stats that show that since the last patch with overseer speed can someone please explain why they are nerfing Terran and buffing the other 2 races? There is no possible way to interpret mech upgrade and tank reload as more of a benefit than the widow mine nerf is a negative as neither of those things are even used in the tvz meta game. So if the game is balanced why are we nerfing Terran? Widow mines will now do half what they use to in Tvz. We already saw DRG roll innovation with the current mines..is this for serious?? I didn't play BW but I am a mid master T and I honestly can say that if this nerf goes through there will be no reason to play T. I will certainly switch. But the reason I bring up BW is BC I'm wondering was there ever a time where the game became stable I.e. no more patching? Shouldn't patching only be used as a last resort to statistically significant imbalance?? Its such a joke to listen to the logic of "let's make it more exciting!" As if for some reason people will watch more BC you keep screwing with the game?? If you want to grow the game market for more sponsors and invest in bigger prizes to stimulate more competition..people like watching 2 nerds duke it out for 100K..they don't like watching a crowd of 40 people at a live event see 2 people play for a 1500 dollar grand prize..this constant patching for no reason is obnoxious and ineffective. All it does is reset the meta game and make the limited time casuals can put in to try to master the game worthless BC they have to relearn builds every few months. STOP THE PATCHING!! Independent of what race I decide to stick to after this patch it would be nice to know that the game will be the same for a while!
On September 26 2013 22:19 DomeGetta wrote: Where are the stats that show Terran being overpowered? Can someone please link? If there aren't any stats that show that since the last patch with overseer speed can someone please explain why they are merging Terran and buffing the other 2 races? There is no possible way to interpret mech upgrade and tank reload as more of a benefit than the widow mine nerf is a negative as neither of those things are even used in the tvz meta game. So if the game is balanced why are we merging Terran? Widow mines will now do half what they use to in Tvz. We already saw DRG roll innovation with the current mines..is this for serious?? I didn't play BW but I am a mid master T and I honestly can say that if this nerf goes through there will be no reason to play T. I will certainly switch. But the reason I bring up BW is BC I'm wondering was there ever a time where the game became stable I.e. no more patching? Shouldn't patching only be used as a last resort to statistically significant imbalance?? Its such a joke to listen to the logic of "let's make it more exciting!" As if for some reason people will watch more BC you keep screwing with the game?? If you want to grow the game market for more sponsors and invest in bigger prizes to stimulate more competition..people like watching 2 nerds duke it out for 100K..they don't like watching a crowd of 40 people at a live event see 2 people play for a 1500 dollar grand prize..this constant patching for no reason is obnoxious and ineffective. All it does is reset the meta game and make the limited time casuals can put in to try to master the game worthless BC they have to relearn builds every few months. STOP THE PATCHING!! Independent of what race I decide to stick to after this patch it would be nice to know that the game will be the same for a while!
This is quality of life patch, not a 'wewant4040winrates' also, blizzcon winner gets 100k bux, is that not enough for you?
On September 26 2013 22:24 DomeGetta wrote: No. One tournament a year for high stakes is obviously not enough is it? Or are the viewers booming and all these obnoxious Save SC2 posts trolls?
More than enough, because WCS is already a good way to throw money of out of the window, thank god Blizzard has a spare million for that.
I still think the Widow Mine nerf is too drastic. Simple math might deceive you because even tho it's only a 29% radius reduction, it total area it's nearly half as much as before. I'd rather they keep the full range of 1.75, but modify the damage beyond 1.25 to be weaker. Say, 1.25-1.75 only doing 20 (no shield damage). So Widow mines will still chip away at lings, blings, and mutas but the full range won't even kill a bling.
I'm ok with everything, except for the Oracle Speed buff, i dunno about this, wouldnt it be better to buff the accelration even more and let speed be. Glad they didnt went further with the DT speed buff, thank god for that..
On September 26 2013 22:19 DomeGetta wrote: Where are the stats that show Terran being overpowered? Can someone please link? If there aren't any stats that show that since the last patch with overseer speed can someone please explain why they are nerfing Terran and buffing the other 2 races? There is no possible way to interpret mech upgrade and tank reload as more of a benefit than the widow mine nerf is a negative as neither of those things are even used in the tvz meta game. So if the game is balanced why are we nerfing Terran? Widow mines will now do half what they use to in Tvz. We already saw DRG roll innovation with the current mines..is this for serious?? I didn't play BW but I am a mid master T and I honestly can say that if this nerf goes through there will be no reason to play T. I will certainly switch. But the reason I bring up BW is BC I'm wondering was there ever a time where the game became stable I.e. no more patching? Shouldn't patching only be used as a last resort to statistically significant imbalance?? Its such a joke to listen to the logic of "let's make it more exciting!" As if for some reason people will watch more BC you keep screwing with the game?? If you want to grow the game market for more sponsors and invest in bigger prizes to stimulate more competition..people like watching 2 nerds duke it out for 100K..they don't like watching a crowd of 40 people at a live event see 2 people play for a 1500 dollar grand prize..this constant patching for no reason is obnoxious and ineffective. All it does is reset the meta game and make the limited time casuals can put in to try to master the game worthless BC they have to relearn builds every few months. STOP THE PATCHING!! Independent of what race I decide to stick to after this patch it would be nice to know that the game will be the same for a while!
I am happy to see more diversity in TvZ than bio mine all day. don't mind having one less bio mine player and getting more bio tank or mech T players. even flash said T is being limited to 1 style and so yea, I would be happy to know that there is more patching and not feeling bad for losing some T players like you who just want one style to dominate all
On September 26 2013 22:33 DomeGetta wrote: Valid point bro. BC in my original post I said blizzard should be the one paying didn't I. Yep let's just keep patching that oughtta do it.
That's not like normal sponsor has 100k bux to throw away on 1st prize only, let alone 2nd, 3rd and what not prizes. There are no such sponsors except for players and developer of the game itself.
Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
The more I think about this proposed patch the more it feel like the Treaty that caused the Irish Civil war, I don't something that a small majority agrees on. Sure I accept changes would be nice for the game and changes will encourage thinking and a new meta.
I know this seems a bit silly/whiney as none of the changes seem really bad, I would just rather another route for the changes that encourage a more fun meta while retaining balance.
1; I don't like playing or watching mech, its too passive and I don't want it to become common (or even be forced to play vs it T.T)
2: I love playing TvZ at the moment, the MMMM constant aggression off 3 base stayle is so much fun I stopped playing random and went just terran for a month. The aoe is not a problem in TvP or TvT and I feel good zergs can kinda deal with it in TvZ. *( Could indirectly buff the oracle here by reducing the damage bonus mines have vs shields so mines don't 1 shot oracles)*
3: Of all the terran units, I hate tanks the most. Ergo I don't want them buffed if they don't really need it.
4: Zerg need buffs to help them deal with terran, not protoss. If you're going to buff a zerg unit, not the roach. I hated roach spam a year ago in PvZ where Zerg literally just spammed roaches and made life hell trying to take a 3rd as toss, I don't want P vs RoachV2.0
5: Im all for harrass units being buffed to promote multitasking and little fights all over the map, but oracles are fast enough as they are imo. Early game they punish people too hard if they don't have units nearby already, it will only be worse with this change. (My main problem with oracles is the way they move in too close to try and shoot thus going into range of more enemies then it needs to be, make it stop and shoot when its at maximum range, or give it more range).
Etisme..that would be totally fine if marine tank was a viable option. But its not. The point is the style dominates the meta game BC it is the only viable one at the highest lvl of play.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
A protoss who keeps making DT's/oracles is just going to have a weaker army if his opponent is playing a normalish macro style. Making them faster doesn't really change what an oracle is about it just makes it harder for the terran to punish the Protoss when he's being careless.
I disagree, for a few reasons.
1.) Oracles as they currently are are not actually that good at hit and run harass. Their fragility and their need to manually trigger the pulsar beam and spend energy on it, combined with the way it stops attacking when they need to move, means that their dps takes a big hit when workers move away from them, and once they're in range of static defense they go down so quickly that the window for a Protoss to deal some damage with the Oracle and get out without dying is very narrow...and meanwhile they're losing energy the whole time. Since Oracles are too much of an investment to just casually throw away without dealing huge damage in return, this leads to a dynamic where Oracle harass can be devastating if you catch the opponent by surprise, but quite easily neutralized entirely otherwise.
One solution to address this would be to buff Oracle shields or health so they're less fragile. But that would reduce the overall skill required to use the unit well, and would also make it better in straight up engagements, which could turn it into just another deathball unit. Another solution would be to lower the cost, so losing the Oracle isn't quite as big a deal. But that would make early game all-ins and cheese much stronger.
As such, I believe the best solution--and clearly Blizzard agrees with me--is to buff speed and acceleration. This approach doesn't buff the unit in straight up engagements, and its worthless if you're not actively babysitting and controlling the unit, which means it only helps skilled players and doesn't contribute to the deathball. The acceleration buff reduces the dps hit that Oracles take from Workers moving, and combined with the speed buff makes it much easier to get in and out of a base quickly and still deal some damage, even if there's a certain amount of static defense (obviously a critical mass of static defense will still prevent Oracle harass, but a critical amount of static defense can stop any harass unit in the game except a giant Muta ball--and if the Oracle is able to force that much static D then they've helped pay for themselves anyway).
2.) The other main advantage of a unit like the Oracle is that, ideally, they should be able to provide some map control. If the opponent moves out without enough defense they expose themselves to econ damage, and small numbers of units around the map will be vulnerable to being picked off. But currently, using an Oracle in this manner becomes very risky--if you're roaming around the map with an Oracle and the opponent has air units, hydras with speed (and/or good creep spread), blink stalkers, marines with stim, or HTs or Infestors...then chances are very good that if they spot the Oracle you'll lose it. Hunting and engaging small numbers of units around the map with the Oracle is possible, but very risky.
This patch makes it easier to get in and perform quit hit and run tactics--in particular it makes retreating, especially from any ground unit, much much easier. The opponent can still zone the Oracle out if they invest in enough anti-air and keep their army together, and certain units (e.g. Phoenixes) can still chase it down. But for the most part, the risk factor of losing your Oracle because it was spotted and chased down is reduced, provided the Protoss player stays active with it and devotes attention to it...which means that roaming the map and using it for map control is actually a reasonable tactic. Thats a big buff to the overall utility of the unit.
So overall, while its true that the Oracle was a harass/scouting unit prior to this patch, and will still be a harass/scouting unit post-patch, its effectiveness in that role, and what that role really means, will be changed. Instead of a coinflippy unit that either ends the game or is a mostly wasted investment, there are a number of ways that skilled players can still get a lot of value out of Oracles even if they aren't able to catch the opponent entirely by surprise.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
Also, I'm thinking that Hallucinated Oracles will be pretty common now. They're slightly slower and more fragile than Phoenixes, but unless your opponent has detection, it sort of forces them to pull and/or spread their workers for a moment on the off chance that the Oracle is actually real. I mean, after a moment they'll figure out whether its real or not and get back to mining, but its still a nice, easy way to mess with the opponent for a minute and disrupt mining a bit at very little cost.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
On September 26 2013 23:04 paddyz wrote: 3: Of all the terran units, I hate tanks the most. Ergo I don't want them buffed if they don't really need it.
Good. Since they really need it. And a 10% cycle time reduction doesn't cut it.
Since Oracle's harass gets completely nullified by static defence, how about giving Oracle a kill that disables static defences forcing your opponent to keep some units at home.
On September 26 2013 23:04 paddyz wrote: 3: Of all the terran units, I hate tanks the most. Ergo I don't want them buffed if they don't really need it.
Good. Since they really need it. And a 10% cycle time reduction doesn't cut it.
Have you actually played with it yet?
I ask because I have no idea how you're guaging whether or not its sufficient or not. I mean, it might well not be enough, but I think figuring it out without testing is going to be very difficult, for a few reasons: -Damage has a snowballing effect. The faster you deal damage, the faster you kill enemy units, which means the less time they have to do damage to you, which means more of your units are alive which means you kill them faster, etc. The line between dealing a strong but balanced amount of damage, and a broken amount of damage, is therefore quite thin.
-As a long-range AOE unit, that snowballing damage effect is multiplied exponentially for Tanks. Its not that they're killing units faster one by one, they're killing large clumps of units faster, which means getting the numbers right is even trickier.
-Units don't exist in a vacuum. Regardless of whether or not the fight goes long enough that the reduced cooldown gives the Tank another shot, its still dealing damage faster, which means that other units still benefit from that--Tanks have to be balanced not just for pure mech, but also in such a way that compositions like Marine+Tank don't become overpowered.
Given all this, while I think its entirely possible that this Tank buff won't be sufficient (and I fully agree that if it isn't they should be buffed more), I also think accurately figuring out whether it is or not is something that can only really be done with testing, so I understand why Blizzard decided to start with a fairly small buff and go from there--if its insufficient, they can just bump it up a bit more and test that.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
Bomber vs Jaedong WCS season 2 championship on newkirk I think.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
I would point out that you could be wrong. After all, even the highest level pros have said that nerfs would be huge and buffs would do nothing. The majority of the time they are wrong and they play the game professionally. Unless you are some sort of SC2 prophet, you opinion is your own and you can't just throw it around like it is established fact.
Unless you log in like 100 games on the test map. Then you might have a bit more authority on the subject. Until then, you are just theory crafting.
On September 26 2013 23:04 paddyz wrote: 3: Of all the terran units, I hate tanks the most. Ergo I don't want them buffed if they don't really need it.
Good. Since they really need it. And a 10% cycle time reduction doesn't cut it.
Have you actually played with it yet?
I ask because I have no idea how you're guaging whether or not its sufficient or not. I mean, it might well not be enough, but I think figuring it out without testing is going to be very difficult, for a few reasons: -Damage has a snowballing effect. The faster you deal damage, the faster you kill enemy units, which means the less time they have to do damage to you, which means more of your units are alive which means you kill them faster, etc. The line between dealing a strong but balanced amount of damage, and a broken amount of damage, is therefore quite thin.
-As a long-range AOE unit, that snowballing damage effect is multiplied exponentially for Tanks. Its not that they're killing units faster one by one, they're killing large clumps of units faster, which means getting the numbers right is even trickier.
-Units don't exist in a vacuum. Regardless of whether or not the fight goes long enough that the reduced cooldown gives the Tank another shot, its still dealing damage faster, which means that other units still benefit from that--Tanks have to be balanced not just for pure mech, but also in such a way that compositions like Marine+Tank don't become overpowered.
Given all this, while I think its entirely possible that this Tank buff won't be sufficient (and I fully agree that if it isn't they should be buffed more), I also think accurately figuring out whether it is or not is something that can only really be done with testing, so I understand why Blizzard decided to start with a fairly small buff and go from there--if its insufficient, they can just bump it up a bit more and test that.
the DMG output isn't why its not used in tvz. Its the speed of long/bling/muta relative to the time it takes to siege and unsiege. You can't move across the map without them bating 10 stims out of u . And forget about once ultras come out..u can turtle sure..but the z will take the whole map and starve u.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
Bomber vs Jaedong WCS season 2 championship on newkirk I think.
I would point out that you could be wrong. After all, even the highest level pros have said that nerfs would be huge and buffs would do nothing. The majority of the time they are wrong and they play the game professionally. Unless you are some sort of SC2 prophet, you opinion is your own and you can't just throw it around like it is established fact.
In general, "Pro X said Y, so it must be true!" is a dumb thing to say, if for no other reason then that even most Pros disagree with each other about various facets of the game and what they'd like to see changed. Thats not to say Pro feedback is useless or anything, but its silly to just take it at face value and think "this guy is good at this game, therefore all of his opinions on it are objectively correct", because there are almost certainly people who are equally good who disagree with that guy.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
Bomber vs Jaedong WCS season 2 championship on newkirk I think.
I will check this out for sure. Thx - edit sorry a couple tanks for defense doing equate to marine tank..he used bio mine.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
bomber vs JD innovation vs Symbol in gsl final. done, next time you can do search them yourself, don't be lazy.
pro isn't using it is because bio mine is a much better choice in almost 90% of the games in all maps which leads to me repeating this point again and again: it is called a direction. bio tank as main units mine and medivac as support for bio tank. bio mine > mech and bio tank in all maps and 99% of the games unless zerg is going roach heavy style just makes for a poor game, especially for a strategy game. this imbalance in risk and reward lead to only one single optimal strategy, you probably haven't studied game theory but this is pretty simple so I hope you get it.
and no thanks, you don't need to teach me anything about TvZ because you obviously are complaining at numbers rather than blizzard vision of TvZ and just don't understand how patches are done
the DMG output isn't why its not used in tvz. Its the speed of long/bling/muta relative to the time it takes to siege and unsiege. You can't move across the map without them bating 10 stims out of u . And forget about once ultras come out..u can turtle sure..but the z will take the whole map and starve u.
We'll see..I tend to think that the issue with Tanks has been that they're ideally supposed to prevent a tradeoff between a unit that is extremely strong in head-on engagements when properly positioned, but slow and easy to outmanuever/catch out of position....but in practice they're not much stronger in head-on engagements then other Terran tech, so the tradeoffs are never worth it. Since I like a dynamic where Tanks kick ass head on but can bebeaten if they're outmanuevered and caught out of position, rather than trying to mitigate their weaknesses, I'd prefer to see their strengths improved so that they're actually good enough in head on engagements to be worth the loss in mobility.
If that doesn't work, I suppose they can look at reducing siege/unsiege time, or even buffing Tank speed when unsieged so they can get into position faster. But I think they should start by taking a look at their damage and actually making them better at their intended role.
On September 26 2013 23:34 Osiccor wrote: Since Oracle's harass gets completely nullified by static defence, how about giving Oracle a kill that disables static defences forcing your opponent to keep some units at home.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
bomber vs JD innovation vs Symbol in gsl final. done, next time you can do search them yourself, don't be lazy.
pro isn't using it is because bio mine is a much better choice in almost 90% of the games in all maps which leads to me repeating this point again and again: it is called a direction. bio tank as main units mine and medivac as support for bio tank. bio mine > mech and bio tank in all maps and 99% of the games unless zerg is going roach heavy style just makes for a poor game, especially for a strategy game. this imbalance in risk and reward lead to only one single optimal strategy, you probably haven't studied game theory but this is pretty simple so I hope you get it.
and no thanks, you don't need to teach me anything about TvZ because you obviously are complaining at numbers rather than blizzard vision of TvZ and just don't understand how patches are done
lolol considering I just checked the JD vs bomber game and he made a million mines id say that classifys as bio mine lllolol..and thanks for the advice about game theory coming from the dude who thinks marine tank is viable tvz.. I won't be trolled rofl And PS before u go trolling the internet to find a game where it actually did happen..consider the strength of ur argument if 1 out of the 10000 pro tvzs played this year showed marine tank..solid viability
It'll be interesting to see how fully Oracles get nullified by static defense once their speed/acceleration is improved. Obviously lots of static D will just take them down so quickly they can't do anything. But I'm not so sure that a single spore or cannon in the mineral line will be sufficient to entirely shutdown Oracle harass, now that Oracles can fly in and out pretty damn fast.
I would point out that you could be wrong. After all, even the highest level pros have said that nerfs would be huge and buffs would do nothing. The majority of the time they are wrong and they play the game professionally. Unless you are some sort of SC2 prophet, you opinion is your own and you can't just throw it around like it is established fact.
In general, "Pro X said Y, so it must be true!" is a dumb thing to say, if for no other reason then that even most Pros disagree with each other about various facets of the game and what they'd like to see changed. Thats not to say Pro feedback is useless or anything, but its silly to just take it at face value and think "this guy is good at this game, therefore all of his opinions on it are objectively correct", because there are almost certainly people who are equally good who disagree with that guy.
Yeah, it doesn't really apply to many other things in life:
- The guy in a litigation attorney lawyer, so he must be qualified to make the rules of civil procedure
- The guy is a good football player, so he must be able to write the rules for football and design a football stadium.
- The guy is a good doctor, so he must be good at designing medical equipment.
Input is great, but skill does not directly contribute to the ability to improve the game.
I'm kind-of weirded out by how quickly mine radius got increased again.
Pretty sure mines could have 0 splash and still get used (still good against protoss rushes: one-shots oracles, stalkers, zealots, and really anything else toss could want to allin with. Still can delay a zerg expansion by like...two minutes).
The DT buff was kind-of interesting, in that I could potentially imagine there being a speed toss army (DT, blink Stalker, Phoenix) that exploits less mobile armies and pokes all over the map, and wile toss has had one or two fast units, they just haven't had enough fast units to push them over the edge into making something like that viable (whereas zerg can go fast with muta/ling, medium speed with roach hydra, slow with brood lord infestor swarm host queen). DTs are probably the wrong unit to buff, though, unless they're nerfed in other ways. Not sure what the right unit to buff is, though. (Although for some reason sentires with 3.375 movement speed is sounding hilarious to me right now. Zip in with pure sentry, forcefield some workers, tickle tickle tickle, run away).
The DT buff was kind-of interesting, in that I could potentially imagine there being a speed toss army (DT, blink Stalker, Phoenix) that exploits less mobile armies and pokes all over the map, and wile toss has had one or two fast units, they just haven't had enough fast units to push them over the edge into making something like that viable (whereas zerg can go fast with muta/ling, medium speed with roach hydra, slow with brood lord infestor swarm host queen). DTs are probably the wrong unit to buff, though, unless they're nerfed in other ways. Not sure what the right unit to buff is, though. (Although for some reason sentires with 3.375 movement speed is sounding hilarious to me right now. Zip in with pure sentry, forcefield some workers, tickle tickle tickle, run away).
There's a 4 Oracle PvT style that is really cool, fun to play, and viable up through masters. But no one's been able to make that style work on a pro level. It'd be really cool if this made that style on the Pro level, because its just a completely different way to play PvT than exists currently.
the DMG output isn't why its not used in tvz. Its the speed of long/bling/muta relative to the time it takes to siege and unsiege. You can't move across the map without them bating 10 stims out of u . And forget about once ultras come out..u can turtle sure..but the z will take the whole map and starve u.
We'll see..I tend to think that the issue with Tanks has been that they're ideally supposed to prevent a tradeoff between a unit that is extremely strong in head-on engagements when properly positioned, but slow and easy to outmanuever/catch out of position....but in practice they're not much stronger in head-on engagements then other Terran tech, so the tradeoffs are never worth it. Since I like a dynamic where Tanks kick ass head on but can bebeaten if they're outmanuevered and caught out of position, rather than trying to mitigate their weaknesses, I'd prefer to see their strengths improved so that they're actually good enough in head on engagements to be worth the loss in mobility.
If that doesn't work, I suppose they can look at reducing siege/unsiege time, or even buffing Tank speed when unsieged so they can get into position faster. But I think they should start by taking a look at their damage and actually making them better at their intended role.
Imo buffing tank damage would make turtling to good on the current maps. With more open maps it could work but then Protoss would struggle with their thirds.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
The nerf probably don't crush 4m style just don't make it so strong that you can rally cross map on whirlwind and expect to eventually break the zerg. That is even more absurd the suggested nerf imo.
On September 26 2013 23:34 Osiccor wrote: Since Oracle's harass gets completely nullified by static defence, how about giving Oracle a kill that disables static defences forcing your opponent to keep some units at home.
Good luck ever holding a proxy oracle into oracle/gateway all-in as terran... Ouch.
On September 26 2013 23:34 Osiccor wrote: Since Oracle's harass gets completely nullified by static defence, how about giving Oracle a kill that disables static defences forcing your opponent to keep some units at home.
While we are at it.. why don't we change the collosi to a unit that does splash damage still... but has to shoot a explosive projectile that benefits from proper target firing, maybe it does a lot of damage but is slow as shit to compensate and has to be babied and micro'd like crazy with a shutt- warp prism!?
As a Protoss player I'm all for these changes! Lets go Blizzard :D
On September 27 2013 00:00 ETisME wrote: bomber vs JD innovation vs Symbol in gsl final. done, next time you can do search them yourself, don't be lazy.
pro isn't using it is because bio mine is a much better choice in almost 90% of the games in all maps which leads to me repeating this point again and again: it is called a direction. bio tank as main units mine and medivac as support for bio tank. bio mine > mech and bio tank in all maps and 99% of the games unless zerg is going roach heavy style just makes for a poor game, especially for a strategy game. this imbalance in risk and reward lead to only one single optimal strategy, you probably haven't studied game theory but this is pretty simple so I hope you get it.
and no thanks, you don't need to teach me anything about TvZ because you obviously are complaining at numbers rather than blizzard vision of TvZ and just don't understand how patches are done
lolol considering I just checked the JD vs bomber game and he made a million mines id say that classifys as bio mine lllolol..and thanks for the advice about game theory coming from the dude who thinks marine tank is viable tvz.. I won't be trolled rofl And PS before u go trolling the internet to find a game where it actually did happen..consider the strength of ur argument if 1 out of the 10000 pro tvzs played this year showed marine tank..solid viability
? JD vs Bomber, tanks and not widow mines, global final:
I don't remember Symbol vs innovation being a GSL final (did he mean Soulkey vs innovation?)
While we are at it.. why don't we change the collosi to a unit that does splash damage still... but has to shoot a explosive projectile that benefits from proper target firing, maybe it does a lot of damage but is slow as shit to compensate and has to be babied and micro'd like crazy with a shutt- warp prism!?
As a Protoss player I'm all for these changes! Lets go Blizzard :D
Yes, lets replace the Colossus with a cheaper, more accessible unit that also comes from a Robo facility, but hardcounters bio way harder than Colossi do, especially when considering how units clump with SC2 pathing. This unit should definitely not be targetable by Vikings. That way, from one building, Protoss can build one unit that absolutely hardcounters bio play, and another unit that is the hardest counter to mech in the game. I mean, Protoss will definitely be content to just use Reavers with cutesy drop micro, rather than just turtling up and building a Reaver+Immortal+Gateway ball that hardcounters literally every Terran ground army...right? Right?? Yep, no way this would have shitloads of nasty cascading effects that would fuck up the entire game.
On September 26 2013 23:04 DomeGetta wrote: Just want to reiterate the key points of my post before someone tried to troll it. I would really like an answer from someone or blizzard about the true motivation for the patch. Even if they want to take the stance of "we fix the stale meta game!" Which I disagree with being a good reason for a patch..someone still has to show why it makes sense to nerf 1 race and buff the other 2 if the game is statistically balanced. A balanced stale meta game is still better than an imbalanced one. Why isit that you think all pro terrans use bio mine? Consider the alternative to bio/mine in TVZ. Is turtle mech less stale? I don't see how it is..and it also favors the zerg drastically. Which is why no one uses it..faster tank reload isnt going to change that. So now u have a diluted bio/mine style that was balanced prior to the nerf (unless someone would pls link me to stats that show otherwise and I'll shut up)..how would u not expect this to become imbalanced?
which is why they aren't rolling the changes as a complete patch, they are rolling it out on a balance test map. the patch is not to nerf terran, it is to nerf one style and buff the other to make both mech and bio mech viable. if mech is favoring zerg, then there will be nerf and buff accordingly. Why it is good? because zerg has at least 3 different styles to deal with mech rather than almost 90% of games ling baneling muta vs bio mine. the patch is also to buff protoss so that they would seek out other ways to play other than still turtling too hard style. except I do think blizzard should also nerf protoss defensive style as well.
blizzard also isn't liking the trend of having only one style viable. Look beyond stats and balance. Or if you like the word balance so much, there is a complete imbalanceness in the mech vs bio mine in the risk and reward comparison.
No one has to convince anyone if the patch should be done because blizzard has the final call here.
. Sorry but what you said here is exactly what I'm talking about and what doesn't make sense. The widow mine nerf crushes that style..the tank buff doesnt do nearly enough to make much more viable.. test all you want its brutally obvious to anyone who understands the matchup.
it's a damn test map. how many times do I need to screw that into your head? blizzard will nerf bio mine style because they want mine to not function as a better replacement for tanks. It will be their direction to have bio tank and mine as a supportive unit instead of the key unit and there will be patches to help or nerf it accordingly. hell I will pull a naruto here, innovation and flash both have used bio tank style and won games with it, bio tank will work...right? It should be brutally obvious to anyone that it can work too and mech was used more often than bio mine during the hots beta and was fairly good (see thorzain stream), back when the vehicle upgrades combined like what they intend to do later.
I'm not gonna teach you about Tvz but marine tank can be used yes against roach hydra not against standard ling bling muta. Show me one game where it was done pls thx. Until then you have no argument to say its viable..unless you are better than the pros who refuse to use it? Simple facts: nerf makes bio/mine underpowered...buff doesn't make mech or marine tank viable .. you heard it here first! The painfully obvious statement that will bring wol back. But hey maybe the viewers who probably won't even notice the patch will be happy.
bomber vs JD innovation vs Symbol in gsl final. done, next time you can do search them yourself, don't be lazy.
pro isn't using it is because bio mine is a much better choice in almost 90% of the games in all maps which leads to me repeating this point again and again: it is called a direction. bio tank as main units mine and medivac as support for bio tank. bio mine > mech and bio tank in all maps and 99% of the games unless zerg is going roach heavy style just makes for a poor game, especially for a strategy game. this imbalance in risk and reward lead to only one single optimal strategy, you probably haven't studied game theory but this is pretty simple so I hope you get it.
and no thanks, you don't need to teach me anything about TvZ because you obviously are complaining at numbers rather than blizzard vision of TvZ and just don't understand how patches are done
lolol considering I just checked the JD vs bomber game and he made a million mines id say that classifys as bio mine lllolol..and thanks for the advice about game theory coming from the dude who thinks marine tank is viable tvz.. I won't be trolled rofl And PS before u go trolling the internet to find a game where it actually did happen..consider the strength of ur argument if 1 out of the 10000 pro tvzs played this year showed marine tank..solid viability
marine tank is viable if the tank user is good, it is just that biomine is far superior to the point the matchup becomes a joke and every decently skilled terran gets a free win, so it would be unwise not to go biomine.
While we are at it.. why don't we change the collosi to a unit that does splash damage still... but has to shoot a explosive projectile that benefits from proper target firing, maybe it does a lot of damage but is slow as shit to compensate and has to be babied and micro'd like crazy with a shutt- warp prism!?
As a Protoss player I'm all for these changes! Lets go Blizzard :D
Yes, lets replace the Colossus with a cheaper, more accessible unit that also comes from a Robo facility, but hardcounters bio way harder than Colossi do, especially when considering how units clump with SC2 pathing. This unit should definitely not be targetable by Vikings. That way, from one building, Protoss can build one unit that absolutely hardcounters bio play, and another unit that is the hardest counter to mech in the game. I mean, Protoss will definitely be content to just use Reavers with cutesy drop micro, rather than just turtling up and building a Reaver+Immortal+Gateway ball that hardcounters literally every Terran ground army...right? Right?? Yep, no way this would have shitloads of nasty cascading effects that would fuck up the entire game.
I'm all for the reaver coming back and the immortal dissapearing. Let's do that instead, it'd probably make the game more interesting for me as someone who hates bio :p
Tempest needs a nerf or mech can never become viable.
If Protoss starts to mass Tempest Terran need to throw away all tanks and hellbats and start to mass vikings and ravens or die. If you have 10+ Tanks and 15+Hellbats you can never match the Tempest since they are so extremly supply effeceint.
Please increse Tempest food cost to 6 or lower Tempest hitpoints.
Im afraid, that while the mine change is good for general play, its still hurts ALOT for TvP meching, because mines are pretty much your only fear to enemy stargate play early on. If you invest too much on marines, our mech army is hurting. As the oracles seem to have their speed boosts youll be forced to turret yourself in pretty hard.
But that ain't pretty much big deal, because we wont see mech in TvP anyways.
On September 27 2013 01:46 MockHamill wrote: I agree with all of the changes but:
Tempest needs a nerf or mech can never become viable.
If Protoss starts to mass Tempest Terran need to throw away all tanks and hellbats and start to mass vikings and ravens or die. If you have 10+ Tanks and 15+Hellbats you can never match the Tempest since they are so extremly supply effeceint.
Please increse Tempest food cost to 6 or lower Tempest hitpoints.
Well, now that upgrades are shared, you swap starports to reactors and spam vikings while doing constant hellion runbys with your excess hellbats....
looking at DRG playing vs widow mines i really don't understand why they need a nerf. they are exactly like banelings. if you micro well against them, they don't do much damage but if you micro badly against them they are devastating. the micro vs wms and banelings is very spectacular and entertaining so i want to see it more. the only thing i agree with is that tvz should have more variety but nerfing the wm into oblivion is the wrong way. bio mine must stay viable, terran just needs other option to play.
but before adding more options for terran i think blizzard should concentrate on pvt because it's just broken atm. like in tvz there are always the same unit compositions but on top of that it's extremely imbalanced. for terran the only chance to win is scv pull and pray. that must be fixed first.
I don't get the Mech changes... this kills anything roach/hydra in TvZ. It's already hard to kill a defensive terran, lets give them even more options to play it like that. Plus the combined upgrades make it even easier to go into Tank/Viking/Raven with PFs and hellbat runby/drops. I've played Roach/hydra throughout the last 2 seasons vs Terran and it's already dicy and hard to pull off. Those changes kill me >.<
On September 26 2013 23:34 Osiccor wrote: Since Oracle's harass gets completely nullified by static defence, how about giving Oracle a kill that disables static defences forcing your opponent to keep some units at home.
While we are at it.. why don't we change the collosi to a unit that does splash damage still... but has to shoot a explosive projectile that benefits from proper target firing, maybe it does a lot of damage but is slow as shit to compensate and has to be babied and micro'd like crazy with a shutt- warp prism!?
As a Protoss player I'm all for these changes! Lets go Blizzard :D
On September 27 2013 01:56 Turbo.Tactics wrote: I don't get the Mech changes... this kills anything roach/hydra in TvZ. It's already hard to kill a defensive terran, lets give them even more options to play it like that. Plus the combined upgrades make it even easier to go into Tank/Viking/Raven with PFs and hellbat runby/drops. I've played Roach/hydra throughout the last 2 seasons vs Terran and it's already dicy and hard to pull off. Those changes kill me >.<
You almost certainly do something wrong if you struggle vs mech in current balance state. Really, it can't be that good. We would see Korean players do those strategies. They ALWAYS do what gives them most chances of winning. And they all play 4M. Playing against mech requires completely different mindset, chances are the issue is on your side, seriously.
The DT buff was kind-of interesting, in that I could potentially imagine there being a speed toss army (DT, blink Stalker, Phoenix) that exploits less mobile armies and pokes all over the map, and wile toss has had one or two fast units, they just haven't had enough fast units to push them over the edge into making something like that viable (whereas zerg can go fast with muta/ling, medium speed with roach hydra, slow with brood lord infestor swarm host queen). DTs are probably the wrong unit to buff, though, unless they're nerfed in other ways. Not sure what the right unit to buff is, though. (Although for some reason sentires with 3.375 movement speed is sounding hilarious to me right now. Zip in with pure sentry, forcefield some workers, tickle tickle tickle, run away).
There's a 4 Oracle PvT style that is really cool, fun to play, and viable up through masters. But no one's been able to make that style work on a pro level. It'd be really cool if this made that style on the Pro level, because its just a completely different way to play PvT than exists currently.
That feels pretty all in. Do you have some replays of this or something? Would like to see it in action.
The DT buff was kind-of interesting, in that I could potentially imagine there being a speed toss army (DT, blink Stalker, Phoenix) that exploits less mobile armies and pokes all over the map, and wile toss has had one or two fast units, they just haven't had enough fast units to push them over the edge into making something like that viable (whereas zerg can go fast with muta/ling, medium speed with roach hydra, slow with brood lord infestor swarm host queen). DTs are probably the wrong unit to buff, though, unless they're nerfed in other ways. Not sure what the right unit to buff is, though. (Although for some reason sentires with 3.375 movement speed is sounding hilarious to me right now. Zip in with pure sentry, forcefield some workers, tickle tickle tickle, run away).
There's a 4 Oracle PvT style that is really cool, fun to play, and viable up through masters. But no one's been able to make that style work on a pro level. It'd be really cool if this made that style on the Pro level, because its just a completely different way to play PvT than exists currently.
That feels pretty all in. Do you have some replays of this or something? Would like to see it in action.
4 Oracles is cheaper (mineral wise) than 3 colossus and requires less tech. It seems "all in" because we assume 1 Oracle, but cost wise its not as much as 3 colossus which still allows for templar tech switches.
I personally feel it sounds crazy, but the math fits.
The DT buff was kind-of interesting, in that I could potentially imagine there being a speed toss army (DT, blink Stalker, Phoenix) that exploits less mobile armies and pokes all over the map, and wile toss has had one or two fast units, they just haven't had enough fast units to push them over the edge into making something like that viable (whereas zerg can go fast with muta/ling, medium speed with roach hydra, slow with brood lord infestor swarm host queen). DTs are probably the wrong unit to buff, though, unless they're nerfed in other ways. Not sure what the right unit to buff is, though. (Although for some reason sentires with 3.375 movement speed is sounding hilarious to me right now. Zip in with pure sentry, forcefield some workers, tickle tickle tickle, run away).
There's a 4 Oracle PvT style that is really cool, fun to play, and viable up through masters. But no one's been able to make that style work on a pro level. It'd be really cool if this made that style on the Pro level, because its just a completely different way to play PvT than exists currently.
That feels pretty all in. Do you have some replays of this or something? Would like to see it in action.
The DT buff was kind-of interesting, in that I could potentially imagine there being a speed toss army (DT, blink Stalker, Phoenix) that exploits less mobile armies and pokes all over the map, and wile toss has had one or two fast units, they just haven't had enough fast units to push them over the edge into making something like that viable (whereas zerg can go fast with muta/ling, medium speed with roach hydra, slow with brood lord infestor swarm host queen). DTs are probably the wrong unit to buff, though, unless they're nerfed in other ways. Not sure what the right unit to buff is, though. (Although for some reason sentires with 3.375 movement speed is sounding hilarious to me right now. Zip in with pure sentry, forcefield some workers, tickle tickle tickle, run away).
There's a 4 Oracle PvT style that is really cool, fun to play, and viable up through masters. But no one's been able to make that style work on a pro level. It'd be really cool if this made that style on the Pro level, because its just a completely different way to play PvT than exists currently.
That feels pretty all in. Do you have some replays of this or something? Would like to see it in action.
I like the direction of the changes trying to open up the game a bit. I still feel some of it is a bit misguided.
For example, the mine splash damage change is helpful but the problem is more about detection and position. They should find more ways players have to micro against them instead of telling players to just play the same but you will lose less. Changes like greater detection range for overseer or allowing changlings to set off mines or detect in general would be more helpful.
For Zerg I think the roach change is great and should have happened long ago. I think we will see some cool roach burrow micro similar to blink micro.
For Terran siege tank doesn't seem like enough of a change. What if the transformation servos also reduced the time it takes to siege and unsiege tanks and transform Vikings? I see that being more helpful to position and reposition faster, move out from blinding cloud, and save tanks from dying in siege mode if caught.
Lastly, Protoss needs more love to open options up. Everything seems focused on Protoss harassment options but the race needs more than that.
I agree with these changes but I feel like the whole thing that was discussed was to give a terran player options in the match up. Thus giving zerg options in the match up This is still very one dimentional and once meta gets ironed out then it will be the same every game again... This will however create a new dynamic if it goes through the way they like it to fix the problems zerg see with terran not needing as much gas. It will turn from needed 100 gas for mines ( 2 Facts with reactors) going to 3 facts possibly if you still want that many mines plus tanks which will need 225 gas for just widow mines and factory plus the 200 gas for medivacs and the 50 gas for marauders. I dont know what this translates into as far as GPM but overall this will effect not only the numbers of marines because you can only make so much at once but hinder major production really kicking into gear with upgrades probably back a full minute.... Which in TvZ is pretty huge but I guess this theory crafting has yet to be seen.
On September 27 2013 01:49 Sepi wrote: Im afraid, that while the mine change is good for general play, its still hurts ALOT for TvP meching, because mines are pretty much your only fear to enemy stargate play early on. If you invest too much on marines, our mech army is hurting. As the oracles seem to have their speed boosts youll be forced to turret yourself in pretty hard.
But that ain't pretty much big deal, because we wont see mech in TvP anyways.
But mines hardly ever splash the protoss air units early anyway? It's the direct damage that counts against early protoss, which is unchanged.
I don't feel like protoss needs anything tbh..... ofcourse I'm a little biased in this area because my tvp winrate is now 43% and my other match ups are tvt 90% winrate and tvz 70% winrate LOL
On September 27 2013 03:01 FLuE wrote: I like the direction of the changes trying to open up the game a bit. I still feel some of it is a bit misguided.
For example, the mine splash damage change is helpful but the problem is more about detection and position. They should find more ways players have to micro against them instead of telling players to just play the same but you will lose less. Changes like greater detection range for overseer or allowing changlings to set off mines or detect in general would be more helpful.
For Zerg I think the roach change is great and should have happened long ago. I think we will see some cool roach burrow micro similar to blink micro.
For Terran siege tank doesn't seem like enough of a change. What if the transformation servos also reduced the time it takes to siege and unsiege tanks and transform Vikings? I see that being more helpful to position and reposition faster, move out from blinding cloud, and save tanks from dying in siege mode if caught.
Lastly, Protoss needs more love to open options up. Everything seems focused on Protoss harassment options but the race needs more than that.
On September 27 2013 03:01 FLuE wrote: I like the direction of the changes trying to open up the game a bit. I still feel some of it is a bit misguided.
For example, the mine splash damage change is helpful but the problem is more about detection and position. They should find more ways players have to micro against them instead of telling players to just play the same but you will lose less. Changes like greater detection range for overseer or allowing changlings to set off mines or detect in general would be more helpful.
For Zerg I think the roach change is great and should have happened long ago. I think we will see some cool roach burrow micro similar to blink micro.
For Terran siege tank doesn't seem like enough of a change. What if the transformation servos also reduced the time it takes to siege and unsiege tanks and transform Vikings? I see that being more helpful to position and reposition faster, move out from blinding cloud, and save tanks from dying in siege mode if caught.
Lastly, Protoss needs more love to open options up. Everything seems focused on Protoss harassment options but the race needs more than that.
Ahhhh, I like that idea a lot.
Although a strong buff, I don't think its what people who want "mech play" wanted...
I don't like reducing the siege times for tanks as a buff. The whole point of tank-based mech is that it's a bit clumsy and unforgiving, it just rewards the player that is able to constantly scout around his army and look out for threats.
If I wanted an a-move deathball, I'd play protoss.
On September 27 2013 03:01 FLuE wrote: I like the direction of the changes trying to open up the game a bit. I still feel some of it is a bit misguided.
For example, the mine splash damage change is helpful but the problem is more about detection and position. They should find more ways players have to micro against them instead of telling players to just play the same but you will lose less. Changes like greater detection range for overseer or allowing changlings to set off mines or detect in general would be more helpful.
For Zerg I think the roach change is great and should have happened long ago. I think we will see some cool roach burrow micro similar to blink micro.
For Terran siege tank doesn't seem like enough of a change. What if the transformation servos also reduced the time it takes to siege and unsiege tanks and transform Vikings? I see that being more helpful to position and reposition faster, move out from blinding cloud, and save tanks from dying in siege mode if caught.
Lastly, Protoss needs more love to open options up. Everything seems focused on Protoss harassment options but the race needs more than that.
Ahhhh, I like that idea a lot.
Although a strong buff, I don't think its what people who want "mech play" wanted...
We know, what they want from the start of WoL And Blizzard knows it too.
On September 27 2013 03:01 FLuE wrote: What if the transformation servos also reduced the time it takes to siege and unsiege tanks and transform Vikings? I see that being more helpful to position and reposition faster, move out from blinding cloud, and save tanks from dying in siege mode if caught.
On September 27 2013 03:01 FLuE wrote: ...For Terran siege tank doesn't seem like enough of a change. What if the transformation servos also reduced the time it takes to siege and unsiege tanks and transform Vikings? I see that being more helpful to position and reposition faster, move out from blinding cloud, and save tanks from dying in siege mode if caught....
I love this! Almost as much as the idea for hellions to be able to drive off (but not up) cliffs with some crazy sound effect "WhoooHoooo!!"
On September 27 2013 01:46 MockHamill wrote: I agree with all of the changes but:
Tempest needs a nerf or mech can never become viable.
If Protoss starts to mass Tempest Terran need to throw away all tanks and hellbats and start to mass vikings and ravens or die. If you have 10+ Tanks and 15+Hellbats you can never match the Tempest since they are so extremly supply effeceint.
Please increse Tempest food cost to 6 or lower Tempest hitpoints.
Well, now that upgrades are shared, you swap starports to reactors and spam vikings while doing constant hellion runbys with your excess hellbats....
this is exactly why i feel combined mech upgrades is stupid.
On September 27 2013 01:46 MockHamill wrote: I agree with all of the changes but:
Tempest needs a nerf or mech can never become viable.
If Protoss starts to mass Tempest Terran need to throw away all tanks and hellbats and start to mass vikings and ravens or die. If you have 10+ Tanks and 15+Hellbats you can never match the Tempest since they are so extremly supply effeceint.
Please increse Tempest food cost to 6 or lower Tempest hitpoints.
Well, now that upgrades are shared, you swap starports to reactors and spam vikings while doing constant hellion runbys with your excess hellbats....
tempest against terran?
raven/viking? pdd is such a nasty thing to do to tempests... that's not to say that it's simply gg i got raven/viking you got tempest.. it makes a nice dynamic.
Also I think oracles need a redesign, i'm glad they can harrass but it's not like it takes any skill to send an oracle over and beam probes a little bit. Even banshee micro is more respectable.
And mech upgrades combined won't help mech.. so why do it.
I would actually like to see Tempest with ground support vs. Vikings and Ravens supporting Siege Tanks. I saw a little of it in beta HOTS, and it was cool.
But I don't think 10% faster firing tanks will make up for Blink Stalkers and Immortals.
On September 27 2013 05:07 Crisium wrote: I would actually like to see Tempest with ground support vs. Vikings and Ravens supporting Siege Tanks. I saw a little of it in beta HOTS, and it was cool.
But I don't think 10% faster firing tanks will make up for Blink Stalkers and Immortals.
Blink stalkers is fine, you just keep 1/3 of your tanks unsieged and those who blink forward melt.
On September 27 2013 03:01 FLuE wrote: I like the direction of the changes trying to open up the game a bit. I still feel some of it is a bit misguided.
For example, the mine splash damage change is helpful but the problem is more about detection and position. They should find more ways players have to micro against them instead of telling players to just play the same but you will lose less. Changes like greater detection range for overseer or allowing changlings to set off mines or detect in general would be more helpful.
For Zerg I think the roach change is great and should have happened long ago. I think we will see some cool roach burrow micro similar to blink micro.
For Terran siege tank doesn't seem like enough of a change. What if the transformation servos also reduced the time it takes to siege and unsiege tanks and transform Vikings? I see that being more helpful to position and reposition faster, move out from blinding cloud, and save tanks from dying in siege mode if caught.
Lastly, Protoss needs more love to open options up. Everything seems focused on Protoss harassment options but the race needs more than that.
Ahhhh, I like that idea a lot.
Although a strong buff, I don't think its what people who want "mech play" wanted...
Every bit helps. I would rather improve mech in bits and pieces so it slots into the game a bit more naturally, rather than try to vastly redesign it all at once and turn everything on its head.
I wish they would add more macro mechanics and try changing the ones they have a bit. And by this I mean abilities, that increase the skill ceiling - essentially making it harder to play the game at the top level, but having no real impact on lower level players. Currently it seems like having really good macro all game is very often completely negated by a single bad engagement or micro-mistake.
One idea could be putting MULES on a timer similar to larva inject. The timer could be slightly less than the energy build-up rate, so it was possible to spend built up energy - e.g. X seconds energy build-up time and X-5 seconds cast delay.
They should of course also add new abilities. Protoss players, for example, are painfully lacking in macro abilities (the kind that set a limit on your progress if you aren't constantly aware of it. Worse case - they loose a bit of energy on a Nexus from being maxed. Even their gateway units practically build themselves. You just have to shift click that shit in whenever you need them anywhere on the map). I'm not saying that any of the races don't have their own challenges compared to the other races, but adding more macro abilities, if balanced across all races, would add a lot to the game, I think.
Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
Also I think oracles need a redesign, i'm glad they can harrass but it's not like it takes any skill to send an oracle over and beam probes a little bit. Even banshee micro is more respectable.
Virtually no micro in the game, or even in BW, is hard in the abstract. I am by no means a pro, and I don't even play Terran, but if I play a test map or custom game and just work on splitting marines vs. banelings I can do it ok. In BW, I could do the same thing with marines vs. lurkers. There are almost no micro tricks in any form of Starcraft that are actually that difficult to pull off on their own.
The trick is actually doing it in a game while you have to manage a million other things. That's the difference between an average schmuck like me and someone who's actually good--I can split some marines against banelings, but someone whose actually good can do that while also macroing perfectly, controlling their other units, etc...whereas if I'm wasting time focusing on splitting, my macro is gonna slip badly and I'm going to struggle to control all my other units.
Making the Oracle better raises the skill ceiling not because pushing a button to turn on Pulsar Beam is so difficult, but because Oracles benefit a lot from controlling them constantly, staying active with them, and babysitting them to keep them alive. If Oracles aren't doing damage, they're wasted resources. They're too expensive to throw away. They're too fragile to fire and forget. Its not that hard to fly into a base one time to harass. Its flying in once and getting out before you lose the unit, then letting it regen, then coming back for another pass, then getting out again, then looping around to hit somewhere else, then poking to try to find a spot thats not protected by static defense, then going hunting for small groups of light units out on the map, all the while retreating any time the unit is at risk, all without letting your macro slip or losing control of your other units.
Basically, its a unit you can't turtle with, that you can't a-move, that you can't throw away on a suicide attack, that you can't be stupid about using--the only way to get the most out of your Oracle, unless you just completely catch the opponent with his pants down, is to have good enough APM and gamesense to stay constantly active with it throughout the game without losing it, all without letting other parts of your game slip.
And that's just one Oracle. Where things get really fun are the playstyles that use more than one, so the Protoss doesn't just have to babysit and actively control one of them, but 2 or 3 or even 4. At that point, the APM and multitasking abilities required to effectively get the most out of all of them at once is considerable.
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
3 CC into marine tank? Think Bomber vs Goswser. Shows why would you buff marine tank well enough. Also, all this patch does is bring some variety to the game. Also, vipers.
On September 27 2013 05:20 DRTnOOber wrote: How about make it if two dark templar merge the resulting archon is always-cloaked...
That would be pretty sexy. It'd have to be a bit different to the standard Archon somehow to balance the invisibleness. I'm still holding out hope for the return of the D'Archon in LoTV...
The oracle speed seems too much, but other than that its an awesome set of changes.
On September 27 2013 01:46 MockHamill wrote: I agree with all of the changes but:
Tempest needs a nerf or mech can never become viable.
If Protoss starts to mass Tempest Terran need to throw away all tanks and hellbats and start to mass vikings and ravens or die. If you have 10+ Tanks and 15+Hellbats you can never match the Tempest since they are so extremly supply effeceint.
Please increse Tempest food cost to 6 or lower Tempest hitpoints.
Well, now that upgrades are shared, you swap starports to reactors and spam vikings while doing constant hellion runbys with your excess hellbats....
tempest against terran?
raven/viking? pdd is such a nasty thing to do to tempests... that's not to say that it's simply gg i got raven/viking you got tempest.. it makes a nice dynamic.
Also I think oracles need a redesign, i'm glad they can harrass but it's not like it takes any skill to send an oracle over and beam probes a little bit. Even banshee micro is more respectable.
And mech upgrades combined won't help mech.. so why do it.
Tempest right now is standard way to finish the game that accidentally went long with small advantage for toss. Next, oracle is fine and i like direction blizzard is going with it, scrapping the idea of harasser as main function and using it as a decent scouting tool with maphax. Combined mech upgrades MAY help. Especially considering that now BC-Raven transition comes into full strength long before zerg may have +3 armor on flyers or considering the fact, that now vikings share attack upgrades with hellbats (ForGG approves).
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
3 CC into marine tank? Think Bomber vs Goswser. Shows why would you buff marine tank well enough. Also, all this patch does is bring some variety to the game. Also, vipers.
Post the link - you lied about the last one with bomber vs JD on newkirk.
And yeah - the fact that bomber could beat goswer (if you aren't trolling me again) with marine/tank really speaks to it being a viable option.
Nice job ignoring the question totally by the way xD.
I have to stop adding information to my posts it seems - people choose to ignore the main ideas and focus on the supporting info.
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
3 CC into marine tank? Think Bomber vs Goswser. Shows why would you buff marine tank well enough. Also, all this patch does is bring some variety to the game. Also, vipers.
Post the link - you lied about the last one with bomber vs JD on newkirk.
And yeah - the fact that bomber could beat goswer (if you aren't trolling me again) with marine/tank really speaks to it being a viable option.
Nice job ignoring the question totally by the way xD.
I have to stop adding information to my posts it seems - people choose to ignore the main ideas and focus on the supporting info.
Quote me, i never mentioned Bomber vs JD series. That's first. Next, Bomber vs Goswser is fine demonstration of reasons why marine tank sucks, not the other way around, do not take my words figuratively. I do not care about question, since bio-mine is balanced on knife's edge as in, it is defined by who can keep their attention all game long and i dare to bet, that watching out for random mines takes slightly more of it. Also, your main idea is? If bio-mine is fine, why would you change anything at all? Well, if it is your idea, that's bad idea for a game, support of which is not scraped to an extent of gameplay bugs not getting fixed.
On September 27 2013 05:07 Crisium wrote: I would actually like to see Tempest with ground support vs. Vikings and Ravens supporting Siege Tanks. I saw a little of it in beta HOTS, and it was cool.
But I don't think 10% faster firing tanks will make up for Blink Stalkers and Immortals.
Blink stalkers is fine, you just keep 1/3 of your tanks unsieged and those who blink forward melt.
The problem is immortals.
Tbh properly used blink stalkers are a huge problem for mech (luckily most toss don't know this). In a direct fight they are rubbish. However on most maps getting 3 bases is already very irritating with blink stalkers around. You have nothing to chase them down. Hellions are only units which are fast enough, but not exactly what you want to fight stalkers with. Hellbats are slow. And some strategically placed tanks simply die.
In a direct fight you don't even have t oworry about tanks being unsieged. Tanks + hellbats rip through blink stalkers when they are stupid enough to blink in the middle of them.
On September 27 2013 05:07 Crisium wrote: I would actually like to see Tempest with ground support vs. Vikings and Ravens supporting Siege Tanks. I saw a little of it in beta HOTS, and it was cool.
But I don't think 10% faster firing tanks will make up for Blink Stalkers and Immortals.
As someone who plays mech vs toss: You really dont want to see tempests against mech unless you are in favor of the toss player winning. Yeah vikings + ravens beat tempests, but add a few HTs and you are completely fucked. Sure you got ghosts against them, but while the few regular ground units are then on a-move (immortals/zealots for toss if he even has them, probably thors for terran. Going pure viking is a bad idea), and the tempests are also on a-move, it means that the toss is micro'ing his HTs. Meanwhile the terran has to dodge storms with vikings and trying to snipe/emp the HTs and making sure the ravens drop new PDDs. Now I know perfectly well my micro is fairly bad in such situations, but I also really think the toss has the advantage. And dropping PDDs in advance, of course you drop a few before the fight starts, but not all toss are retarded, they generally do some kind of tempest stutter step, which quickly takes you out of PDD range. And of course watch out your ravens dont come within feedback range.
And if he has some blink stalkers to blink under vikings, they will also empty the PDDs quite fast.
Widow mines work somewhat if the tempests are really stacked, but just storming them already works quite well. Aditionally the problem in general vs tempests isn't winning from them in equal cost scenarios, it is doing it for equal supply. And two widow mines per tempests are not great for that.
Personally if I look at post game graphs when fighting tempests armies the protoss always has a more expensive army. Then it is nice I can make many vikings, but if they just go into the meatgrinder and die against a superior army that doesn't help me. The only way I have beaten mass tempest is by always killing his bases and try to starve him out. And tactics that are based on more mobility are never a great idea with mech. Especially not with range of tempests and MsC teleportation.
In the end I think increasing tempests to at least 6 supply is a good idea. It doesn't change their general effectiveness, but it prevents them from being their own deathball. Well you can do it, but at least I can also counter them supply effective.
On September 27 2013 01:46 MockHamill wrote: I agree with all of the changes but:
Tempest needs a nerf or mech can never become viable.
If Protoss starts to mass Tempest Terran need to throw away all tanks and hellbats and start to mass vikings and ravens or die. If you have 10+ Tanks and 15+Hellbats you can never match the Tempest since they are so extremly supply effeceint.
Please increse Tempest food cost to 6 or lower Tempest hitpoints.
Well, now that upgrades are shared, you swap starports to reactors and spam vikings while doing constant hellion runbys with your excess hellbats....
tempest against terran?
raven/viking? pdd is such a nasty thing to do to tempests... that's not to say that it's simply gg i got raven/viking you got tempest.. it makes a nice dynamic.
Also I think oracles need a redesign, i'm glad they can harrass but it's not like it takes any skill to send an oracle over and beam probes a little bit. Even banshee micro is more respectable.
And mech upgrades combined won't help mech.. so why do it.
Tempest right now is standard way to finish the game that accidentally went long with small advantage for toss. Next, oracle is fine and i like direction blizzard is going with it, scrapping the idea of harasser as main function and using it as a decent scouting tool with maphax. Combined mech upgrades MAY help. Especially considering that now BC-Raven transition comes into full strength long before zerg may have +3 armor on flyers or considering the fact, that now vikings share attack upgrades with hellbats (ForGG approves).
On September 27 2013 01:46 MockHamill wrote: I agree with all of the changes but:
Tempest needs a nerf or mech can never become viable.
If Protoss starts to mass Tempest Terran need to throw away all tanks and hellbats and start to mass vikings and ravens or die. If you have 10+ Tanks and 15+Hellbats you can never match the Tempest since they are so extremly supply effeceint.
Please increse Tempest food cost to 6 or lower Tempest hitpoints.
Well, now that upgrades are shared, you swap starports to reactors and spam vikings while doing constant hellion runbys with your excess hellbats....
tempest against terran?
raven/viking? pdd is such a nasty thing to do to tempests... that's not to say that it's simply gg i got raven/viking you got tempest.. it makes a nice dynamic.
Also I think oracles need a redesign, i'm glad they can harrass but it's not like it takes any skill to send an oracle over and beam probes a little bit. Even banshee micro is more respectable.
And mech upgrades combined won't help mech.. so why do it.
Tempest right now is standard way to finish the game that accidentally went long with small advantage for toss. Next, oracle is fine and i like direction blizzard is going with it, scrapping the idea of harasser as main function and using it as a decent scouting tool with maphax. Combined mech upgrades MAY help. Especially considering that now BC-Raven transition comes into full strength long before zerg may have +3 armor on flyers or considering the fact, that now vikings share attack upgrades with hellbats (ForGG approves).
Did you not notice that i was talking about corruptors :3?
Whoops my bad .
You are right, there it may have an effect. On the other hand then first mech needs to be viable, and I don't see anything that is going to make it viable anytime soon, 10% cycle time reduction isn't going to change that much.
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
Siege Tanks are slow to produce units. You don't go fast 3cc and then don't build dudes for 5:00 minutes straight.
Bio is much more important to produce at that time.
As you build up a bio ball, you need to prevent creep spread or all is lost. Tanks suck at clearing creap, so you bring mines instead.
That's not a "Tanks are useless" scenario that's a tactical awareness scenario. In the current metagame of fast creep spread you cannot afford to have an army that is too slow to prevent total map control from being given to the zerg. If the zerg was dumb enough to try throwing wave after wave of troops at you then tanks would have a purpose, but MMMM chases the zerg army as much as it positions against it.
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
3 CC into marine tank? Think Bomber vs Goswser. Shows why would you buff marine tank well enough. Also, all this patch does is bring some variety to the game. Also, vipers.
Post the link - you lied about the last one with bomber vs JD on newkirk.
And yeah - the fact that bomber could beat goswer (if you aren't trolling me again) with marine/tank really speaks to it being a viable option.
Nice job ignoring the question totally by the way xD.
I have to stop adding information to my posts it seems - people choose to ignore the main ideas and focus on the supporting info.
"Lied?" So I got the maps mixed up, it was well over a month since the game took place. No need to be all dramatic. Basically people who disagree with you are not trolling. A radius nerf won't necessarily kill biomine. That's why there is a test map. Back in wings there was a big nerf to emp and every Terran thought ghosts in tvp were useless. Guess what they are still in 90% of tvps. Khaydarin amulets were removed, Protoss lamented that high Templars were "useless". Infestors were repeatedly nerfed at the end but still infestors dominated the waning months of sc2. So chill out, Terran isn't dead and you don't need to switch to lol... yet
Also slightly nerfing mine radius doesn't give you WoL Terran. You have still:
Super annoying reapers Rocket jets on medivacs Combined mech/air upgrades Free seige tech Reworked raven Hellbats 1.25 radius mines
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Uh... wouldn't that mean that all the 'buff' changes would be under the 'Disapprove' category? as 2/3 of the people would vote against it?
Oh wait, no, that's not what happened. Way to be wrong.
Shame on Blizzard for listening to the community and trying to create a better game.
Those are often two different things. Why are you generalizing so much? We don't live in the world where you can either scrap anything the community down votes or they don't listen at all. The point wasn't that every time people cry the immediatly jump ship, but rather that there are times where they get super bad feedback and immediatly abondon an idea rather than trying to tweak it. Best exmplae for this is the warhound: They spent 2+ fucking years working on that thing, then everyone qqd for one week when only pros had beta and they just removed the entire unit. Obv there are cases, like this time around the oracle (though they have been talking about an oracle change for months now) they do adjust when bad feedback comes in, people are just complaing that it isn't happening often enough.
You have absolutely no idea how video game development works. Blizzard worked 2 years on the WHOLE expansion, including all changes to battle.net. The warhound is just this tiny little asset that they created, which still appears in the campaign mode, so it wasn't even scrapped. The same thing happens to many other units such as the diamondback, the lurker, the firebat, the wraith, etc.
Moreover, Blizzard realized that the warhound's role overlaps too much with the marauder and takes away from what makes Mech play different from bio.
so i guess they didn't realize how much the widow mine overlaps with the siege tank in those two years?
Where were you for the last year? Do you even remember the "shredder"? And the first iteration of the widow mine, which sticks to a unit and blows it up after 10 seconds? And for gods sake, stop with the "two years" BS.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
Uh... wouldn't that mean that all the 'buff' changes would be under the 'Disapprove' category? as 2/3 of the people would vote against it?
Oh wait, no, that's not what happened. Way to be wrong.
Shame on Blizzard for listening to the community and trying to create a better game.
Those are often two different things. Why are you generalizing so much? We don't live in the world where you can either scrap anything the community down votes or they don't listen at all. The point wasn't that every time people cry the immediatly jump ship, but rather that there are times where they get super bad feedback and immediatly abondon an idea rather than trying to tweak it. Best exmplae for this is the warhound: They spent 2+ fucking years working on that thing, then everyone qqd for one week when only pros had beta and they just removed the entire unit. Obv there are cases, like this time around the oracle (though they have been talking about an oracle change for months now) they do adjust when bad feedback comes in, people are just complaing that it isn't happening often enough.
You have absolutely no idea how video game development works. Blizzard worked 2 years on the WHOLE expansion, including all changes to battle.net. The warhound is just this tiny little asset that they created, which still appears in the campaign mode, so it wasn't even scrapped. The same thing happens to many other units such as the diamondback, the lurker, the firebat, the wraith, etc.
Moreover, Blizzard realized that the warhound's role overlaps too much with the marauder and takes away from what makes Mech play different from bio.
so i guess they didn't realize how much the widow mine overlaps with the siege tank in those two years?
Where were you for the last year? Do you even remember the "shredder"? And the first iteration of the widow mine, which sticks to a unit and blows it up after 10 seconds? And for gods sake, stop with the "two years" BS.
Don't feed the troll. He doesn't seem to be here for discussion.
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
3 CC into marine tank? Think Bomber vs Goswser. Shows why would you buff marine tank well enough. Also, all this patch does is bring some variety to the game. Also, vipers.
Post the link - you lied about the last one with bomber vs JD on newkirk.
And yeah - the fact that bomber could beat goswer (if you aren't trolling me again) with marine/tank really speaks to it being a viable option.
Nice job ignoring the question totally by the way xD.
I have to stop adding information to my posts it seems - people choose to ignore the main ideas and focus on the supporting info.
"Lied?" So I got the maps mixed up, it was well over a month since the game took place. No need to be all dramatic. Basically people who disagree with you are not trolling. A radius nerf won't necessarily kill biomine. That's why there is a test map. Back in wings there was a big nerf to emp and every Terran thought ghosts in tvp were useless. Guess what they are still in 90% of tvps. Khaydarin amulets were removed, Protoss lamented that high Templars were "useless". Infestors were repeatedly nerfed at the end but still infestors dominated the waning months of sc2. So chill out, Terran isn't dead and you don't need to switch to lol... yet
Also slightly nerfing mine radius doesn't give you WoL Terran. You have still:
Super annoying reapers Rocket jets on medivacs Combined mech/air upgrades Free seige tech Reworked raven Hellbats 1.25 radius mines
First off, Why are you replying to a thread that wasn't directed at you? I'm sorry for saying someone lied - but I got the impression that the dude that I actually replied to was trolling me by telling me bomber played a standard marine/tank game off 3 cc when he did not. - That game on whirlwind is not a standard play - watch it - is it standard to push with combat shield marines?
Third - If you are acknowledging the game as being balanced are you then saying that half the area widow mines won't make bio/mine underpowered? I'm not sure I follow.
I did leave out the boosters - that was my mistake - but lets not pretend that once you have a flock of mutas out it's really not that difficult to throw down static and shut drops down.
What I'm saying is : If the games are competitive and balanced now - how would taking half of the area away from the widow mine splash not make them imbalanced? Try to consider the total damage output of widow mines over a game and then half it - you think that bio/mine is still going to be viable even if it is clearly beatable at the current level?
I like playing zerg too it's super fun so I'm not angry I'm just honestly confused that what I'm saying isn't more obvious to people - I understand it's only a test map so let's just wait and see - I will eat my words if the match-up doesn't get totally screwed up.
I wonder when would they look at transformation servos.
I hope they will change as: 50/50 but still 110s. (to prevent transition from hellion contain to genocide ) But this upgrade also benefits tank, thor, viking, and hellbat/hellion
Basically, it will decrease transformation duration by 1~2 seconds and enables hellbat/hellion transformation. I started to think this after I saw the different, cooler icon for this upgrade
I'm really interested to see if players will break out some cool new burrow strats, or whether it just ends up being used for stronger ZvP timing attacks. I don't think it will be quite the same as blink (especially since Roaches can't shoot up, and so have a lot of hardcounters that Stalkers don't), but I do think there's a chance for skilled players with high apm to get a lot more out of a well-microed Roach army with tunneling claws.
On September 27 2013 11:07 futech wrote: Terran has won nearly all the major HoTS Tournies. Why do you need to make Terran/Vikings more OP. Might as well give SCV guns too. This will just make SCV pulls even stronger if you upgrade +1 attack/armor vikings.
I think SCV's should lose hp if they move away from CC to deter scv pulls by 5 hp maybe it'll help.
Man, you don't know anything about Terran. I mean, the reason we don't give SCVs guns is because we don't want to deal with an SCV uprising. Just look at the SCV pulls, clearly they're OP. Now, the question is why? Is it because of the MM? Well, they have a tendency to lose alone. Then you add SCVs and instantly, you can win the game. Thus clearly SCVs are OP. Can't deal with revolutions in the middle of games.
SCV pulling is kind of obnoxious but only when it's so common which it sort of is right now. I'm not sure if the answer to that is just to wait a bunch and hope terrans just stop doing it if Protoss gets too good at stopping it or to fundamentally change how tvp works, like making them not able to chonoboost forges so they can't hit that nasty 3/3 timing or something (not saying they should just flat out nerf protoss but I wouldn't mind being incentivised differently during the matchup)
Also combining mech and air upgrades doesn't do shit to making that push any stronger, dunno what your saying there.
On September 27 2013 12:32 iaguz wrote: SCV pulling is kind of obnoxious but only when it's so common which it sort of is right now. I'm not sure if the answer to that is just to wait a bunch and hope terrans just stop doing it if Protoss gets too good at stopping it or to fundamentally change how tvp works, like making them not able to chonoboost forges so they can't hit that nasty 3/3 timing or something (not saying they should just flat out nerf protoss but I wouldn't mind being incentivised differently during the matchup)
Also combining mech and air upgrades doesn't do shit to making that push any stronger, dunno what your saying there.
I think the timings will eventually get figured out completely and it will stop working. There are still other ways to win, this is just a really good one right now.
Personally, my favorite part of PvT both playing and watching is the HT/Ghost dance. Find ways to make that the more common/standard way to play, whether it be some sort of change to Colossus or decreasing Terran upgrade times so they don't have to SCV pull before those nasty Protoss timings, idk. I feel like other than the SCV pull silliness, PvT is in a pretty good place right now.
Hell, I think most matchups are in a pretty good place right now, except for PvZ. I wouldn't mind seeing a bit more variety in TvZ, but each matchup has a couple different ways you can reliably play right now and I think it's a pretty good time for SC2.
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
3 CC into marine tank? Think Bomber vs Goswser. Shows why would you buff marine tank well enough. Also, all this patch does is bring some variety to the game. Also, vipers.
Post the link - you lied about the last one with bomber vs JD on newkirk.
And yeah - the fact that bomber could beat goswer (if you aren't trolling me again) with marine/tank really speaks to it being a viable option.
Nice job ignoring the question totally by the way xD.
I have to stop adding information to my posts it seems - people choose to ignore the main ideas and focus on the supporting info.
"Lied?" So I got the maps mixed up, it was well over a month since the game took place. No need to be all dramatic. Basically people who disagree with you are not trolling. A radius nerf won't necessarily kill biomine. That's why there is a test map. Back in wings there was a big nerf to emp and every Terran thought ghosts in tvp were useless. Guess what they are still in 90% of tvps. Khaydarin amulets were removed, Protoss lamented that high Templars were "useless". Infestors were repeatedly nerfed at the end but still infestors dominated the waning months of sc2. So chill out, Terran isn't dead and you don't need to switch to lol... yet
Also slightly nerfing mine radius doesn't give you WoL Terran. You have still:
Super annoying reapers Rocket jets on medivacs Combined mech/air upgrades Free seige tech Reworked raven Hellbats 1.25 radius mines
First off, Why are you replying to a thread that wasn't directed at you? I'm sorry for saying someone lied - but I got the impression that the dude that I actually replied to was trolling me by telling me bomber played a standard marine/tank game off 3 cc when he did not. - That game on whirlwind is not a standard play - watch it - is it standard to push with combat shield marines?
Third - If you are acknowledging the game as being balanced are you then saying that half the area widow mines won't make bio/mine underpowered? I'm not sure I follow.
I did leave out the boosters - that was my mistake - but lets not pretend that once you have a flock of mutas out it's really not that difficult to throw down static and shut drops down.
What I'm saying is : If the games are competitive and balanced now - how would taking half of the area away from the widow mine splash not make them imbalanced? Try to consider the total damage output of widow mines over a game and then half it - you think that bio/mine is still going to be viable even if it is clearly beatable at the current level?
I like playing zerg too it's super fun so I'm not angry I'm just honestly confused that what I'm saying isn't more obvious to people - I understand it's only a test map so let's just wait and see - I will eat my words if the match-up doesn't get totally screwed up.
I don't know how many people need to tell you this and how many times The matchup is stale. The fact that there are barely any marine tank games should show you there is something wrong. You said pushing out with combat shield is not standard, bio tank itself is not standard anymore. Look at the diversity from other matchup. Zvp Almost all units are viable, even swarmhosts see more appearance than tanks
Blizzard is taking out bio mine style because it completely overshadows all other terran style. Mine is back to being a support unit than a unit that overpower than tanks in every way except roach play. Complaining about mine being nerf hard and bio mine doesn't work means you have no idea what this patch is about. Or even more simple way to say this would be: Blizzard wants balance win rate with a marine medivac tank mine in tvz. Not bio mine
If Tvz has 3 viable options, bio mine, marine tank and mech then that would be a healthy matchup. Each composition would require Zerg to play differently (probably? can see more infestor usage vs marine tank but roach hydra is never gonna happen)
As it is this is not the case it's almost all bio mine nowadays. Bomber plays a unique style of TvZ, consider him the exception and not the rule of TvZ
On September 27 2013 14:53 ishida66 wrote: Good changes but neither of them makes SC2 less unidimensional, problem is still deep in the core of the game.
I agree with that. The last chance for blizzard is lotv. If theyll still follow their course (like they did when HOTS has been released) the game will die. They must communicate with community more, consult with pro players more and hire some new fresh brains to implement something new. LoTV is the las chance, please, dont let this game die, im playing sc about 14 years, remember that good times before BW came out and after and i dont wanna this game die. I still believe Blizz can do something special and sc2 will rize again. I really like that SC is a sologame compared to Dota2 and LoL (i also have about 3k games in LoL and about 200 games of Dota2 and have been playing original Dota and WoW-Arena on 2500rating) Its nice, that u can play and dont rely on your teammates. Its pretty awesome, but we need something to communicate with people more, because always im playing ladder i feel im alone - thats not nice. And as i know many people complain about that. WC3 was more social, SC:BW was too. Please, note this, Blizz! Sorry for bad eng, i tried my best P.S. Also, im REALLY EXCITED of watching SC2. Its much much Much better, then watching LoL and Dota2 and other games.
On September 27 2013 14:53 ishida66 wrote: Good changes but neither of them makes SC2 less unidimensional, problem is still deep in the core of the game.
I agree with that. The last chanse for blizzard is lotv. If theyll still follow their course (like they did when HOTS has been released) the game will die. They must communicate with community more, consult with pro players more and hire some new fresh brains to implement something new. LoTV is the las chance.
I'm actually waiting for wc4 or sc3 :p I don't think they will change at LotV, sadly. (because that will be too drastic for tournaments) oh well, I think I should play hearthstone to have less sore wrist :D Blizzard, BETA KEY PLZZZz
On September 27 2013 10:35 awesomoecalypse wrote: I'm really interested to see if players will break out some cool new burrow strats, or whether it just ends up being used for stronger ZvP timing attacks. I don't think it will be quite the same as blink (especially since Roaches can't shoot up, and so have a lot of hardcounters that Stalkers don't), but I do think there's a chance for skilled players with high apm to get a lot more out of a well-microed Roach army with tunneling claws.
Yes! Ppl should remember that T claw not only makes roach move underground but also grants 10 HP/sec regeneration. That is sick (and thats why it is still hard to get )
On September 27 2013 14:53 ishida66 wrote: Good changes but neither of them makes SC2 less unidimensional, problem is still deep in the core of the game.
I agree with that. The last chance for blizzard is lotv. If theyll still follow their course (like they did when HOTS has been released) the game will die. They must communicate with community more, consult with pro players more and hire some new fresh brains to implement something new. LoTV is the las chance, please, dont let this game die, im playing sc about 14 years, remember that good times before BW came out and after and i dont wanna this game die. I still believe Blizz can do something special and sc2 will rize again. I really like that SC is a sologame compared to Dota2 and LoL (i also have about 3k games in LoL and about 200 games of Dota2 and have been playing original Dota and WoW-Arena on 2500rating) Its nice, that u can play and dont rely on your teammates. Its pretty awesome, but we need something to communicate with people more, because always im playing ladder i feel im alone - thats not nice. And as i know many people complain about that. WC3 was more social, SC:BW was too. Please, note this, Blizz! Sorry for bad eng, i tried my best
This game WILL die because it is the nature of all games to die.
I predict it'll probably happen 2-3 years post LotV. I also imagine the hype engine (and hopefully just good design) of LotV will keep it going strong.
I hope that Blizz will take all the lessons they learn from Starcraft 2 and make an even better dueling game after it. Perhaps wishful thinking. I only hope this game comes out as SC2 wraps up so we have something else for 1v1 RTS fans to cling to. And I hope it's brilliant.
Or maybe that Day 9 game will be cool too. I don't fucken know, maybe?
On September 27 2013 14:53 ishida66 wrote: Good changes but neither of them makes SC2 less unidimensional, problem is still deep in the core of the game.
I agree with that. The last chance for blizzard is lotv. If theyll still follow their course (like they did when HOTS has been released) the game will die. They must communicate with community more, consult with pro players more and hire some new fresh brains to implement something new. LoTV is the las chance, please, dont let this game die, im playing sc about 14 years, remember that good times before BW came out and after and i dont wanna this game die. I still believe Blizz can do something special and sc2 will rize again. I really like that SC is a sologame compared to Dota2 and LoL (i also have about 3k games in LoL and about 200 games of Dota2 and have been playing original Dota and WoW-Arena on 2500rating) Its nice, that u can play and dont rely on your teammates. Its pretty awesome, but we need something to communicate with people more, because always im playing ladder i feel im alone - thats not nice. And as i know many people complain about that. WC3 was more social, SC:BW was too. Please, note this, Blizz! Sorry for bad eng, i tried my best
This game WILL die because it is the nature of all games to die.
I predict it'll probably happen 2-3 years post LotV. I also imagine the hype engine (and hopefully just good design) of LotV will keep it going strong.
I hope that Blizz will take all the lessons they learn from Starcraft 2 and make an even better dueling game after it. Perhaps wishful thinking. I only hope this game comes out as SC2 wraps up so we have something else for 1v1 RTS fans to cling to.
And I hope it's brilliant.
Id really like something like WoW arena but not WoW, just something fresh. Also, i think creating dota-allstars is a marketing fail. But it is another story Lets talk about balance and implementations! ^^
On September 27 2013 14:21 iaguz wrote: If Tvz has 3 viable options, bio mine, marine tank and mech then that would be a healthy matchup. Each composition would require Zerg to play differently (probably? can see more infestor usage vs marine tank but roach hydra is never gonna happen)
As it is this is not the case it's almost all bio mine nowadays. Bomber plays a unique style of TvZ, consider him the exception and not the rule of TvZ
While I believe viable options will always make for diverse styles, as we saw in the past players sticking to a likely inferior style yet prefering it, I believe as long as one style is as superior as biomine to the other styles, we will simply not see those styles.
Hope they can fix it, as I actually enjoy Starcraft, but sometimes its hard to like.
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
while they are at it they should increase marine range with to 9 and give them 13 attack=?
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
while they are at it they should increase marine range with to 9 and give them 13 attack=?
I think IF blizzard listened to qqs about marines they rather decrease marine health to 40 and give range +1 upgrade instead of combat shield like bw marines are.
I think givine oracle a straight buff is not a good option. They should have research at cybernetics core (unlocks after stargate) to buff it. like 100/100 60s or 50/50 110s
Edit: but still sad that oracle is good of nothing unless its stat gets broken
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
Medivacs and Warp-ins are "hidden" fundamental problems of SC2, for several reasons: 1. There is no point not having them, therefore no decision-making involved. 2. Good at everything: general fighting, harassing and defending. 3. Ignore defender's advantage. Therefore we can't make any creative maps beyond what we have.
As a result we have stale game, with similar maps and strategies.
A unit or ability needs to have major downside so that opponent could overcome it by good play. Medivacs and warpins have none. And game revolves around it. iirc Ret or TLO said something along this, that warpin makes Protoss too volatile. Which is not good since bad protoss could beat anyone with sheer luck, in similar way good protoss could lose to anyone.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
Not true for every number of cost and supply, though. Zealots beat marines, but only for so long until the range>melee concept kicks in. 1 zealot easily beats 2 marines, 2 zealots beat 4 marines easily, I don't know for how long you can continue that, but if you want to talk about cost/supply efficiency, you cannot take control into account.
If someone controls units well, its a benefit of the player.
In all the pro games I've watched I never felt that the widow mine did to much damage. However I think there isn't enough risk in using them. I felt the problem has been their behavior. A different lock on behavior coupled with a frontal arc AE extending into the direction the missile flying would have been my choice. It would make them harder to use and as such require more skill to get the most out of them.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
Not true for every number of cost and supply, though. Zealots beat marines, but only for so long until the range>melee concept kicks in. 1 zealot easily beats 2 marines, 2 zealots beat 4 marines easily, I don't know for how long you can continue that, but if you want to talk about cost/supply efficiency, you cannot take control into account.
If someone controls units well, its a benefit of the player.
Still fighting the good Terran lobby fight I see. Since we're not allowed to take control into account because it's the benefit of the player, to make the pro games more interesting to watch, could you please teach all the Protoss players of the world how to micro their Zealots so they can beat stutter stepping Marines of equal value without getting horrendously ineffective trades?
Some units simply don't have the same amount of micro potential as others. They're as close to +a move units as anything gets. Easy to use decently, impossible to use in a particularly good way. Add the fact that Terran has a brilliant anti-micro ability called the concussive shell that exists only to suck skill out of the game the problem becomes even easier to see.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
Not true for every number of cost and supply, though. Zealots beat marines, but only for so long until the range>melee concept kicks in. 1 zealot easily beats 2 marines, 2 zealots beat 4 marines easily, I don't know for how long you can continue that, but if you want to talk about cost/supply efficiency, you cannot take control into account.
If someone controls units well, its a benefit of the player.
he is talking about real game cost efficiency...you are talking about something like going in a unit test map and a-move both sides...gotta wonder which is more realistic for a real game situation
oh boy if only blizz would do insane stuff in LotV and rebalance stuff like marines, warpgates, FFs, colossus and introduced better space control units like better tanks or lurker and make the game more stategy and multitasking BW like where smaller amounts of units could hold a position vs much bigger amount of units...basically antideathball play for all races.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
Not true for every number of cost and supply, though. Zealots beat marines, but only for so long until the range>melee concept kicks in. 1 zealot easily beats 2 marines, 2 zealots beat 4 marines easily, I don't know for how long you can continue that, but if you want to talk about cost/supply efficiency, you cannot take control into account.
If someone controls units well, its a benefit of the player.
he is talking about real game cost efficiency...you are talking about something like going in a unit test map and a-move both sides...gotta wonder which is more realistic for a real game situation
Nope, I'm taling exactly what he is talking. Which is true for a few units that they beat marines cost for cost in those low scenarios on amove. (zerglings, roaches, marauders) Thing is, even without control this swings into the marines favor already in quite low numbers.
And then we start to add all of those advantages we know about from design/ingame experience, like shooting air, glass canon design being generally superior due to harassment situations. Range/speed relations leading to micro advantages/possibilities against a lot of units; range/size relations leading to terrain advantages. They are just very strong+very universal which is very hard to balance gameplaywise.
The biggest problem in mech TvP ist not vs ground units! I play low gm and only lose to Air toss (Tempest, Carrier), we just need something good vs Air. I mean you lose if P hits 1-2 good storms into Vikings and if u face a lot of Carrier you cant win anymore... I dont like the Tank buff at all but as a Terran Player i say why not :D !
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
Medivacs and Warp-ins are "hidden" fundamental problems of SC2, for several reasons: 1. There is no point not having them, therefore no decision-making involved. 2. Good at everything: general fighting, harassing and defending. 3. Ignore defender's advantage. Therefore we can't make any creative maps beyond what we have.
As a result we have stale game, with similar maps and strategies.
A unit or ability needs to have major downside so that opponent could overcome it by good play. Medivacs and warpins have none. And game revolves around it. iirc Ret or TLO said something along this, that warpin makes Protoss too volatile. Which is not good since bad protoss could beat anyone with sheer luck, in similar way good protoss could lose to anyone.
What about queen's? Good early game defensive units, macro mechanics and creep. MId to Late game can transfuse.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
Not true for every number of cost and supply, though. Zealots beat marines, but only for so long until the range>melee concept kicks in. 1 zealot easily beats 2 marines, 2 zealots beat 4 marines easily, I don't know for how long you can continue that, but if you want to talk about cost/supply efficiency, you cannot take control into account.
If someone controls units well, its a benefit of the player.
he is talking about real game cost efficiency...you are talking about something like going in a unit test map and a-move both sides...gotta wonder which is more realistic for a real game situation
Nope, I'm taling exactly what he is talking. Which is true for a few units that they beat marines cost for cost in those low scenarios on amove. (zerglings, roaches, marauders) Thing is, even without control this swings into the marines favor already in quite low numbers.
And then we start to add all of those advantages we know about from design/ingame experience, like shooting air, glass canon design being generally superior due to harassment situations. Range/speed relations leading to micro advantages/possibilities against a lot of units; range/size relations leading to terrain advantages. They are just very strong+very universal which is very hard to balance gameplaywise.
Marines need to be as strong as they are because: -In the early game zerg and toss can have huge army value advantages (lower infrastructure cost, front loaded production) -In the later stages of the game the other races have strong counters. -Terran production is not flexible, a rax with a reactor is a huge investment and it can only produce marines. -Terran can only adjust the supporting units to to enemy army. The core stays the same. If you go Bio the core of the army are Marines. That is the way the terran race works.This will never ever change.
Whan about getting mines self-destruction ability? For example: after mine not being shoot for X time it kills itself,doing damage in X circle? Or after mine has been produced it lives for X time, then destroys itself, damaging units around it. Just my stupid thoughts, but maybe thay would be helful for somebody...
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
Not true for every number of cost and supply, though. Zealots beat marines, but only for so long until the range>melee concept kicks in. 1 zealot easily beats 2 marines, 2 zealots beat 4 marines easily, I don't know for how long you can continue that, but if you want to talk about cost/supply efficiency, you cannot take control into account.
If someone controls units well, its a benefit of the player.
he is talking about real game cost efficiency...you are talking about something like going in a unit test map and a-move both sides...gotta wonder which is more realistic for a real game situation
Nope, I'm taling exactly what he is talking. Which is true for a few units that they beat marines cost for cost in those low scenarios on amove. (zerglings, roaches, marauders) Thing is, even without control this swings into the marines favor already in quite low numbers.
And then we start to add all of those advantages we know about from design/ingame experience, like shooting air, glass canon design being generally superior due to harassment situations. Range/speed relations leading to micro advantages/possibilities against a lot of units; range/size relations leading to terrain advantages. They are just very strong+very universal which is very hard to balance gameplaywise.
Marines need to be as strong as they are because: -In the early game zerg and toss can have huge army value advantages (lower infrastructure cost, front loaded production) -In the later stages of the game the other races have strong counters. -Terran production is not flexible, a rax with a reactor is a huge investment and it can only produce marines. -Terran can only adjust the supporting units to to enemy army. The core stays the same. If you go Bio the core of the army are Marines. That is the way the terran race works.This will never ever change.
Yes, this is true now after the game has been balanced (tanknerf, stim/bunker/ marauder/barracks nerfs...) like this. I completely agree with you.
On September 27 2013 20:53 Lomo wrote: The biggest problem in mech TvP ist not vs ground units! I play low gm and only lose to Air toss (Tempest, Carrier), we just need something good vs Air. I mean you lose if P hits 1-2 good storms into Vikings and if u face a lot of Carrier you cant win anymore... I dont like the Tank buff at all but as a Terran Player i say why not :D !
i agree with this. the thor is the problem, that's also a reason why tvz mech is hard to do. magic box mutas ftw
I'm quite happy with the changes as a spectator. As a player the oracle buff is... nothing. Because every lower player like me will lose the oracle and never rebuilt it (so revelation late game will not appear...).
I really would like to see another speel for the oracle usable lategame. (they had in beta a thing that canceled the effect of spells). It was way to strong if i recall but it was a late game usage of it (with the anti-grab etc..) I have no idea in mind but this would be cool. Also they need to do something with the mothership. I never seen one in televised match (not saying i watched all but i watch a lot). Never in the WCS i saw it. Neither i saw a carrier.
Some units are not really present but have their usefullnesse (thor comes to mind). I think Protoss is the only race the never show all their units. For terran you can see in televised matches from marines to battlecruisers, thor, tanks, wm, ghosts raven etc... (hello mma ! corvid reactor in the research bar). Zerg show all their units too. But protoss no.
I don't care as i'm playing as zerg but from a specator point of view i would like to see all the arsenal of all the race.
Also next balance patch. I want Carriers to shoot void rays :p
Yeah, unfortunately it seems like someone from Blizz read the TL thread and saw all the whiners, and instead of changing the proposed buff like they did with the Oracle, they just scrapped it altogether. Shame about that.
yep, to much whiners about protoss, i think protoss needs some idras or clouds before they start getting cool stuff, no whiners no buff it seems
On September 27 2013 21:35 The_best32 wrote: the tank buff would break tvt.
No it would not, its too minor for that.
Even a bigger buff wouldn't really "break" TvT, it would only really hurt pure bio which is a niche style anyway. Marine/tank and mech would be viable with a stronger tank.
On September 27 2013 21:35 The_best32 wrote: the tank buff would break tvt.
No it would not, its too minor for that.
Even a bigger buff wouldn't really "break" TvT, it would only really hurt pure bio which is a niche style anyway. Marine/tank and mech would be viable with a stronger tank.
I don't think it is possible for a tank buff to ever break TvT since tank play is what people enjoy the most about TvT...
That's like complaining that you can't have a hot girlfriend who also has a good personality.
What do you know..another foreign zerg beats a Korean Terran...with the current meta..(Nerchiro vs ForGG). There must be tons of foreign Terrans rolling Korean Zergs somewhere in secret...nerf pls?
On September 27 2013 21:32 FFW_Rude wrote: I'm quite happy with the changes as a spectator. As a player the oracle buff is... nothing. Because every lower player like me will lose the oracle and never rebuilt it (so revelation late game will not appear...).
I really would like to see another speel for the oracle usable lategame. (they had in beta a thing that canceled the effect of spells). It was way to strong if i recall but it was a late game usage of it (with the anti-grab etc..) I have no idea in mind but this would be cool. Also they need to do something with the mothership. I never seen one in televised match (not saying i watched all but i watch a lot). Never in the WCS i saw it. Neither i saw a carrier.
Some units are not really present but have their usefullnesse (thor comes to mind). I think Protoss is the only race the never show all their units. For terran you can see in televised matches from marines to battlecruisers, thor, tanks, wm, ghosts raven etc... (hello mma ! corvid reactor in the research bar). Zerg show all their units too. But protoss no.
I don't care as i'm playing as zerg but from a specator point of view i would like to see all the arsenal of all the race.
Also next balance patch. I want Carriers to shoot void rays :p
Oh. And planetcracker
you can see carrier occassionally but the thing is that carrier is quite hard to get (expensive and takes forever to make)
Mothership had to be nerfed to ground because they didn't want one unit dominating the game. I wish they will give -oracle the cloaking field (as a research from fleet beacon) -mothership removed -mothership core now can be produced more than one but 1 per nexus
But I expect this changes to be happening by the time LotV comes out. Edit: what... you saw BC? when? and you highly unlikely see nukes, and useless terran upgrades. All races currently have some features that are rarely seen.
On September 27 2013 21:32 FFW_Rude wrote: I'm quite happy with the changes as a spectator. As a player the oracle buff is... nothing. Because every lower player like me will lose the oracle and never rebuilt it (so revelation late game will not appear...).
I really would like to see another speel for the oracle usable lategame. (they had in beta a thing that canceled the effect of spells). It was way to strong if i recall but it was a late game usage of it (with the anti-grab etc..) I have no idea in mind but this would be cool. Also they need to do something with the mothership. I never seen one in televised match (not saying i watched all but i watch a lot). Never in the WCS i saw it. Neither i saw a carrier.
Some units are not really present but have their usefullnesse (thor comes to mind). I think Protoss is the only race the never show all their units. For terran you can see in televised matches from marines to battlecruisers, thor, tanks, wm, ghosts raven etc... (hello mma ! corvid reactor in the research bar). Zerg show all their units too. But protoss no.
I don't care as i'm playing as zerg but from a specator point of view i would like to see all the arsenal of all the race.
Also next balance patch. I want Carriers to shoot void rays :p
Oh. And planetcracker
you can see carrier occassionally but the thing is that carrier is quite hard to get (expensive and takes forever to make)
Mothership had to be nerfed to ground because they didn't want one unit dominating the game. I wish they will give -oracle the cloaking field (as a research from fleet beacon) -mothership removed -mothership core now can be produced more than one but 1 per nexus But I expect this changes to be happening by the time LotV comes out. Edit: what... you saw BC? when? and you highly unlikely see nukes, and useless terran upgrades. All races currently have some features that are rarely seen.
If they keep the current MSC powers, it would be OP if it was 1 per nexus. Imagine 6+ time wraps...
On September 27 2013 21:32 FFW_Rude wrote: I'm quite happy with the changes as a spectator. As a player the oracle buff is... nothing. Because every lower player like me will lose the oracle and never rebuilt it (so revelation late game will not appear...).
I really would like to see another speel for the oracle usable lategame. (they had in beta a thing that canceled the effect of spells). It was way to strong if i recall but it was a late game usage of it (with the anti-grab etc..) I have no idea in mind but this would be cool. Also they need to do something with the mothership. I never seen one in televised match (not saying i watched all but i watch a lot). Never in the WCS i saw it. Neither i saw a carrier.
Some units are not really present but have their usefullnesse (thor comes to mind). I think Protoss is the only race the never show all their units. For terran you can see in televised matches from marines to battlecruisers, thor, tanks, wm, ghosts raven etc... (hello mma ! corvid reactor in the research bar). Zerg show all their units too. But protoss no.
I don't care as i'm playing as zerg but from a specator point of view i would like to see all the arsenal of all the race.
Also next balance patch. I want Carriers to shoot void rays :p
Oh. And planetcracker
you can see carrier occassionally but the thing is that carrier is quite hard to get (expensive and takes forever to make)
Mothership had to be nerfed to ground because they didn't want one unit dominating the game. I wish they will give -oracle the cloaking field (as a research from fleet beacon) -mothership removed -mothership core now can be produced more than one but 1 per nexus But I expect this changes to be happening by the time LotV comes out. Edit: what... you saw BC? when? and you highly unlikely see nukes, and useless terran upgrades. All races currently have some features that are rarely seen.
If they keep the current MSC powers, it would be OP if it was 1 per nexus. Imagine 6+ time wraps...
ooooh... didn't think about that. I just didn't want a 'hero' unit in Starcraft.
On September 27 2013 05:43 DomeGetta wrote: Ohhh so game 4 u were talking about (not newkirk) - the game where Bomber was up 3-0 and crippled him with a combat shields push.. and then followed up with marine/tank at 10:30 .. yeah that's a very standard style there.. nice siting..
Anyone have a game where the terran opens standard 3 CC into marine/tank? I'd be surprised if they did - and even if they did it would be about .05% of the total pro games played.
If bio / mine is OP why don't the stats show it?
Maybe I can put it another way - simpler for people to understand - if you took WOL right now and you gave siege tanks faster reload and made infestors require micro (hots them) - buffed mutas and ultralisks - would that balance WOL? Really try to unbiasedly and honestly answer that question. Don't forget to take away siege mode upgrade either xD. Even though it is a hilarious question - try to answer it honestly. That's what this patch does.
3 CC into marine tank? Think Bomber vs Goswser. Shows why would you buff marine tank well enough. Also, all this patch does is bring some variety to the game. Also, vipers.
Post the link - you lied about the last one with bomber vs JD on newkirk.
And yeah - the fact that bomber could beat goswer (if you aren't trolling me again) with marine/tank really speaks to it being a viable option.
Nice job ignoring the question totally by the way xD.
I have to stop adding information to my posts it seems - people choose to ignore the main ideas and focus on the supporting info.
"Lied?" So I got the maps mixed up, it was well over a month since the game took place. No need to be all dramatic. Basically people who disagree with you are not trolling. A radius nerf won't necessarily kill biomine. That's why there is a test map. Back in wings there was a big nerf to emp and every Terran thought ghosts in tvp were useless. Guess what they are still in 90% of tvps. Khaydarin amulets were removed, Protoss lamented that high Templars were "useless". Infestors were repeatedly nerfed at the end but still infestors dominated the waning months of sc2. So chill out, Terran isn't dead and you don't need to switch to lol... yet
Also slightly nerfing mine radius doesn't give you WoL Terran. You have still:
Super annoying reapers Rocket jets on medivacs Combined mech/air upgrades Free seige tech Reworked raven Hellbats 1.25 radius mines
First off, Why are you replying to a thread that wasn't directed at you? I'm sorry for saying someone lied - but I got the impression that the dude that I actually replied to was trolling me by telling me bomber played a standard marine/tank game off 3 cc when he did not. - That game on whirlwind is not a standard play - watch it - is it standard to push with combat shield marines?
Third - If you are acknowledging the game as being balanced are you then saying that half the area widow mines won't make bio/mine underpowered? I'm not sure I follow.
I did leave out the boosters - that was my mistake - but lets not pretend that once you have a flock of mutas out it's really not that difficult to throw down static and shut drops down.
What I'm saying is : If the games are competitive and balanced now - how would taking half of the area away from the widow mine splash not make them imbalanced? Try to consider the total damage output of widow mines over a game and then half it - you think that bio/mine is still going to be viable even if it is clearly beatable at the current level?
I like playing zerg too it's super fun so I'm not angry I'm just honestly confused that what I'm saying isn't more obvious to people - I understand it's only a test map so let's just wait and see - I will eat my words if the match-up doesn't get totally screwed up.
I don't know how many people need to tell you this and how many times The matchup is stale. The fact that there are barely any marine tank games should show you there is something wrong. You said pushing out with combat shield is not standard, bio tank itself is not standard anymore. Look at the diversity from other matchup. Zvp Almost all units are viable, even swarmhosts see more appearance than tanks
Blizzard is taking out bio mine style because it completely overshadows all other terran style. Mine is back to being a support unit than a unit that overpower than tanks in every way except roach play. Complaining about mine being nerf hard and bio mine doesn't work means you have no idea what this patch is about. Or even more simple way to say this would be: Blizzard wants balance win rate with a marine medivac tank mine in tvz. Not bio mine
no disrespect at all but I am honestly shocked that you aren't embarrassed to make a post like this.. you are contradicting yourself in your own post. "Blizz wants marine/tank". "No one marine tanks!" "Let's kill the style that works to force a style that doesn't (which is why no one uses it). Its OK to want to see different play styles but you can't just nerf the only one that works and hope/pray that for some reason faster tank reload will fix marine/tank vs. Z. TvP isn't "stale?" I must have forgot about all the other options T has aside from MMM....oh wait... let's buff oracles! Maybe T will start offensive turret rushing! Imagine the viewers!!
The MSC as it stands now is actually pretty damn good for a 'hero' unit. It's important and useful without being the lynchpin of a strategy which is what the Mothership was in WoL ZvP when landing a vortex was the difference between victory and defeat.
I still hate Nexus cannon though. Such a huge amount of protection for so little effort/skill (though there is interesting play with baiting it out, see Innovations TvP recently.)
On September 27 2013 23:26 iaguz wrote: The MSC as it stands now is actually pretty damn good for a 'hero' unit. It's important and useful without being the lynchpin of a strategy which is what the Mothership was in WoL ZvP when landing a vortex was the difference between victory and defeat.
I still hate Nexus cannon though. Such a huge amount of protection for so little effort/skill (though there is interesting play with baiting it out, see Innovations TvP recently.)
the most annoying fact is that unless the protoss is noob, it is almost impossible to harrass in the early game (combined with 1 zealot few sentry wall in). I wish zerglings can jump like reaper :'(
On September 27 2013 21:35 The_best32 wrote: the tank buff would break tvt.
No it would not, its too minor for that.
Even a bigger buff wouldn't really "break" TvT, it would only really hurt pure bio which is a niche style anyway. Marine/tank and mech would be viable with a stronger tank.
I think you are right. But the fact that his comment is pointing at, is that the tank buff does´t make tanks viable at all in situations they were not viable before, but strengthens them in situations were they were already strong. And it will make defensive formations in TvT quite a bit stronger. Since Bio play tries to exploit thin defensive spots in the midgame of TvT, it will make mech quite more robust there and once it goes towards lategame, mech might have an edge! Because Hellbats just tank siege tank fire better than marine/marauder does.
edit: to the other point i mentioned. We are talking about 11% attack speed. While this is a noticeable buff, it doesn´t fix the problems siege tanks have in the current meta, nor does it make up for them. Against Protoss we have to many hard counter ground units (from a possible tempest transition not to speak!!! Just think of a mech army being outranged lol) and against Zerg, we have to be mobile as terrans. Once the pressure onto Zerg stops, Terran gets just pulled apart by zergling runbies and mutalisk harassment. Tanks don´t do anything against that!
On September 27 2013 23:44 iaguz wrote: I cannot say I share your desire for cliff hopping zerglings!
I think they should give us roach not burrow but cliff climbing ability. How come an alien roach is worse than earth roach when real roaches can fly, climb, bite, and s@#$ on my room
anyway, I wish one day I can do insane micro to break through that defence. like this guy from 2:41
On September 27 2013 21:32 FFW_Rude wrote: I'm quite happy with the changes as a spectator. As a player the oracle buff is... nothing. Because every lower player like me will lose the oracle and never rebuilt it (so revelation late game will not appear...).
I really would like to see another speel for the oracle usable lategame. (they had in beta a thing that canceled the effect of spells). It was way to strong if i recall but it was a late game usage of it (with the anti-grab etc..) I have no idea in mind but this would be cool. Also they need to do something with the mothership. I never seen one in televised match (not saying i watched all but i watch a lot). Never in the WCS i saw it. Neither i saw a carrier.
Some units are not really present but have their usefullnesse (thor comes to mind). I think Protoss is the only race the never show all their units. For terran you can see in televised matches from marines to battlecruisers, thor, tanks, wm, ghosts raven etc... (hello mma ! corvid reactor in the research bar). Zerg show all their units too. But protoss no.
I don't care as i'm playing as zerg but from a specator point of view i would like to see all the arsenal of all the race.
Also next balance patch. I want Carriers to shoot void rays :p
Oh. And planetcracker
you can see carrier occassionally but the thing is that carrier is quite hard to get (expensive and takes forever to make)
Mothership had to be nerfed to ground because they didn't want one unit dominating the game. I wish they will give -oracle the cloaking field (as a research from fleet beacon) -mothership removed -mothership core now can be produced more than one but 1 per nexus
But I expect this changes to be happening by the time LotV comes out. Edit: what... you saw BC? when? and you highly unlikely see nukes, and useless terran upgrades. All races currently have some features that are rarely seen.
I know that carriers are hard to get. Hope they would make them less hard to get. But i never saw them. even occasionally but i'm watching only Wcs right now. Mothership could have his warping time redced. It's as long as the photon overcharge (so almost 30 minutes :p).
But as someone said for msc. It would be so OP.... but imagine (just for the lulz) that the terran drop on whirlwind and the toss goes 3photon overcharge on 3nexis). Pictures it. Laugh. Then ban this idea :p
On September 27 2013 23:44 iaguz wrote: I cannot say I share your desire for cliff hopping zerglings!
I think they should give us roach not burrow but cliff climbing ability. How come an alien roach is worse than earth roach when real roaches can fly, climb, bite, and s@#$ on my room
Because Roaches are easily massable units and if they could go up cliffs then bunkers stop being useful and you kinda need those to beat most roach motherfuckery.
On September 27 2013 23:44 iaguz wrote: I cannot say I share your desire for cliff hopping zerglings!
I think they should give us roach not burrow but cliff climbing ability. How come an alien roach is worse than earth roach when real roaches can fly, climb, bite, and s@#$ on my room
Because Roaches are easily massable units and if they could go up cliffs then bunkers stop being useful and you kinda need those to beat most roach motherfuckery.
I know... it never gonna happen like they will never give me reaver back :'( Anyway, sorry for other ppl who want to discuss about the possible changes. :p
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
That's...not true?
Obviously it depends if you mean with micro or without micro. With micro earlygame stalkers can take on much larger marine counts. Without micro, earlygame zealots can take on much larger marine counts. I tend to be a little more interested in the raw stats, since I don't really have the APM for that kind of stalker micro while also not slipping on my macro. Which means the cost-efficient singlefire units (against stim combat shield marines) include...
* Zealots (and they can get charge for the same cost as stim/combat shield, so this isn't too crazy) * Zerglings (and they can get speed for cheap, so this isn't too crazy) * Roaches if both are upgraded (since roaches upgrade slightly better, and roaches are basically tied when everyone's 0/0) * Hellbats (Assuming the bats manage to get on top of the marines, they win even without the help of splash because hellbats are basically roaches, except more damage to armored, plus infernal preigniter) * Ultralisk (if the ultra closes distance, but deals singletarget damage, it's cost efficient)
And several other units aren't bad (Thor, Queen, Oracle)
I dunno, medivacs seem more problematic to me. With medivacs there's suddenly a lot of armies that used to do ok against marine balls and now don't (blink stalkers, roaches, queens--basically anything with low DPS). And even the units that have high DPS and can still do well (lings if they get a surround) can be escaped from by lifting into the medivac. It's really medivacs that necessitate AoE. With medivacs the army is so mobile and can harass so well that you need to be hugely cost-efficient when you actually do manage to engage the army, and AoE is the only way to be massively cost-efficient.
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
That's...not true?
Obviously it depends if you mean with micro or without micro. With micro earlygame stalkers can take on much larger marine counts. Without micro, earlygame zealots can take on much larger marine counts. I tend to be a little more interested in the raw stats, since I don't really have the APM for that kind of stalker micro while also not slipping on my macro. Which means the cost-efficient singlefire units (against stim combat shield marines) include...
* Zealots (and they can get charge for the same cost as stim/combat shield, so this isn't too crazy) * Zerglings (and they can get speed for cheap, so this isn't too crazy) * Roaches if both are upgraded (since roaches upgrade slightly better, and roaches are basically tied when everyone's 0/0) * Hellbats (Assuming the bats manage to get on top of the marines, they win even without the help of splash because hellbats are basically roaches, except more damage to armored, plus infernal preigniter) * Ultralisk (if the ultra closes distance, but deals singletarget damage, it's cost efficient)
And several other units aren't bad (Thor, Queen, Oracle)
I dunno, medivacs seem more problematic to me. With medivacs there's suddenly a lot of armies that used to do ok against marine balls and now don't (blink stalkers, roaches, queens--basically anything with low DPS). And even the units that have high DPS and can still do well (lings if they get a surround) can be escaped from by lifting into the medivac. It's really medivacs that necessitate AoE. With medivacs the army is so mobile and can harass so well that you need to be hugely cost-efficient when you actually do manage to engage the army, and AoE is the only way to be massively cost-efficient.
Bio play in BW (although viable in only 1 matchup) was split between Marine/Medic/Dropship/Science Vessel production.
You needed enough marines to fight, enough medics to heal, enough dropships that you could actually threaten to hit bases and not just die to lurker traps, and enough science vessels to support your army.
By fusing 2 of those aspects (Medic/Dropship) and cutting a 4rth aspect (Science Vessel), you are left with a 2 unit production style of "Offensive units" (Marine/Maruader) and Medivacs (acting as both support and mobility)
This simplification creates the biggest no no of fun to watch gameplay. You end up with an army that is covered up by 10-12 medivacs shooting green lasers.
In BW, since you would only build 1-3 Dropships, every lost dropship was PAINFUL and every drop play was a HUGE investment. But since you constantly produce medivacs in SC2, drop play is "This chunk of my army leaves to fight"
I just find it more visually interesting to watch ground units do ground battles and dropships do drop play.
Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
A widow mine comes up before an Oracle.
Just learn to count pylons at the main, at X time they should have Y pylons, if not then its a proxy.
While watching GSL today I realized that the WM radius decrease could actually be pretty decent in situations without micro as they'll catch my own units less...
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
On September 28 2013 00:16 metroid composite wrote:
On September 27 2013 18:52 Big J wrote:
On September 27 2013 17:48 saddaromma wrote:
On September 27 2013 17:24 Big J wrote:
On September 27 2013 16:10 wishr wrote: just loled about marines qq xD
yeah. It's so old, one would think that someone at blizzard would understand at some point that this unit is the whole problem why terran can't have other nice things, if everybody repeats it for 3years.
Marines are totally fine.
yeah, marines are fine. Because the whole game has been rebalanced for them, from the siege tank nerf, barracks nerfs, bunker nerfs, stim nerf, BC nerf (and despite announcing it, not going through with the "big" BC buff in HotS), immortal buff... everything is hugely connected to how 50/0/1 marines counter every other singlefire unit cost for cost in the game.
That's...not true?
Obviously it depends if you mean with micro or without micro. With micro earlygame stalkers can take on much larger marine counts. Without micro, earlygame zealots can take on much larger marine counts. I tend to be a little more interested in the raw stats, since I don't really have the APM for that kind of stalker micro while also not slipping on my macro. Which means the cost-efficient singlefire units (against stim combat shield marines) include...
* Zealots (and they can get charge for the same cost as stim/combat shield, so this isn't too crazy) * Zerglings (and they can get speed for cheap, so this isn't too crazy) * Roaches if both are upgraded (since roaches upgrade slightly better, and roaches are basically tied when everyone's 0/0) * Hellbats (Assuming the bats manage to get on top of the marines, they win even without the help of splash because hellbats are basically roaches, except more damage to armored, plus infernal preigniter) * Ultralisk (if the ultra closes distance, but deals singletarget damage, it's cost efficient)
And several other units aren't bad (Thor, Queen, Oracle)
I dunno, medivacs seem more problematic to me. With medivacs there's suddenly a lot of armies that used to do ok against marine balls and now don't (blink stalkers, roaches, queens--basically anything with low DPS). And even the units that have high DPS and can still do well (lings if they get a surround) can be escaped from by lifting into the medivac. It's really medivacs that necessitate AoE. With medivacs the army is so mobile and can harass so well that you need to be hugely cost-efficient when you actually do manage to engage the army, and AoE is the only way to be massively cost-efficient.
Bio play in BW (although viable in only 1 matchup) was split between Marine/Medic/Dropship/Science Vessel production.
You needed enough marines to fight, enough medics to heal, enough dropships that you could actually threaten to hit bases and not just die to lurker traps, and enough science vessels to support your army.
By fusing 2 of those aspects (Medic/Dropship) and cutting a 4rth aspect (Science Vessel), you are left with a 2 unit production style of "Offensive units" (Marine/Maruader) and Medivacs (acting as both support and mobility)
This simplification creates the biggest no no of fun to watch gameplay. You end up with an army that is covered up by 10-12 medivacs shooting green lasers.
In BW, since you would only build 1-3 Dropships, every lost dropship was PAINFUL and every drop play was a HUGE investment. But since you constantly produce medivacs in SC2, drop play is "This chunk of my army leaves to fight"
I just find it more visually interesting to watch ground units do ground battles and dropships do drop play.
But to each their own.
Yeah right. Nice spin you put on the situation in the game by making one unit out of two and not mentioning necessary support units. Well done.
I think Blizzard is moving in the right direction with this changes. Less M^4 and more M^4+T. Maybe even mech with a better air switch. Sounds interesting.
On September 28 2013 00:40 DusTerr wrote: While watching GSL today I realized that the WM radius decrease could actually be pretty decent in situations without micro as they'll catch my own units less...
Terran buff confirmed. And i am fine with it (yes, i am Z player, that wants T buffed. Where is your god now?).
I just hate when people are blaming Blizzard for balance issue. It's completely immature, and worse when you make vindicative claim that the community is right and that they should listen to you caprice. Never forget that guys auto centered on your own experience only perceive the tip of the iceberg, ahhh humbleness. I don't even get why people get so subjectively involved when it's only about a TEST, you guys haven't even tried it but you already know better.
WELCOME THE CHANGE BEFORE COMPLAINING BECAUSE IT'S OUR DELIVRANCE. AMEN.
This is the patch that would end all Terran hopes. Mech would still be crap and Terran would have only 4 usable units: marines, marauders, medivacs and sometimes vikings..Horrible, pathethic units that get crushed by aoe.
On September 28 2013 01:07 p14c wrote: This is the patch that would end all Terran hopes. Mech would still be crap and Terran would have only 4 usable units: marines, marauders, medivacs and sometimes vikings..Horrible, pathethic units that get crushed by aoe.
I don't expect the mech vs bio issue to be solved in one patch. What about you? To me it seems that we are getting slow but we are getting to it. People are so resistant to change, do you realize how much diplomacy Blizzard as to use just to make you accept the change? We the players are the main reason of the mech vs bio issue. Watch to all the previous patch and you'll realize that we are constantly getting closer to a better balance between rines and mech.
On September 27 2013 23:44 iaguz wrote: I cannot say I share your desire for cliff hopping zerglings!
I think they should give us roach not burrow but cliff climbing ability. How come an alien roach is worse than earth roach when real roaches can fly, climb, bite, and s@#$ on my room
I completely disagree with you. Have you ever tried smashing a roach running under your parquet?
On September 28 2013 01:02 phalanx wrote: I just hate when people are blaming Blizzard for balance issue. It's completely immature, and worse when you make vindicative claim that the community is right and that they should listen to you caprice. Never forget that guys auto centered on your own experience only perceive the tip of the iceberg, ahhh humbleness. I don't even get why people get so subjectively involved when it's only about a TEST, you guys haven't even tried it but you already know better.
WELCOME THE CHANGE BEFORE COMPLAINING BECAUSE IT'S OUR DELIVRANCE. AMEN.
Well who else should I bloody blame? Should I blame taeja and innovation for being too good?
I'll agree that pretty much everyone is fucking stupid when it comes to balance (me included! I just like talking about the game it's fun).
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
Another problem that's going to present itself in terms of marine/tank play vs. ling/bling/muta is that the mutas in HOTS are much faster and can heal quickly, so zerg players can be more daring and more aggressive in sniping tanks.
Sniping mines with mutas is dangerous, but the mines' anti-air capabilities are kind of a trade-off with the fact that mutas are so much better now. If terran is forced to make tanks instead of mines, it's going to be a lot easier for zerg to remove terran AOE support from the fight.
This, plus the viper's blinding cloud effect, makes me wonder if the suggestion to make an upgrade ability that decreases the transformation time for tanks would be the best way to make tanks decent in tvz again. It would enable the terran player to unsiege/resiege mid battle (though that may still just be a joke and terran will lose the fight anyway).
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
This is the wrong way to think about it. It's not about getting an extra shot off, it's about getting the shots it does get off quicker.
Consider the following: Each shot erases a clump of banes or lings, correct? That means the after the first shot, the next group dies .3 seconds faster, meaning there are .3 additional seconds where your marines are shooting other things, and that clump is not attacking your units. When the third shot comes, it's .6 seconds faster than it originally was, so another clump is gone .6 seconds faster than it would have been. Even if the tank doesn't get more attacks than it ordinarily would (incidentally, it's likely that it will), it's still being substantially more effective.
Why is it that 3 marines beat 2 marines, but 15 marines absolutely slaughter 2 marines? It's about destroying the enemy DPS as fast as possible, and therefore reducing the damage the enemy army can do to you. The faster you kill the enemy army, the less damage your enemy army gets to attempt to do to you, and you therefore wind up with more units leftover after the battle.
As for whether or not a .3 second attack speed reduction will allow more shots to get off than normal: Consider an engagement. If the tank dies in the 2.7-2.99 second mark of the fight, it got another shot off than it would have otherwise. If it dies in the 5.4-5.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off. If it dies in the 8.1-8.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off.
I mean, FFS, this is a 10% attack speed buff, that's fricken huge!
See you in two weeks after the patch when the new strats will be figured out and everybody will whine (as always) about the game. Blizzard need to do some deeper changes into the game, changing a bunch of units stats isn't gonna make the game better eventhough you give a bonus speed to evey single unit in the game.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
This is the wrong way to think about it. It's not about getting an extra shot off, it's about getting the shots it does get off quicker.
Consider the following: Each shot erases a clump of banes or lings, correct? That means the after the first shot, the next group dies .3 seconds faster, meaning there are .3 additional seconds where your marines are shooting other things, and that clump is not attacking your units. When the third shot comes, it's .6 seconds faster than it originally was, so another clump is gone .6 seconds faster than it would have been. Even if the tank doesn't get more attacks than it ordinarily would (incidentally, it's likely that it will), it's still being substantially more effective.
Why is it that 3 marines beat 2 marines, but 15 marines absolutely slaughter 2 marines? It's about destroying the enemy DPS as fast as possible, and therefore reducing the damage the enemy army can do to you. The faster you kill the enemy army, the less damage your enemy army gets to attempt to do to you, and you therefore wind up with more units leftover after the battle.
Except you are missing the fact that tanks damage has friendly fire. So once enemies are in melee range of your own units, the Terran takes a lot of damage as well.
not going into specifics as there are so many potential underused units but overall id love if blizzard was willing to test way way bigger changes for the offseason in testmaps in the beginning of the testphase
also i think the most important part in all of this is to integrate a button into the client next to the ranked and unranked buttons to play the testmap against equally skilled players, this would up the testing quality and quantity by at least 9000%
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
This is the wrong way to think about it. It's not about getting an extra shot off, it's about getting the shots it does get off quicker.
Consider the following: Each shot erases a clump of banes or lings, correct? That means the after the first shot, the next group dies .3 seconds faster, meaning there are .3 additional seconds where your marines are shooting other things, and that clump is not attacking your units. When the third shot comes, it's .6 seconds faster than it originally was, so another clump is gone .6 seconds faster than it would have been. Even if the tank doesn't get more attacks than it ordinarily would (incidentally, it's likely that it will), it's still being substantially more effective.
Why is it that 3 marines beat 2 marines, but 15 marines absolutely slaughter 2 marines? It's about destroying the enemy DPS as fast as possible, and therefore reducing the damage the enemy army can do to you. The faster you kill the enemy army, the less damage your enemy army gets to attempt to do to you, and you therefore wind up with more units leftover after the battle.
Except you are missing the fact that tanks damage has friendly fire. So once enemies are in melee range of your own units, the Terran takes a lot of damage as well.
honestly I wonder if mine has splash damage is because it is needed for the bio ball to trade kinda equally against the zerg or else the marines are just too tough to kill for the lings
On September 28 2013 01:52 Tsubbi wrote: not going into specifics as there are so many potential underused units but overall id love if blizzard was willing to test way way bigger changes for the offseason in testmaps in the beginning of the testphase
also i think the most important part in all of this is to integrate a button into the client next to the ranked and unranked buttons to play the testmap against equally skilled players, this would up the testing quality and quantity by at least 9000%
Agreed 100%.
I would love a test map where they just buff the shit out of underused units such as tanks, hydras, carriers. Just force people into playing completely new styles and then readjust if necessary, instead of slightly encouraging people to do something new and they end up doing exactly the same as before.
The game right now is probably the most balanced its been, but its also getting very stale with the same strategies used in every game. Its time to buff the underused things.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
This is the wrong way to think about it. It's not about getting an extra shot off, it's about getting the shots it does get off quicker.
Consider the following: Each shot erases a clump of banes or lings, correct? That means the after the first shot, the next group dies .3 seconds faster, meaning there are .3 additional seconds where your marines are shooting other things, and that clump is not attacking your units. When the third shot comes, it's .6 seconds faster than it originally was, so another clump is gone .6 seconds faster than it would have been. Even if the tank doesn't get more attacks than it ordinarily would (incidentally, it's likely that it will), it's still being substantially more effective.
Why is it that 3 marines beat 2 marines, but 15 marines absolutely slaughter 2 marines? It's about destroying the enemy DPS as fast as possible, and therefore reducing the damage the enemy army can do to you. The faster you kill the enemy army, the less damage your enemy army gets to attempt to do to you, and you therefore wind up with more units leftover after the battle.
As for whether or not a .3 second attack speed reduction will allow more shots to get off than normal: Consider an engagement. If the tank dies in the 2.7-2.99 second mark of the fight, it got another shot off than it would have otherwise. If it dies in the 5.4-5.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off. If it dies in the 8.1-8.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off.
I mean, FFS, this is a 10% attack speed buff, that's fricken huge!
The 10% attack buff is not as big as you think. AoE units are all about landing the first shot. If you looked at tanks in TvZ in WoL, unless they were behind a wall or in a entrench position that the opposition couldn't break, their first shot did 60-70% of the damage.
Here is an extreme example of the firing rate. Think about it, that is why the widow mine is so good compare to tank. If you want to look at firing rate, the tank is like 1300% faster at only +200% the cost. The tank should be much better, right? zerg units are so fast (especially on creep) that by the time the 2nd shot fires, they are already pretty spread out.
Its the same like the previous patch when they nerfed hellbats and "buffed" banshees..Nobody uses banshees except in TvT. I don't understand why Thor doesn't has the same armor as the Ultralisk or the same hp for starter. Oh wait! I remember now: David Kim said he hates mass Thor gameplay...but he also loves mass Ultras and mass Collosus or Immortall. If this isn't bias towards the other races I don't know what it is. Why did he removed the the warhound from the game completely? He didn't even tried to balance it...As long as there are Vipers and Swarm Hosts in the game Mech is beyond repair. It was a very big mistake to put free units in the game.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
This is the wrong way to think about it. It's not about getting an extra shot off, it's about getting the shots it does get off quicker.
Consider the following: Each shot erases a clump of banes or lings, correct? That means the after the first shot, the next group dies .3 seconds faster, meaning there are .3 additional seconds where your marines are shooting other things, and that clump is not attacking your units. When the third shot comes, it's .6 seconds faster than it originally was, so another clump is gone .6 seconds faster than it would have been. Even if the tank doesn't get more attacks than it ordinarily would (incidentally, it's likely that it will), it's still being substantially more effective.
Why is it that 3 marines beat 2 marines, but 15 marines absolutely slaughter 2 marines? It's about destroying the enemy DPS as fast as possible, and therefore reducing the damage the enemy army can do to you. The faster you kill the enemy army, the less damage your enemy army gets to attempt to do to you, and you therefore wind up with more units leftover after the battle.
As for whether or not a .3 second attack speed reduction will allow more shots to get off than normal: Consider an engagement. If the tank dies in the 2.7-2.99 second mark of the fight, it got another shot off than it would have otherwise. If it dies in the 5.4-5.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off. If it dies in the 8.1-8.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off.
I mean, FFS, this is a 10% attack speed buff, that's fricken huge!
The 10% attack buff is not as big as you think. AoE units are all about landing the first shot. If you looked at tanks in TvZ in WoL, unless they were behind a wall or in a entrench position that the opposition couldn't break, their first shot did 60-70% of the damage.
Here is an extreme example of the firing rate. Think about it, that is why the widow mine is so good compare to tank. If you want to look at firing rate, the tank is like 1300% faster at only +200% the cost. The tank should be much better, right? zerg units are so fast (especially on creep) that by the time the 2nd shot fires, they are already pretty spread out.
The tank in bio/tank and the mines in bio/mine are really only for making the numbers managable for the marines to split then kill, and for targeting banelings in particular. I'm discussing this from a context of a mech army, where you have a lot more tanks. And yeah, the 10% attack buff is huge even in bio/tank. Great players will make great use of them.
Except you are missing the fact that tanks damage has friendly fire. So once enemies are in melee range of your own units, the Terran takes a lot of damage as well.
Vthree, if you are arguing that the tank buff isn't a buff because you might kill your own units with a better tank, then I don't know what to tell you, but you've lost perspective.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
This is the wrong way to think about it. It's not about getting an extra shot off, it's about getting the shots it does get off quicker.
Consider the following: Each shot erases a clump of banes or lings, correct? That means the after the first shot, the next group dies .3 seconds faster, meaning there are .3 additional seconds where your marines are shooting other things, and that clump is not attacking your units. When the third shot comes, it's .6 seconds faster than it originally was, so another clump is gone .6 seconds faster than it would have been. Even if the tank doesn't get more attacks than it ordinarily would (incidentally, it's likely that it will), it's still being substantially more effective.
Why is it that 3 marines beat 2 marines, but 15 marines absolutely slaughter 2 marines? It's about destroying the enemy DPS as fast as possible, and therefore reducing the damage the enemy army can do to you. The faster you kill the enemy army, the less damage your enemy army gets to attempt to do to you, and you therefore wind up with more units leftover after the battle.
As for whether or not a .3 second attack speed reduction will allow more shots to get off than normal: Consider an engagement. If the tank dies in the 2.7-2.99 second mark of the fight, it got another shot off than it would have otherwise. If it dies in the 5.4-5.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off. If it dies in the 8.1-8.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off.
I mean, FFS, this is a 10% attack speed buff, that's fricken huge!
The 10% attack buff is not as big as you think. AoE units are all about landing the first shot. If you looked at tanks in TvZ in WoL, unless they were behind a wall or in a entrench position that the opposition couldn't break, their first shot did 60-70% of the damage.
Here is an extreme example of the firing rate. Think about it, that is why the widow mine is so good compare to tank. If you want to look at firing rate, the tank is like 1300% faster at only +200% the cost. The tank should be much better, right? zerg units are so fast (especially on creep) that by the time the 2nd shot fires, they are already pretty spread out.
The tank in bio/tank and the mines in bio/mine are really only for making the numbers managable for the marines to split then kill, and for targeting banelings in particular. I'm discussing this from a context of a mech army, where you have a lot more tanks. And yeah, the 10% attack buff is huge even in bio/tank. Great players will make great use of them.
Except you are missing the fact that tanks damage has friendly fire. So once enemies are in melee range of your own units, the Terran takes a lot of damage as well.
Vthree, if you are arguing that the tank buff isn't a buff because you might kill your own units with a better tank, then I don't know what to tell you, but you've lost perspective.
However, it is true that by the second shot the zerg units are already closing in and there is more likely to be friendly fire.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
1 of the main problems with tanks vs ling bane muta was that they usually got 1 shot off before lings got in Merle range. Plus they are easy to surround if they are on creep. Lowering the cool down time between shots are nice. But not sure if the 0.3 second decrease will actually let tanks get more shots off.
This is the wrong way to think about it. It's not about getting an extra shot off, it's about getting the shots it does get off quicker.
Consider the following: Each shot erases a clump of banes or lings, correct? That means the after the first shot, the next group dies .3 seconds faster, meaning there are .3 additional seconds where your marines are shooting other things, and that clump is not attacking your units. When the third shot comes, it's .6 seconds faster than it originally was, so another clump is gone .6 seconds faster than it would have been. Even if the tank doesn't get more attacks than it ordinarily would (incidentally, it's likely that it will), it's still being substantially more effective.
Why is it that 3 marines beat 2 marines, but 15 marines absolutely slaughter 2 marines? It's about destroying the enemy DPS as fast as possible, and therefore reducing the damage the enemy army can do to you. The faster you kill the enemy army, the less damage your enemy army gets to attempt to do to you, and you therefore wind up with more units leftover after the battle.
As for whether or not a .3 second attack speed reduction will allow more shots to get off than normal: Consider an engagement. If the tank dies in the 2.7-2.99 second mark of the fight, it got another shot off than it would have otherwise. If it dies in the 5.4-5.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off. If it dies in the 8.1-8.99 second mark, it got an extra shot off.
I mean, FFS, this is a 10% attack speed buff, that's fricken huge!
The 10% attack buff is not as big as you think. AoE units are all about landing the first shot. If you looked at tanks in TvZ in WoL, unless they were behind a wall or in a entrench position that the opposition couldn't break, their first shot did 60-70% of the damage.
Here is an extreme example of the firing rate. Think about it, that is why the widow mine is so good compare to tank. If you want to look at firing rate, the tank is like 1300% faster at only +200% the cost. The tank should be much better, right? zerg units are so fast (especially on creep) that by the time the 2nd shot fires, they are already pretty spread out.
The tank in bio/tank and the mines in bio/mine are really only for making the numbers managable for the marines to split then kill, and for targeting banelings in particular. I'm discussing this from a context of a mech army, where you have a lot more tanks. And yeah, the 10% attack buff is huge even in bio/tank. Great players will make great use of them.
Except you are missing the fact that tanks damage has friendly fire. So once enemies are in melee range of your own units, the Terran takes a lot of damage as well.
Vthree, if you are arguing that the tank buff isn't a buff because you might kill your own units with a better tank, then I don't know what to tell you, but you've lost perspective.
No, if you read the post that I was quoting. The poster was trying to say that tanks would get an extra shot off and would 'balance' tanks in TvZ. Which is most situations, it isn't true. I am not saying it is not a buff, of course it is.
Second of all, you never mentioned mech in your post and you only said I was looking at it the wrong way. It seems you never read the post I was responding to.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
A widow mine comes up before an Oracle.
Just learn to count pylons at the main, at X time they should have Y pylons, if not then its a proxy.
I know how to count the pylons, and I am aware that the widow mine can come out before the oracle. The issue is that even if you count the pylons, you still don't know what the proxy will be. Sure, it can be oracle, but it can also be DT's or robo, or a stargate but making voids. Splitting up units to search can be fine, but if he sends his first stalker across the map it can cause problems. The responses to each of these proxies is different. Getting the widow mine out in time for oracles requires you to have made your decision on gas before you can actually confirm the proxy anyways. If planetary nexus wasn't a thing, it might not be such a big deal to open earlier gas, since my attack wouldn't get totally shut down by casting a single spell... but as it stands, I dont feel like I can reliably do enough damage in the face of PNexus to justify stunting my economy, and even just containing them with threat of drop is worthless because toss typically either all-in or sit in their base for the first 12 minutes anyways, so what am I really gaining? This is not even considering that they can make their 1shot amove army off 2 bases.
For what its worth, I am lifetime 55% or greater against T and Z, and 35% against P. Over several thousand games. I think my vT and vZ indicate that I have SOME ability to play the game competently, especially considering that matchmaking tries to keep you at 50%, but I can't beat Toss. I cant fucking stand it when they continue to buff the one goddamn matchup that I can't win in, and do it in such a one sided fashion to boot. I can live with the mine and tank changes, I think they are good for TvZ, and the combined air/mech upgrades is really good for TvT, I was even on board with the hellbat nerf, because hellbats were retarded, but again, that needed to be done because they were breaking the game. But I am so tired of more buffs to toss, especially when the global MU stats they have posted for the last few months have already shown a significant disparity in TvP, in P's favor. Lack of late game oracles isnt breaking TvP, and they are already good enough in the early game, so is it really necessary to fool with them at all?
In conclusion, while most of the proposed changes I am fine with, and think enhance the game, Blizz can seriously fuck off with buffing the goddamn Protoss. They are getting buffs not because they are at some kind of competitive disadvantage, but just to "spice up play". The widowmine change probably needs to happen because they really are a bit much right now...but the only reason they give for the oracle is just wanting to see more late game use (which it isn't even designed for anyways!)
Keep in mind that these changes are supposed to hit in ..November? They're more experimental, meant to go into effect in the off-season, they will 100% change before going live and they are not purely for balance purposes.
On September 28 2013 02:57 Grumbels wrote: Keep in mind that these changes are supposed to hit in ..November? They're more experimental, meant to go into effect in the off-season, they will 100% change before going live and they are not purely for balance purposes.
Personally I think if the changes aren't being made to balance matchups then it isn't really appropriate to make them at all. If the MU is fine as it is competitively, but the variety isn't what you wanted, that to me is a bad reason to go buffing units. Blizz needs to realize that the oracle is suited for early game worker harass, and pretty much nothing else. Its spells aren't good for the lategame, beacause you will have better options both for killing the enemy, scouting the enemy, and detecting cloaked units, so why would you build an oracle. Blizz is all upset about no late game oracles? Maybe if they didn't design a unit with such a stupidly small window of utility, people would actually use them past the 7-8 minute mark. Phoeni are a lot more useful than oracles in that situation, but without the ability to just rape mineral lines at the 5 min mark.
One thing i've yet to see is to have someone Hallucinate 2 phoenix and send one oracle into a mineral line with just like 1 turret.... really this could be done later in the game and would provide a seroiusly powerful harass option....
On September 28 2013 01:52 Tsubbi wrote: not going into specifics as there are so many potential underused units but overall id love if blizzard was willing to test way way bigger changes for the offseason in testmaps in the beginning of the testphase
also i think the most important part in all of this is to integrate a button into the client next to the ranked and unranked buttons to play the testmap against equally skilled players, this would up the testing quality and quantity by at least 9000%
Agreed 100%.
I would love a test map where they just buff the shit out of underused units such as tanks, hydras, carriers. Just force people into playing completely new styles and then readjust if necessary, instead of slightly encouraging people to do something new and they end up doing exactly the same as before.
The game right now is probably the most balanced its been, but its also getting very stale with the same strategies used in every game. Its time to buff the underused things.
Old me would have disagreed with this completely, but new me completely agrees. I would have been disgusted that you would suggest we ruin the state of balance, but right now that would probably be the best thing that could be done for this game. We used to pine for perfect balance, but now that there is relatively good state of balance the game is getting very stale, very fast, and it is causing people to get bored. I would love if they tried some out-of-left-field changes on a test map just to see how much they can shake up things. It would be more fun than the current free-3-bases-into-snorefest metagame that is going on.
On September 28 2013 00:34 rikter wrote: Glad they got rid of the DT's, but the oracle change is lame. People talking about how its the same speed as the mutalisk seem to be forgetting that the mutas hit at the ten minute mark, while oracles hit at five. By the time the mutas are in play the ebay is up, stim is done, and I can actually catch the mutas. When an oracle shows up, I have no stim, less units, and no plans to build an ebay at 430 or so to have turrets in time.
The oracle isnt used late game because it sucks in that role. The observer provides better scouting, and just about anything else is hardier and more useful.
Widow mine change isnt bad, especially coupled with tank buff. I think Blizz wants to see both units in the bio force vZ, with the mines shifting more to an anti air role while the tanks do better against the ground stuff. An extra shot off per tank makes a huge difference vs lings and banes, so theres balance in TvZ. The mirror is a wash and no one uses tanks and mines vs P anyways, so this is, I think, one of the better balance changes they have made. At least in terms of not fixing one matchup while trashing another.
A widow mine comes up before an Oracle.
Just learn to count pylons at the main, at X time they should have Y pylons, if not then its a proxy.
I know how to count the pylons, and I am aware that the widow mine can come out before the oracle. The issue is that even if you count the pylons, you still don't know what the proxy will be. Sure, it can be oracle, but it can also be DT's or robo, or a stargate but making voids. Splitting up units to search can be fine, but if he sends his first stalker across the map it can cause problems. The responses to each of these proxies is different. Getting the widow mine out in time for oracles requires you to have made your decision on gas before you can actually confirm the proxy anyways. If planetary nexus wasn't a thing, it might not be such a big deal to open earlier gas, since my attack wouldn't get totally shut down by casting a single spell... but as it stands, I dont feel like I can reliably do enough damage in the face of PNexus to justify stunting my economy, and even just containing them with threat of drop is worthless because toss typically either all-in or sit in their base for the first 12 minutes anyways, so what am I really gaining? This is not even considering that they can make their 1shot amove army off 2 bases.
For what its worth, I am lifetime 55% or greater against T and Z, and 35% against P. Over several thousand games. I think my vT and vZ indicate that I have SOME ability to play the game competently, especially considering that matchmaking tries to keep you at 50%, but I can't beat Toss. I cant fucking stand it when they continue to buff the one goddamn matchup that I can't win in, and do it in such a one sided fashion to boot. I can live with the mine and tank changes, I think they are good for TvZ, and the combined air/mech upgrades is really good for TvT, I was even on board with the hellbat nerf, because hellbats were retarded, but again, that needed to be done because they were breaking the game. But I am so tired of more buffs to toss, especially when the global MU stats they have posted for the last few months have already shown a significant disparity in TvP, in P's favor. Lack of late game oracles isnt breaking TvP, and they are already good enough in the early game, so is it really necessary to fool with them at all?
In conclusion, while most of the proposed changes I am fine with, and think enhance the game, Blizz can seriously fuck off with buffing the goddamn Protoss. They are getting buffs not because they are at some kind of competitive disadvantage, but just to "spice up play". The widowmine change probably needs to happen because they really are a bit much right now...but the only reason they give for the oracle is just wanting to see more late game use (which it isn't even designed for anyways!)
Sounds like you need to take a week or two and practice the shit out of only TvP.
I have your opposite problem, my PvT is atrocious. Last few days I've been playing games against a T friend and it has been helping tremendously. I've readjusted my plan in the matchup and figured some new things out, like drop defense, which is 100% my biggest flaw in PvT. If you just mass ladder all the time, you can get stuck.
This is just a curiosity question - I was thinking about how Swarm Hosts are really on viable in ZvP but what if you made it so that SH's could attack air but reduce the damage the Locusts actually do. I would be curious to see if this would make something like Swarm Host/Hydra viable vs Terran and Viable ZvZ. That's just spit balling but I'm curious as to what others think.
I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
That's fine, pretty much all terrans except for MMA and ForGG go yolo bomber mode in TvP pretty much because of that.
On September 28 2013 03:30 Pirfiktshon wrote: One thing i've yet to see is to have someone Hallucinate 2 phoenix and send one oracle into a mineral line with just like 1 turret.... really this could be done later in the game and would provide a seroiusly powerful harass option....
The Missile Turret is a Detector structure that can see cloaked, burrowed and hallucinated units. Missile Turret
On September 28 2013 03:30 Pirfiktshon wrote: One thing i've yet to see is to have someone Hallucinate 2 phoenix and send one oracle into a mineral line with just like 1 turret.... really this could be done later in the game and would provide a seroiusly powerful harass option....
Wouldn't the turret detect the phoenix as hallucinated and target the oracle instead?
On September 28 2013 03:30 Pirfiktshon wrote: One thing i've yet to see is to have someone Hallucinate 2 phoenix and send one oracle into a mineral line with just like 1 turret.... really this could be done later in the game and would provide a seroiusly powerful harass option....
That's because the turret ignores hallucinations unless there are no real units around.
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
On September 28 2013 03:30 Pirfiktshon wrote: One thing i've yet to see is to have someone Hallucinate 2 phoenix and send one oracle into a mineral line with just like 1 turret.... really this could be done later in the game and would provide a seroiusly powerful harass option....
That's because the turret ignores hallucinations unless there are no real units around.
Show's you how much I've played protoss in sc2 I've never made an attempt at this but it just made sense LOL I remember in the BW days we would do this to be able to storm workers on a consistent basis even if someone had like 10 turrets LOL
That wasn't what I meant but my statement definitely conveyed that type of idea. I apologize what I meant is that the match up is balanced but most terrans have trouble playing in the match up because it requires different skills than in TvZ or TvT. Which obviously i'm lacking which is clearly seen by my win percentages.
I just wanted to let the terran know that was posting previously that I also was having trouble and in the same thought that in it being a balanced m/u that protoss shoudln't get random buffs..... this would tip the scales in protoss' favor.....
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
My issue is this: I can hang against the other 2 races at a league higher than my current, in many cases with a comp similar to TvP, yet I lose to protoss ranked a league below me. My macro and micro is somehow good enough against everybody else, but not toss? I havent started doing the yolo pull but believe me Im going to start, and I hote my oppponents cry me a fucking river. I used to have options against toss early, now its just herp derp photon overcharrge. I am at a loss at how I can do anything to hurt them before ten minutes, except for a kind of suicidal 888 into proxy fact for mines.
I think that while the matchup may be balanced in theory, in practice it takes a lot more for T to overcome Ps deathball than it does for P to use his deathball.
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
My issue is this: I can hang against the other 2 races at a league higher than my current, in many cases with a comp similar to TvP, yet I lose to protoss ranked a league below me. My macro is somehow good enough against everybody else, but not toss? I havent started doing the yolo pull but believe me Im going to start, and I hote my oppponents cry me a fucking river. I used to have options against toss early, now its just herp derp photon overcharrge. I am at a loss at how I can do anything to hurt them before ten minutes, except for a kind of suicidal 888 into proxy fact for mines.
That's clearly your problem and your lack of understanding/execution in TvP, clearly seen by these balloon'ed percentages. I used to have like 30% PvZ back when toss was killin zerg, doesn't mean ZvP was broken. This is likely due to you being an aggressive styled player back when terran could abuse toss early game, you never learned to play mid/late game TvP, and now that toss can defend better, you've lost your crutch and are behind your "current league" in terms of TvP skill.
You just have to find a P partner and practice if you want to improve tbh
Hypothetical: let's assume that TvP is in favor of protoss, it might actually be that TvZ is strongly favored for terran, causing a lot of weaker terran players to get higher rankings and becoming easy fodder for protoss players, while the match-up would be okay if only the players were of equal skill.
On September 28 2013 04:56 Grumbels wrote: Hypothetical: let's assume that TvP is in favor of protoss, it might actually be that TvZ is strongly favored for terran, causing a lot of weaker terran players to get higher rankings and becoming easy fodder for protoss players, while the match-up would be okay if only the players were of equal skill.
But that's generally not really how it works in the tournements. I think we're slowly seeing the protoss (slight) dominance being expressed in their tournement results. It could be that metagame changes will fix this seeming imbalance, but maybe they'll have to patch someting in the near future.
TvP is very composition and upgrade dependent...... This is what makes it so difficult is the fact that if you are behind in upgrades by 1 minute, which with chrono boost on Forges is not implausible and protoss takes advantage of that it doesn't matter if you are dropping and keeping him busy he can still pretty much A move... and do a round of warpins with cannons and mitigate the drop and Terran loses.... I've had a protoss friend do the 12:30 PvT 0-2 push 5 times and me trying to do several different things you can't really fight it efficiently at all to the point where he can safely expand and start getting his true deathball and you are completely left in shambles and can't fight the deathball at this point.... which he is mid masters with 100% winrate in ladder in Pvt........
My thought to in regards to this.... as to which race is doing good... Think about all of the Korean terrans doing good then look at Foreign terrans which ones are doing good? Or is there atleast one doing good? Zerg has scarlett which she is a true beast and this is nothing to dilute the skill of an amazing player but she is a foreigner none the less Then we have Naniwa which has a very high chance of being in Blizzcon this year which again Ditto above ( Just a He instead of a she ) Where is that one Foreign terran that is hitting spotlights in tournaments? You just don't see it..... Why?
Just wondering out of curiosity. Why is everyone calling for terrans nerfs in tvz (which do I agree with) but none in tvp which according to august winrates are more in favor for protoss than what tvz is for terran?
For me who struggles a lot with the tvp matchup (a humble diamond player) it is so frustrating to see blizzard thinking of buffing protoss even more. When I play zerg I don't feel nearly as outmatched against protoss as I do when I play terran (I play about 1/3 of my ranked matches as zerg). I get that diamond league balance has nothing to do with balance at the top level which should be the main focus, but when statistics at the top level also speaks heavily in protoss favor I start to wonder....
Terran has the highest skill ceiling and it really shows in TvP where you have to play much better than your opponent to win. It the mechanics of the Terran race which makes it a bit harder to play.
Blizzard has often said that they are fine with the higher difficulty of Terran.
Korean Terrans are so good because they practice harder and play more hours than foreigners. As a result their mechanics are better and they come closer to the skill ceiling.
On September 28 2013 05:22 Gullis wrote: Just wondering out of curiosity. Why is everyone calling for terrans nerfs in tvz (which do I agree with) but none in tvp which according to august winrates are more in favor for protoss than what tvz is for terran?
For me who struggles a lot with the tvp matchup (a humble diamond player) it is so frustrating to see blizzard thinking of buffing protoss even more. When I play zerg I don't feel nearly as outmatched against protoss as I do when I play terran (I play about 1/3 of my ranked matches as zerg). I get that diamond league balance has nothing to do with balance at the top level which should be the main focus, but when statistics at the top level also speaks heavily in protoss favor I start to wonder....
The buff blizzard has in mind for protoss (oracle one) is quite inconsequential for the WR. If anything it's going to make oracles a bit more solid. Terrans are losing because protoss players manage to defend until they have storm and colossi out, while terrans keep attacking and lose units left and right. The MU is extremely stagnant right now and pretty much all protoss wins look like that, while most terran wins are scv pulls.
The whole meta kind of plays into this as well. As a protoss player going for colossi you are very vulnerable to scv pulls if you try to transition into storm at a reasonable time, and if you get enough colossi to defend it you are very vulnerable to mass vikings. Either way, you don't really want to risk being out on the map. So protoss players stay highly defensive and don't go out on the map, until they can do so without being in a difficult spot against either vikings of scv pulls... so until they have storms and colossi out.
Templar chargelot style is different and it produces less stale games, but this style seems to be losing popularity, although I don't know why exactly. The point is it's the most stagnant matchup by far and it could really benefit from some huge changes.
tank change is good, finally something that makes sense regarding mech tvp the matchup is godawful in my opinion and if mech could be made playable I think it would be awesome
On September 28 2013 05:22 Gullis wrote: Just wondering out of curiosity. Why is everyone calling for terrans nerfs in tvz (which do I agree with) but none in tvp which according to august winrates are more in favor for protoss than what tvz is for terran?
For me who struggles a lot with the tvp matchup (a humble diamond player) it is so frustrating to see blizzard thinking of buffing protoss even more. When I play zerg I don't feel nearly as outmatched against protoss as I do when I play terran (I play about 1/3 of my ranked matches as zerg). I get that diamond league balance has nothing to do with balance at the top level which should be the main focus, but when statistics at the top level also speaks heavily in protoss favor I start to wonder....
Because despite the winrates, Terrans at the absolute extreme of levels in TvP have been murdering top Protoss deep in major tournaments over the past few months, which is where balance is the most sensitive. It's a really complex issue to nerf Protoss and wrestle back control of TvP winrates, while at the same time not handing the next string of tournaments over to these few Terrans.
Tbh, let me be fair. In general you would imagine the correlation between skill and actual results as something linear with seriously sharp jumps at certain points. That is true for all races. The real problem however the height of the jump. IMO terran has the highest height of that result from skill usage jump, hence if you replace all players with automatons automaton2000 playing Terran would probably only lose to BO losses. On other side protoss has either the lowest height of the jump, either the longest distance between ones (microing chargelots, anyone?). So if you balance it around nearly-perfect level ala TaeJa, you would have to completely redesign game, since it is not something solved by couple of balance patches. The true solution IMO is either give: toss some APM sink, like new oracle. Either buff not-so-skill-dependant options that MMMVG is (yes, mech :D) and make those other options viable if needed. So yeah, blizzard is going into right direction, considering they will not completely remake the game.
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
My issue is this: I can hang against the other 2 races at a league higher than my current, in many cases with a comp similar to TvP, yet I lose to protoss ranked a league below me. My macro is somehow good enough against everybody else, but not toss? I havent started doing the yolo pull but believe me Im going to start, and I hote my oppponents cry me a fucking river. I used to have options against toss early, now its just herp derp photon overcharrge. I am at a loss at how I can do anything to hurt them before ten minutes, except for a kind of suicidal 888 into proxy fact for mines.
That's clearly your problem and your lack of understanding/execution in TvP, clearly seen by these balloon'ed percentages. I used to have like 30% PvZ back when toss was killin zerg, doesn't mean ZvP was broken. This is likely due to you being an aggressive styled player back when terran could abuse toss early game, you never learned to play mid/late game TvP, and now that toss can defend better, you've lost your crutch and are behind your "current league" in terms of TvP skill.
You just have to find a P partner and practice if you want to improve tbh
I actually think the matchup is balanced, but one sides execution is harder. But if the matchup is already balanced, then why does one side continue to get buffed in the name of variety?
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
My issue is this: I can hang against the other 2 races at a league higher than my current, in many cases with a comp similar to TvP, yet I lose to protoss ranked a league below me. My macro is somehow good enough against everybody else, but not toss? I havent started doing the yolo pull but believe me Im going to start, and I hote my oppponents cry me a fucking river. I used to have options against toss early, now its just herp derp photon overcharrge. I am at a loss at how I can do anything to hurt them before ten minutes, except for a kind of suicidal 888 into proxy fact for mines.
That's clearly your problem and your lack of understanding/execution in TvP, clearly seen by these balloon'ed percentages. I used to have like 30% PvZ back when toss was killin zerg, doesn't mean ZvP was broken. This is likely due to you being an aggressive styled player back when terran could abuse toss early game, you never learned to play mid/late game TvP, and now that toss can defend better, you've lost your crutch and are behind your "current league" in terms of TvP skill.
You just have to find a P partner and practice if you want to improve tbh
I actually think the matchup is balanced, but one sides execution is harder. But if the matchup is already balanced, then why does one side continue to get buffed in the name of variety?
wtf; they just buffed tanks in the name of variety.
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
My issue is this: I can hang against the other 2 races at a league higher than my current, in many cases with a comp similar to TvP, yet I lose to protoss ranked a league below me. My macro is somehow good enough against everybody else, but not toss? I havent started doing the yolo pull but believe me Im going to start, and I hote my oppponents cry me a fucking river. I used to have options against toss early, now its just herp derp photon overcharrge. I am at a loss at how I can do anything to hurt them before ten minutes, except for a kind of suicidal 888 into proxy fact for mines.
That's clearly your problem and your lack of understanding/execution in TvP, clearly seen by these balloon'ed percentages. I used to have like 30% PvZ back when toss was killin zerg, doesn't mean ZvP was broken. This is likely due to you being an aggressive styled player back when terran could abuse toss early game, you never learned to play mid/late game TvP, and now that toss can defend better, you've lost your crutch and are behind your "current league" in terms of TvP skill.
You just have to find a P partner and practice if you want to improve tbh
I actually think the matchup is balanced, but one sides execution is harder. But if the matchup is already balanced, then why does one side continue to get buffed in the name of variety?
Because people want to see more Mech play and the only way to make it happen is to buff it.
On September 28 2013 05:22 Gullis wrote: Just wondering out of curiosity. Why is everyone calling for terrans nerfs in tvz (which do I agree with) but none in tvp which according to august winrates are more in favor for protoss than what tvz is for terran?
For me who struggles a lot with the tvp matchup (a humble diamond player) it is so frustrating to see blizzard thinking of buffing protoss even more. When I play zerg I don't feel nearly as outmatched against protoss as I do when I play terran (I play about 1/3 of my ranked matches as zerg). I get that diamond league balance has nothing to do with balance at the top level which should be the main focus, but when statistics at the top level also speaks heavily in protoss favor I start to wonder....
Because despite the winrates, Terrans at the absolute extreme of levels in TvP have been murdering top Protoss deep in major tournaments over the past few months, which is where balance is the most sensitive. It's a really complex issue to nerf Protoss and wrestle back control of TvP winrates, while at the same time not handing the next string of tournaments over to these few Terrans.
Dude, I feel you. I love watching P get ripped apart at the highest levels, and any buffs to T would really lopside the matchup in the pro scene...but in most other arenas I truly feel T is behind. Ive been thinking and I believe the best way to balance the MU would be to change the cost of the ghost, fewer mins and more gas. T needs a good gas sink.
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
My issue is this: I can hang against the other 2 races at a league higher than my current, in many cases with a comp similar to TvP, yet I lose to protoss ranked a league below me. My macro is somehow good enough against everybody else, but not toss? I havent started doing the yolo pull but believe me Im going to start, and I hote my oppponents cry me a fucking river. I used to have options against toss early, now its just herp derp photon overcharrge. I am at a loss at how I can do anything to hurt them before ten minutes, except for a kind of suicidal 888 into proxy fact for mines.
That's clearly your problem and your lack of understanding/execution in TvP, clearly seen by these balloon'ed percentages. I used to have like 30% PvZ back when toss was killin zerg, doesn't mean ZvP was broken. This is likely due to you being an aggressive styled player back when terran could abuse toss early game, you never learned to play mid/late game TvP, and now that toss can defend better, you've lost your crutch and are behind your "current league" in terms of TvP skill.
You just have to find a P partner and practice if you want to improve tbh
I actually think the matchup is balanced, but one sides execution is harder. But if the matchup is already balanced, then why does one side continue to get buffed in the name of variety?
wtf; they just buffed tanks in the name of variety.
No, they buffed tanks in the name of offsetting the widowmine nerf. Its probably a pretty even trade, but the composition requires more control than pure mine.
That wasn't a variety patch it was a balance patch..... which is what they are proposing to fix the current 4%? i think it is in the match up where there is a 4% balance in favor of Protoss..... You can't base an entire match up on one player though if they did that then Flash would have gotten terran massively nerfed instead we all know him as Terran God of BW ..... and the rest of the terran vs zerg players would have massively suffered from a nerf to just nerf ONE player lOL
On September 28 2013 04:03 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know there is a crapton of Terran players that struggle in TvP myself included... I'm 90% winrate in TvT 70% in TvZ and 40% in TvP its just very strange the way protoss can steamroll you if they get the slightest advantage...... I've had GM protoss go Oracle into Mothership rush with teching to tempests...... It just feels like there is so much you can do as protss
Your statistics don't say anything about the balance though. I sometimes see people post something like: "I'm very good at mirror match-ups (demonstrating skill), but I struggle in TvP, clearly my MMR is lower than it should be because TvP is imbalanced". That's not how the MMR works.
My issue is this: I can hang against the other 2 races at a league higher than my current, in many cases with a comp similar to TvP, yet I lose to protoss ranked a league below me. My macro is somehow good enough against everybody else, but not toss? I havent started doing the yolo pull but believe me Im going to start, and I hote my oppponents cry me a fucking river. I used to have options against toss early, now its just herp derp photon overcharrge. I am at a loss at how I can do anything to hurt them before ten minutes, except for a kind of suicidal 888 into proxy fact for mines.
That's clearly your problem and your lack of understanding/execution in TvP, clearly seen by these balloon'ed percentages. I used to have like 30% PvZ back when toss was killin zerg, doesn't mean ZvP was broken. This is likely due to you being an aggressive styled player back when terran could abuse toss early game, you never learned to play mid/late game TvP, and now that toss can defend better, you've lost your crutch and are behind your "current league" in terms of TvP skill.
You just have to find a P partner and practice if you want to improve tbh
I actually think the matchup is balanced, but one sides execution is harder. But if the matchup is already balanced, then why does one side continue to get buffed in the name of variety?
wtf; they just buffed tanks in the name of variety.
No, they buffed tanks in the name of offsetting the widowmine nerf. Its probably a pretty even trade, but the composition requires more control than pure mine.
...and if they make less mines and more tanks, that would be the net result called variety.
I can´t see tanks replacing the widowmines. You will never be able to deal with mutalisks without mines. Marine/Tank is inferior in pretty much every single aspect.
Even nerfed mines should accomplish more than a "slightly" buffed tank could ever hope for....
On September 28 2013 08:51 Schroedinger wrote: I can´t see tanks replacing the widowmines. You will never be able to deal with mutalisks without mines. Marine/Tank is inferior in pretty much every single aspect.
Even nerfed mines should accomplish more than a "slightly" buffed tank could ever hope for....
I believe the intent is to get people to use mines WITH tanks, not get rid of mines entirely. That would just trade one unit for another...
PvT requires different things on both sides of the matchup. One side does more clicking the other a lot more thinking about positioning. Anyway here's to hoping that 4 oracle PvT style takes off. Sounds neat.
I get the "intent" but how do tanks help me against massive muta clouds ? As soon as you add tanks to bio/mine your adding a lot of weaknesses. Bio/Mine is extremly mobile and expendable but by adding tanks you pretty remove those core strenghts.
It would be cute to see tanks but people like to win ...
the best buff for terran would definitely implement any form of battle cruiser "trade around" - say buildtime lowered a LOT, remove energy, lower their costs and nerf them accordingly HP and damagewise
maybe, just maybe we would see some terrans on the defensive side in a couple of games while protoss and zerg has to break them before t3 really comes into play
the mech upgrade thing is already a nice step into that direction, but then again, its not the upgrades that makes terran t3 bad
same goes for carriers aswell ofc
if protoss and terran t3 air units gets more accessable the meta game will naturally shift to more aggression during early/mid game to prevent teching and we wont see protoss turtling to deathball every game or terrans 3 cc into rally marines vs zerg
On September 28 2013 10:44 danbel1005 wrote: Roach burrow speed is so OP. RIP toss.
I could live with entertaining busts for a month.
Or hell someone testing how a roach max with burrow does.
Zerg dont usually get burrow, so the increased burrow speed doesnt really matter ... except for those enterprising wood league fellows and there it will wreck.
On September 28 2013 10:14 Schroedinger wrote: I get the "intent" but how do tanks help me against massive muta clouds ? As soon as you add tanks to bio/mine your adding a lot of weaknesses. Bio/Mine is extremly mobile and expendable but by adding tanks you pretty remove those core strenghts.
It would be cute to see tanks but people like to win ...
I dont understand this myself. I cant find a situation where terran going bio would make tanks AND mines. I feel like they are pretty much going to have to pick one or the other. Otherwise it just better to go pure mech if you are making both of these units.
On September 28 2013 10:44 danbel1005 wrote: Roach burrow speed is so OP. RIP toss.
I could live with entertaining busts for a month.
Or hell someone testing how a roach max with burrow does.
Zerg dont usually get burrow, so the increased burrow speed doesnt really matter ... except for those enterprising wood league fellows and there it will wreck.
what? you are confused about causation and conclusion why zerg doesn't get burrow is because it isn't that effective but if burrow has more functions, then obviously zerg will get more burrow play
LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
On September 28 2013 10:44 danbel1005 wrote: Roach burrow speed is so OP. RIP toss.
I could live with entertaining busts for a month.
Or hell someone testing how a roach max with burrow does.
Zerg dont usually get burrow, so the increased burrow speed doesnt really matter ... except for those enterprising wood league fellows and there it will wreck.
what? you are confused about causation and conclusion why zerg doesn't get burrow is because it isn't that effective but if burrow has more functions, then obviously zerg will get more burrow play
Its only a small increase in functionality for burrowed Roaches. Do you REALLY believe that people will say "it wasnt worth it before, but now it is" from just a simple speed increase?
Apart from the fact that burrowed Roaches cant be caught by unstimmed Marines (2.25 speed and regeneration vs 2.25 speed and no "fire while moving") or Stalkers - which makes the increase rather ridiculous - it all depends upon the usefulness of Roaches in the first place. They havent really been used that much as the sole part of an army and thus any "tricksy burrowed movement" tactics wont work because that would break up the army into two separate clumps which dont synergize with each other.
On September 28 2013 10:44 danbel1005 wrote: Roach burrow speed is so OP. RIP toss.
I could live with entertaining busts for a month.
Or hell someone testing how a roach max with burrow does.
Zerg dont usually get burrow, so the increased burrow speed doesnt really matter ... except for those enterprising wood league fellows and there it will wreck.
what? you are confused about causation and conclusion why zerg doesn't get burrow is because it isn't that effective but if burrow has more functions, then obviously zerg will get more burrow play
Its only a small increase in functionality for burrowed Roaches. Do you REALLY believe that people will say "it wasnt worth it before, but now it is" from just a simple speed increase?
Apart from the fact that burrowed Roaches cant be caught by unstimmed Marines (2.25 speed and regeneration vs 2.25 speed and no "fire while moving") or Stalkers - which makes the increase rather ridiculous - it all depends upon the usefulness of Roaches in the first place. They havent really been used that much as the sole part of an army and thus any "tricksy burrowed movement" tactics wont work because that would break up the army into two separate clumps which dont synergize with each other.
why not? why not a gimmicky 2 base all in against a toss for example, or a better option against mass gateway all in which some zerg used burrow roach to some success? you can burrow out from the forcefields easier rather than half of the roaches get slaughter by immortals what about multi prone harass from roach hydra against a toss is now even better. just because roaches aren't useful in a high supply battle, doesn't make them don't have their own role to fill.
On September 28 2013 09:18 Doc Brawler wrote: ahhheeeem... nerf widow mine, buff tank, BUFF THOR anti-air... aheemmmm *cough cough*
It's quite clear the tank isn't going to see a major buff (even the 10% faster shot is surprising).
My dream is to see the thor shuttled around in speedvacs. It just needs to have some utility/reason for it to be done. (Also, as cool as it is to see when a medivac carries a thor, the should make it a normal animation so it can "hide").
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
wasn't muta buff'd because now pheonix does better against muta with the +1 default range and the speed and regen is to allow zerg to deal with the better medivac drop and mine?
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
wasn't muta buff'd because now pheonix does better against muta with the +1 default range and the speed and regen is to allow zerg to deal with the better medivac drop and mine?
Yeah, I mean there were obviously reasons for the change. That being said, phoenix are still a rather lackluster response for P, atleast from what I've seen in pro games. They seem to be only really good as a deterant for muta play, get them early, keep them alive to say "I'm ready for the first batch of mutas you make". Don't know, if they are thinking of throwing this bombshell that the VM nerf is, I think they should consider toning down the muta regen(the speed isn't really an issue, I'd argue it's good since yeah medivacs have speed boost now).
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
The main reason why diversity will always be limited is that pros will always min-max builds. That means that they will try to find the most efficient way to deal with something. So if you buff roach hydra, and people really find it to be stronger, muta ling bane will not be played, so do you need to patch again to make that stronger? (the same applies to all races just taking your example now). What plays against this is if you just hard counter your opponent, but most of the times it boils down to both players saying my composition counters his (starting from T saying marines counter lings, Z says banes counter marines, Tanks/mines counter banes, Mutas, snipe mines/tanks, but marines defend mines/tanks, but zerglings defend my mutas by surrounding, etc etc. When this happens, imo is when the match up becomes stale, because both players say "I kinda counter him/ this is the best composition against his composition, there is no better" so they keep using it, rather than doing something else, because it may just not be efficient to get to, or is too easily countered by something else.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
P has problems with Muta? News to me...maybe if it goes unscouted, but Phoenix + blink + storm is like, way more than enough to deal with Mutas.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
wasn't muta buff'd because now pheonix does better against muta with the +1 default range and the speed and regen is to allow zerg to deal with the better medivac drop and mine?
Yeah, I mean there were obviously reasons for the change. That being said, phoenix are still a rather lackluster response for P, atleast from what I've seen in pro games. They seem to be only really good as a deterant for muta play, get them early, keep them alive to say "I'm ready for the first batch of mutas you make". Don't know, if they are thinking of throwing this bombshell that the VM nerf is, I think they should consider toning down the muta regen(the speed isn't really an issue, I'd argue it's good since yeah medivacs have speed boost now).
Medivac. the root of all evil! I don't know why they implemented just for 'fun'. should have buff something else I don't mind mutas getting nerfed if medivac boost get nerfed/canceled
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
P has problems with Muta? News to me...maybe if it goes unscouted, but Phoenix + blink + storm is like, way more than enough to deal with Mutas.
It is not really a problem with opening muta, but much more with a late game muta switch, for example when zerg was on roach hydra or swarm host and protoss had a collossus based army (no phoenix basically), then 20-30 mutas just destroy stalkers, so you can't trade with stalkers and storm is usually just not there (just seems to be the pattern) or is easily dodged. But even then protosses are adjusting by bliundly building lots of phoenix when it goes late. But yeah it's mostly late game tech switches, but even zerg has difficulty with those .
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
P has problems with Muta? News to me...maybe if it goes unscouted, but Phoenix + blink + storm is like, way more than enough to deal with Mutas.
Well I've atleast seen pros have huge issues with it, even if scouted. The problem isn't the engagement, mutas suck in engagements, but with some maps P can't be everywhere at once and mutas can just hammer on where the P isn't. Also generally you will not have all 3 tech options availeble when the mutas are starting to hurt. You will have phoenix + blink or phoenix + hts(don't think you even have storm out yet). P can deal with it if they can safely get to the perfect combo, but at the same time they pretty much require 3 bases for that combo, so that also leaves P open to harass. Again though, this is only my take on pro games. There is also the tech switch, but previous poster talked about that, no need to recite him.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
As a master terran player, this is what I can say about the balance :
For the terran - the air and ground combined upgrades don't help really a lot imo since the air terran is not as powerful as sky air protoss army and in late game very easy to counter with sky protoss and templars with feedback on banshees bcs ravens or mass hydras corruptors for the zerg player. - The fastest attack period for the tanks is imo useless. All protoss units are tank hard counter ( especially imos of course ) so that s pretty useless to use them in this matchup and vs zerg that s absolutely not as effective as widow mines. - Widow mines : I think the first previous decrease from 1.75 to 1.1 was really insane but even 1.25 is quite very low. First it s almost impossible to split well the widow mines and burrow them, to split tanks and siege them and to split bio and hit and run ( i am talking of course in tvz matchup ). The micro is almost impossible and that s the same pb than in wol if you are catched during the trip from your base to zerg base you lose. And with less mines zerg are doing more mutas and the siege tanks are rapped. And I am not talking about vipers..... The only use of the siege tank is of course in tvt, 111 vs toss but pretty useless nowadays and vs zerg only one or two to avoid violet push in early game. That s impossible to use them better than that and the 2 buffs are imo useless and the widow mine is catastrophic.
For protoss : I think that s very good they forgot the dark templar movement upgrade since that would be impossible to kill them with scan and we will be able to build defense turrets EVERYWHERE. And with this fastness I am sure they could go out the range of the turrets before the bio can kill them. For the oracle the new upgrade are good cuz the original gaz cost decrease would have favoured too strong all in. But I dont know exactly what they have to use for oracles I am not protoss. But I would want to say if they are too fast they couldn't be killed by vikings at all.
Zerg : I find roaches pretty strong I dont know what exactly that could change. I would say zerg players could me way more agressive with them and avoid force field better so that could be a pb for protoss imo. As terran because we dont use mech anymore that s not a pb with bio but imo that s contradictory to the way to developp mech play since faster burrowed roaches would rapped tanks. But I am not zerg too
To conclude as a terran player i am only sure about the terran changes : - Tank period increased : useless - Mech/air combined upgrade : useless - Widow mines nerf : very very bad
On September 28 2013 20:43 bObA wrote: As a master terran player, this is what I can say about the balance :
For the terran - the air and ground combined upgrades don't help really a lot imo since the air terran is not as powerful as sky air protoss army and in late game very easy to counter with sky protoss and templars with feedback on banshees bcs ravens or mass hydras corruptors for the zerg player. - The fastest attack period for the tanks is imo useless. All protoss units are tank hard counter ( especially imos of course ) so that s pretty useless to use them in this matchup and vs zerg that s absolutely not as effective as widow mines. - Widow mines : I think the first previous decrease from 1.75 to 1.1 was really insane but even 1.25 is quite very low. First it s almost impossible to split well the widow mines and burrow them, to split tanks and siege them and to split bio and hit and run ( i am talking of course in tvz matchup ). The micro is almost impossible and that s the same pb than in wol if you are catched during the trip from your base to zerg base you lose. And with less mines zerg are doing more mutas and the siege tanks are rapped. And I am not talking about vipers..... The only use of the siege tank is of course in tvt, 111 vs toss but pretty useless nowadays and vs zerg only one or two to avoid violet push in early game. That s impossible to use them better than that and the 2 buffs are imo useless and the widow mine is catastrophic.
For protoss : I think that s very good they forgot the dark templar movement upgrade since that would be impossible to kill them with scan and we will be able to build defense turrets EVERYWHERE. And with this fastness I am sure they could go out the range of the turrets before the bio can kill them. For the oracle the new upgrade are good cuz the original gaz cost decrease would have favoured too strong all in. But I dont know exactly what they have to use for oracles I am not protoss. But I would want to say if they are too fast they couldn't be killed by vikings at all.
Zerg : I find roaches pretty strong I dont know what exactly that could change. I would say zerg players could me way more agressive with them and avoid force field better so that could be a pb for protoss imo. As terran because we dont use mech anymore that s not a pb with bio but imo that s contradictory to the way to developp mech play since faster burrowed roaches would rapped tanks. But I am not zerg too
To conclude as a terran player i am only sure about the terran changes : - Tank period increased : useless - Mech/air combined upgrade : useless - Widow mines nerf : very very bad
well, I disagree that widow mine nerf is very very bad (because without that nerf, zergs will always face with 4M) mutas tends to clumb up very easily (and many zergs players intentionally do that to get maximum dmg), and will get hurt significantly if not micro'd.
Bu true that mutas can be a great threat and the only viable Anti muta is marine and mine I guess. I hope they will rework thor more.
Yeah, the muta switch is stupidly powerful in ZvP with undying, rapid-healing, zombie mutas.
"Good job building those immortals so you didn't die to my Ultralisks. Now have fun with those left over immortals/Zealots/few Archons against 40 mutas I'm building at once from inconspicuous looking eggs. Hey, maybe there are more Ultras and Lings and infestors in those eggs. No, actually it's 40 mutas. GG."
On September 28 2013 05:22 Gullis wrote: Just wondering out of curiosity. Why is everyone calling for terrans nerfs in tvz (which do I agree with) but none in tvp which according to august winrates are more in favor for protoss than what tvz is for terran?
For me who struggles a lot with the tvp matchup (a humble diamond player) it is so frustrating to see blizzard thinking of buffing protoss even more. When I play zerg I don't feel nearly as outmatched against protoss as I do when I play terran (I play about 1/3 of my ranked matches as zerg). I get that diamond league balance has nothing to do with balance at the top level which should be the main focus, but when statistics at the top level also speaks heavily in protoss favor I start to wonder....
Yeah, I am a little surprised there has been so much focus on TvZ nerfs. Like...I agree mines are completely silly, and that it's nearly impossible for z to trade with them cost effectively. (Have a friend build nothing but mines, including microing them to run up to units and burrow if appropriate, and macroing out more mines at home, and then try to kill the minefield as zerg. I find it pretty hard with most unit compositions--brood lords are the only unit that really feels like it counters mines).
But if you look at what the pro zergs are saying...I haven't seen any of them complaining about Terran. Scarlett feels Terran is fine, and says Protoss is the problem. Hyun says Terran is fine and Protoss is the problem. The NA zerg cabal (Suppy, Goswser, Kane, henry, etc) think Terran is fine and Protoss is the problem. I've seen pros critiquing the metagame (someone said that ZvT is dull to watch right now because it was always the same composition--MC or something? I forget who said it) and that's a fair criticism, and reason to nerf mines, but not really a balance issue.
On September 28 2013 20:43 bObA wrote: As a master terran player, this is what I can say about the balance :
For the terran - the air and ground combined upgrades don't help really a lot imo since the air terran is not as powerful as sky air protoss army and in late game very easy to counter with sky protoss and templars with feedback on banshees bcs ravens or mass hydras corruptors for the zerg player. - The fastest attack period for the tanks is imo useless. All protoss units are tank hard counter ( especially imos of course ) so that s pretty useless to use them in this matchup and vs zerg that s absolutely not as effective as widow mines. - Widow mines : I think the first previous decrease from 1.75 to 1.1 was really insane but even 1.25 is quite very low. First it s almost impossible to split well the widow mines and burrow them, to split tanks and siege them and to split bio and hit and run ( i am talking of course in tvz matchup ). The micro is almost impossible and that s the same pb than in wol if you are catched during the trip from your base to zerg base you lose. And with less mines zerg are doing more mutas and the siege tanks are rapped. And I am not talking about vipers..... The only use of the siege tank is of course in tvt, 111 vs toss but pretty useless nowadays and vs zerg only one or two to avoid violet push in early game. That s impossible to use them better than that and the 2 buffs are imo useless and the widow mine is catastrophic.
For protoss : I think that s very good they forgot the dark templar movement upgrade since that would be impossible to kill them with scan and we will be able to build defense turrets EVERYWHERE. And with this fastness I am sure they could go out the range of the turrets before the bio can kill them. For the oracle the new upgrade are good cuz the original gaz cost decrease would have favoured too strong all in. But I dont know exactly what they have to use for oracles I am not protoss. But I would want to say if they are too fast they couldn't be killed by vikings at all.
Zerg : I find roaches pretty strong I dont know what exactly that could change. I would say zerg players could me way more agressive with them and avoid force field better so that could be a pb for protoss imo. As terran because we dont use mech anymore that s not a pb with bio but imo that s contradictory to the way to developp mech play since faster burrowed roaches would rapped tanks. But I am not zerg too
To conclude as a terran player i am only sure about the terran changes : - Tank period increased : useless - Mech/air combined upgrade : useless - Widow mines nerf : very very bad
well, I disagree that widow mine nerf is very very bad (because without that nerf, zergs will always face with 4M) mutas tends to clumb up very easily (and many zergs players intentionally do that to get maximum dmg), and will get hurt significantly if not micro'd.
Wait widow mines would now be too good vs mutas?
Anyway the issue is that blizzard does what you want: Remove 4M as the dominant strat. It isn't a nerf to make it a bit worse, it is a nerf to make it go away.
Which would be fine, if there was an alternative strat. But there simply isn't an alternative until there will be some major nerfs/changes to zerg.
Although you can't directly see balance indicators here, there is a clear trend that most people play Protoss on the highest level compared to the other races.
On September 28 2013 20:43 bObA wrote: As a master terran player, this is what I can say about the balance :
For the terran - the air and ground combined upgrades don't help really a lot imo since the air terran is not as powerful as sky air protoss army and in late game very easy to counter with sky protoss and templars with feedback on banshees bcs ravens or mass hydras corruptors for the zerg player. - The fastest attack period for the tanks is imo useless. All protoss units are tank hard counter ( especially imos of course ) so that s pretty useless to use them in this matchup and vs zerg that s absolutely not as effective as widow mines. - Widow mines : I think the first previous decrease from 1.75 to 1.1 was really insane but even 1.25 is quite very low. First it s almost impossible to split well the widow mines and burrow them, to split tanks and siege them and to split bio and hit and run ( i am talking of course in tvz matchup ). The micro is almost impossible and that s the same pb than in wol if you are catched during the trip from your base to zerg base you lose. And with less mines zerg are doing more mutas and the siege tanks are rapped. And I am not talking about vipers..... The only use of the siege tank is of course in tvt, 111 vs toss but pretty useless nowadays and vs zerg only one or two to avoid violet push in early game. That s impossible to use them better than that and the 2 buffs are imo useless and the widow mine is catastrophic.
For protoss : I think that s very good they forgot the dark templar movement upgrade since that would be impossible to kill them with scan and we will be able to build defense turrets EVERYWHERE. And with this fastness I am sure they could go out the range of the turrets before the bio can kill them. For the oracle the new upgrade are good cuz the original gaz cost decrease would have favoured too strong all in. But I dont know exactly what they have to use for oracles I am not protoss. But I would want to say if they are too fast they couldn't be killed by vikings at all.
Zerg : I find roaches pretty strong I dont know what exactly that could change. I would say zerg players could me way more agressive with them and avoid force field better so that could be a pb for protoss imo. As terran because we dont use mech anymore that s not a pb with bio but imo that s contradictory to the way to developp mech play since faster burrowed roaches would rapped tanks. But I am not zerg too
To conclude as a terran player i am only sure about the terran changes : - Tank period increased : useless - Mech/air combined upgrade : useless - Widow mines nerf : very very bad
well, I disagree that widow mine nerf is very very bad (because without that nerf, zergs will always face with 4M) mutas tends to clumb up very easily (and many zergs players intentionally do that to get maximum dmg), and will get hurt significantly if not micro'd.
Wait widow mines would now be too good vs mutas?
Anyway the issue is that blizzard does what you want: Remove 4M as the dominant strat. It isn't a nerf to make it a bit worse, it is a nerf to make it go away.
Which would be fine, if there was an alternative strat. But there simply isn't an alternative until there will be some major nerfs/changes to zerg.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
ROFL - so Sjow beating life 2 patches ago is relevant..and oh I'm sorry what foreign terrans are advancing in WCS right now? You don't want examples? Why is that - because you'd rather whine that Z is hard and you can't a move your units like in WOL instead of paying attention to facts? Don't want to talk about foreign Terrans? So far 1 korean Terran in the round of 8? Oh wait - there are no foreign Terrans in the WCS-EU Ro8? 1 Terran total MMA. And nice point about ForGG - because moving out of Korea definitely makes you a foreigner. Are you going to call Polt a foreigner too now bc he is still left in WCS AM? What about Taeja - is he not Korean? All of this is with the current balanced meta game - which you are advocating to make imbalanced. It's amazing to me how many people honestly want to relive wol - I hope people start posting now about how wol was balanced and the reign of zerg for the last year and a half was just coincidence. The logic is real. And lets keep ignoring the fact that even though the game is being acknowledged as balanced even by blizzard - we are still NERFING Terran and buffing the other 2 races - lets all be in shock and awe tho when that magically imbalances the game. And since we are still hopefully living in fact world - that's 2 TvZ's in a row that innovation was rolled - by zergs who played macro styles - is it not feasible that (as has happened over and over) zerg is catching up in terms of the meta game ::GASP:: - quick let's nerf again before that happens!
I keep seeing people talking about a 10% improvement to attack speed as a 10% improvement to dps. This is incorrect. The equation is damage over time. Numerator over denominator.
100% / 100% = 1 100% / 90% = 1.11, or an 11% improvement. Carry on, Liquidians!
On September 28 2013 22:49 DomeGetta wrote: Are you going to call Polt a foreigner too now bc he is still left in WCS AM?
Polt actually kind-of is a foreigner, as he has been studying teamless in Texas for the past year or so. Like...when he won the MLG, he made a big deal in the interview about how you don't need to be in a training house with a coach to do well, which he was obviously quite concerned about when he first left for texas.
Similarly, Scarlett should not be considered a foreigner right now. She lives in Korea, speaks Korean, is in a Korean training house, is coached by former Korean coach of the year Cella, plays in GSTL, DRG specifically cites copying her style, Bomber specifically cites preparing cheeses for her in particular, Jaedong can't beat her in a macro game.
As far as looking at foreigners in WCS...I dunno about looking at WCS Europe, as it's kind-of a joke region. Even a lot of the best Europeans are in WCS America. (Demuslim, Snute).
So...it's probably better to look at WCS America where...MacSed (P) Sen (Z) and Polt (T) have advanced, and I think that's it so far for people not living in a Korea.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Apart from Ultralisks, none of the Tier 3 units have mobility.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Apart from Ultralisks, none of the Tier 3 units have mobility.
Not even those are supermobile. But I fail to see what you want to tell me with that.
On September 28 2013 23:35 idkfa wrote: I keep seeing people talking about a 10% improvement to attack speed as a 10% improvement to dps. This is incorrect. The equation is damage over time. Numerator over denominator.
100% / 100% = 1 100% / 90% = 1.11, or an 11% improvement. Carry on, Liquidians!
This is absolutely right, there is an 11% increase in DPS. I think people were confused because the old DPS is 90% of the new DPS, which is a difference of 10% with respect to the new DPS. Good job idkfa for catching this!
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Apart from Ultralisks, none of the Tier 3 units have mobility.
Not even those are supermobile. But I fail to see what you want to tell me with that.
In a high-mobility game, that's one of the key things why T3 is hard to pull off, to this day, I hate to use Brood Lords, didn't even like them in WoL meta.
Unless you are knocking at your opponent's front door, Mutas, drops and warp-in harass can outright kill you unless you have a mobile army.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight.
This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need.
And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge.
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Apart from Ultralisks, none of the Tier 3 units have mobility.
Not even those are supermobile. But I fail to see what you want to tell me with that.
In a high-mobility game, that's one of the key things why T3 is hard to pull off, to this day, I hate to use Brood Lords, didn't even like them in WoL meta.
Unless you are knocking at your opponent's front door, Mutas, drops and warp-in harass can outright kill you unless you have a mobile army.
It's possible in TvT, it's possible in most vs Protoss matches (mobile Protoss play is rare and kind of limited to the occasional skycompositions in PvZ and PvP), and it was possible in WoL ZvT by both sides. Neither Mech TvT nor Protoss Deathballs need equal mobility to their enemy races, nor did BL/Infestor. The idea of having different compositions is that they have different strengths and weaknesses, and that their strenghts can overcome their weaknesses. Hightier Terran styles having such a weakness is a good thing. Hightier Terran styles not having enough of what should be their strengths to make up for that is the thing that needs to get adressed. At least it is what I wrote and currently believe.
i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
the problem with sc2 is that it's very frustrating if you win and even more if you lose. it's because of the gameplay you need to invest tons of energy into this game and still get punished for simple mistakes that can end the game. i hope with LOTV they make this game less apm intense because the apm required to be good in this game is hilarious and gets even worse the longer the game lasts or the better you are.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
the problem with sc2 is that it's very frustrating if you win and even more if you lose. it's because of the gameplay you need to invest tons of energy into this game and still get punished for simple mistakes that can end the game. i hope with LOTV they make this game less apm intense because the apm required to be good in this game is hilarious and gets even worse the longer the game lasts or the better you are.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
the problem with sc2 is that it's very frustrating if you win and even more if you lose. it's because of the gameplay you need to invest tons of energy into this game and still get punished for simple mistakes that can end the game. i hope with LOTV they make this game less apm intense because the apm required to be good in this game is hilarious and gets even worse the longer the game lasts or the better you are.
Sorry but I really just can't stand this attitude - make it easier for me but imbalanced for people who do it professionally please. The only way I would deal with this as blizzard is to throw out 2 rev's of the game - the actual game and then the game with training wheels. It's so sad because this really also seems like what blizzard is saying in why they want to patch the game right now.
The reason sc2 is on the map at all is because its professionally played. This is the exact attitude that is destroying the modern world -put training wheels on everything so I can lie to myself about being good at it. RTS is supposed to be hard - if it's just for fun for you then get over the fact that you won't be winning at a high level - or plead for a second more casual friendly rev but stop trying to ruin it for the people who dedicate their life to it as professionals.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
the problem with sc2 is that it's very frustrating if you win and even more if you lose. it's because of the gameplay you need to invest tons of energy into this game and still get punished for simple mistakes that can end the game. i hope with LOTV they make this game less apm intense because the apm required to be good in this game is hilarious and gets even worse the longer the game lasts or the better you are.
Sorry but I really just can't stand this attitude - make it easier for me but imbalanced for people who do it professionally please. The only way I would deal with this as blizzard is to throw out 2 rev's of the game - the actual game and then the game with training wheels. It's so sad because this really also seems like what blizzard is saying in why they want to patch the game right now.
The reason sc2 is on the map at all is because its professionally played. This is the exact attitude that is destroying the modern world -put training wheels on everything so I can lie to myself about being good at it. RTS is supposed to be hard - if it's just for fun for you then get over the fact that you won't be winning at a high level - or plead for a second more casual friendly rev but stop trying to ruin it for the people who dedicate their life to it as professionals.
Or - go to a LOL or DOTA type game.
While I do agree with your sentiment, I have to chime in a bit and say that SC2 needs to be more wholesome.
SC2 needs more reward for strategy. Micro and micro (mechanics) are definitely important, but there is little strategic depth in most games we watch.
The proof is in the pudding. Despite being a mirror-MU, TvT is a really popular matchup because it has the most strategic depth.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
the problem with sc2 is that it's very frustrating if you win and even more if you lose. it's because of the gameplay you need to invest tons of energy into this game and still get punished for simple mistakes that can end the game. i hope with LOTV they make this game less apm intense because the apm required to be good in this game is hilarious and gets even worse the longer the game lasts or the better you are.
Sorry but I really just can't stand this attitude - make it easier for me but imbalanced for people who do it professionally please. The only way I would deal with this as blizzard is to throw out 2 rev's of the game - the actual game and then the game with training wheels. It's so sad because this really also seems like what blizzard is saying in why they want to patch the game right now.
The reason sc2 is on the map at all is because its professionally played. This is the exact attitude that is destroying the modern world -put training wheels on everything so I can lie to myself about being good at it. RTS is supposed to be hard - if it's just for fun for you then get over the fact that you won't be winning at a high level - or plead for a second more casual friendly rev but stop trying to ruin it for the people who dedicate their life to it as professionals.
Or - go to a LOL or DOTA type game.
While I do agree with your sentiment, I have to chime in a bit and say that SC2 needs to be more wholesome.
SC2 needs more reward for strategy. Micro and micro (mechanics) are definitely important, but there is little strategic depth in most games we watch.
The proof is in the pudding. Despite being a mirror-MU, TvT is a really popular matchup because it has the most strategic depth.
tvt is popular because terran can play basicially anything (while using units correctly) and still get a long macro game going
tvz and especially tvp do not allow fancy (read: funto watch) openers since queens have been buffed into oblivion and the mothershipcore beeing the ultimate rush blocker in a low unit count situation there is a reason every terran plays greedy as fuck vs zerg and things like double rax / hellion pressure or the infamous 1-1-1 are entirely gone vs protoss. i want to see 1 based play vs good scouting, its fun in tvt and would be fun in tvz and tvp aswell. we should not fear sc2 turning into a cheesefest, since thats soooooo easy to come by by making new maps a bit larger with more spawns
but as a matter of fact blizzard FORCES (sometimes boring) macro games by creating defensive units / structures way way more powerful than they should be in the early stages
remove the nexus canon and set the maximum number of queens per hatchery to one, reduce bunker salvage ratio or make it more expensive to build at first, yet give the MSC another useful ability ("mobile shield battery" e.g spend energy to replenish shields when clicked on by friendly protoss units) and increase its energy regeneration rate by x% when near a friendly nexus; increase queen base energy, reinstall the need for an evochamber to build spores, lower observers movement speed slighty and add a robo upgrade for obs speed
dont get me wrong, i dont want nerfs for the sake of balance, which i feel is pretty decent overall, but for more build diversity in the terran matchups
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
You can't nerf WM without nerfing banelings...And you can't make mech work without nerfing Vipers. Vipers just demolish mech. David Kim is clueless, SC2 will never be good with David Kim in charge.
On September 29 2013 15:53 p14c wrote: You can't nerf WM without nerfing banelings...And you can't make mech work without nerfing Vipers. Vipers just demolish mech. David Kim is clueless, SC2 will never be good with David Kim in charge.
And swarmhosts (in the case of pure mech, bio-mech can handle them) and especially also mutas.
If you play (bio-) mech you need to be alot more passive than 4M, you cannot keep rallying units forward. That means there is nothing to stop zerg from getting 30 mutas. 30 mutas which are alot better than in WoL.
The revelation buff could be nice, but why to let it so visible? ^^
Maybe let just a nice animation when the spell is launched but then, dont let thoose withe markers on the head of the ennemi unit please. Let the marker visible on the unit state (top-left of the "statu-cadre"), but not on the main screen. Its could be a nice buff.
oh lets nerf the other new terran unit into oblivion, after we promised hellbat and mine would be core for all terrans when we deleted the warhound!
i know i should not say too much since i have not touched sc2 for a while now, but do they really think the most heavily countered unit by protoss and zerg, namely the siegetank, will change anything with a mere 10% attackspeedbuff? XD
and looking at the upgrades, sure you save money and time, but if you choose to go mech and air that money goes straight into a handful of starports and factories, and the units coming out of that did not get any better, apart from getting earlier upgrades now.
i predict no great changes for TvP and a landslide shift towards zerg in TvZ across all levels of play, should these changes go through.
On September 29 2013 17:51 ImperialFist wrote: it's hilarious how terran is terrible if you do not play super-greedy and rally units to the zerg map until you win or lose.
ssssssh, there's no place to fix the design flaws in this game. Praise the mighty fig-leaf balance patches !
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight.
This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need.
And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge.
Your comment is looking pretty off after Flash vs KangHo (and other Code S games). Again, those hightier/tankbased Terran armies are on the brink of being a strong standard strategy. They lack a tiny bit of costefficiency to really make up for their disadvantages and become viable.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious
Without siege mode, maru would have lost or at the minimum lost lots of scvs. Its SC2 for you lol @_@
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious
Without siege mode, maru would have lost or at the minimum lost lots of scvs. Its SC2 for you lol @_@
That is game 3. In game 2 siege would be done anyways and flash would still lose everything in that bumrush.
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight.
This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need.
And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge.
Your comment is looking pretty off after Flash vs KangHo (and other Code S games). Again, those hightier/tankbased Terran armies are on the brink of being a strong standard strategy. They lack a tiny bit of costefficiency to really make up for their disadvantages and become viable.
Hardly looking off.
If zerg goes for ling bling muta against mech he's dead. It's a build order/composition win for the terran. Aslong as the T doesn't completely fuck up, he can not loose the game, zerg can not tech switch into roaches,hydras,swarmhosts or tier 3 fast enough to stop a push.
G1, thankfully for KongHo he didn't actually make any mutas, but since he didn't Flash could've just walked over the map and killed him(or atleast cleared all the creep up). If anything Flash was surprisingly close to loosing an unloosable position since he didn't split his hellbats against the blings.
Game 2 is somewhat meaningless too, since Flash went 2 fact blueflame semi-allin which did nothing, so he was kind of screwed.
As a mech player, I dare say atleast mech is nowhere close to being on the brink of being standard play. It works mostly since everyone expects 4M and to lesser degree since no one has experience against it and doesn't know a lot of subtle moves that fuck mech up.
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight.
This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need.
And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge.
Your comment is looking pretty off after Flash vs KangHo (and other Code S games). Again, those hightier/tankbased Terran armies are on the brink of being a strong standard strategy. They lack a tiny bit of costefficiency to really make up for their disadvantages and become viable.
What? We were all talking about bio-mech vs ling bling muta...
Plus your mech example was where LosirA didn't realise it was mech till it was too late. Yeah, roach/hydra/bane isn't going to do too well vs mech.
On September 26 2013 04:14 Plansix wrote: And people say Blizzard doesn't listen. I like that this is a very fluid thing and they are taking feed back as it comes in. I like all these changes and I'm a little bummed there wasn't a little speed boost for the DTs. Still, all of the changes look like they will reward the player that controls better.
My favorite suggestion on the DT change was to tie it to researching charge. That is, charge not only improves base Zealot speed, but also buffs base DT speed. That way they're slightly better in the lategame, without being any stronger early on.
That's actually brilliant, honestly.
Kind of random, but this person was the first to post the idea, I remember commenting on it in the earlier thread. Gift him TL+ if Blizzard ever implements it, since even if maybe it's an obvious suggestion that everyone could have thought of it's still nice to be first. ^^
Disappointed that they're still trying to push some cruddy oracle buffs while ignoring the DT buff that could have been interesting for play and encouraged terrans to reconsider being as greedy as they can be. Revelation is so underused and so dumb, why do people want it buffed?
"I'm too lazy to use it from 9 range! Please make it even easier to land a bigger map-hack than Scanner Sweeps and Creep!" Is that why? Is it either that or just because oracles cost plenty of gas? :/ I think I'd be happier with it if they also decreased the energy cost to 50 but made it only last 30 seconds instead of 60. Then, at least, you can't just cast it once from 10 range and sod off for 60 seconds with full vision of their army, or at least that unit. Big difference by the between the two, I realise, but you can build up enough for multiple casts of it (2 now, 4 if only 50 energy) on just one.
On September 29 2013 13:28 Kitaen wrote: tvz and especially tvp do not allow fancy (read: funto watch) openers since queens have been buffed into oblivion and the mothershipcore beeing the ultimate rush blocker in a low unit count situation there is a reason every terran plays greedy as fuck vs zerg and things like double rax / hellion pressure or the infamous 1-1-1 are entirely gone vs protoss. i want to see 1 based play vs good scouting, its fun in tvt and would be fun in tvz and tvp aswell. we should not fear sc2 turning into a cheesefest, since thats soooooo easy to come by by making new maps a bit larger with more spawns
but as a matter of fact blizzard FORCES (sometimes boring) macro games by creating defensive units / structures way way more powerful than they should be in the early stages
remove the nexus canon and set the maximum number of queens per hatchery to one, reduce bunker salvage ratio or make it more expensive to build at first
Bunkers are fine, and aren't really the thing that stops allins vs Terran. The terran still needs to scout the allin, and make the bunkers. Honestly? Queens are also fine. Like oh no, their stats are slightly better than a Stalker for about the price of a stalker. 4-6 stalkers hold off light pressure, but not a dedicated allin. The complaints I've seen against queens is that they prevent players from poking while playing macro builds, not prevent serious allins like 2 fact blue flame hellion. It's more of a one fact 4-6 red flame hellion poke can't just outmicro the zerg and cause problems anymore.
No, the seriously problematic defensive units are the mothership core, and the widow mine. The widow mine is just...oh I'm sorry, did you want to attack before you got detection? Nope, your attack completely fails. Lol 4 gate. Lol 7 roach rush. Lol investing all your money into units and attacking. You seriously expect that to work? Not against Terran! And then the mothership core.... So like...nice 10 pool and/or proxy 8/8/8 reaper. I already have a flying unit noob. Also, pop quiz, let's say you go 5 rax marine allin; how many marines does it take to power through a planetary nexus + mothership core combo? (Alone, assuming toss has no units and doesn't attack with probes). By my calculations, it's at least 16 marines, probably a bit more than that due to range considerations. That's pretty ridiculous--being able to counter 1600 army value with 200 army value, while having defender's advantage.
On September 29 2013 19:13 Rabiator wrote: Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win
I dunno, I was bad at BW, but at my level of play it did feel like whoever pulled the gun first usually won. 4 pool? I probably win. PvP and I get a nice timing with dragoons? I probably win. PvT and you don't catch me moving across the map? LOL I'm seiged up at your base, good luck with that. Reaver drop? Well, there goes my economy, and I don't think I'm going to counter through your front door when you have Reavers covering that too. ZvZ and I got the muta lead? I win. Oh, you just walked your bio army over my lurkers without scanning? k. I can probably just mass hydra and a-move then. Oh, you thought it would be cute to do a tank drop on the high ground on temple? Too bad I opened mutas, and you didn't seem to expect me to given my low APM so you have no turrets ready. Muta opening vs me? Well...see I don't have the APM to macro bio, so I was going mech and already had 10 goliaths. I think I'll walk across the map, siege your spine line, and win now.
Like...don't get me wrong, I was bad at BW, very, very bad, and sure in pro games people could engineer crazy comebacks. But just playing with and against friends? It usually came down to whoever swung first winning instantly, or whoever walked their army into a deathtrap losing instantly.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead.
It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead.
It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death.
You're completely wrong. In SC2 if you're behind you mostly die (except tvt). In BW there was a lot of ways to fuck up the attack and lose the lead to mines/tanks/lurkers or storms. SC2 is mechanically easier, therefore attacker is more likely to secure his lead and win the game. Hence, the anxiety - one unlucky engagement -> your behind -> you die.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead.
It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death.
You're completely wrong. In SC2 if you're behind you mostly die (except tvt). In BW there was a lot of ways to fuck up the attack and lose the lead to mines/tanks/lurkers or storms. SC2 is mechanically easier, therefore attacker is more likely to secure his lead and win the game. Hence, the anxiety - one unlucky engagement -> your behind -> you die.
The mechanics have nothing to do with defenders advantage. In a ladder game there is always going to be a disparity in mechanics where one players' is weaker. If he happens to have the lead and doesn't know how to end it, it results in a drawn out game. ONTOP of the fact, there is defenders advantage in SC2. It's slightly less significant than it was in BW, but it definitely exists, even with Protoss, yet people will just exaggerate to the extreme and say "well it's minimal so it doesn't exist at all #fuckwarpgates."
And it's not why anxiety exists. Go make a poll and see who votes for "no defenders advantage" over "winning is stressful."
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
And not only is there a defenders advantage in SC2, but in both BW and SC2 there are a variety of ways for a drawn out game to form despite a player maintaining a lead, and it's ultimately due to one player on either side not realizing this lead.
It might be the root of your own anxiety, but it has nothing to do with the core problem in the vast majority of the average players' anxiety, which has been discussed to death.
You're completely wrong. In SC2 if you're behind you mostly die (except tvt). In BW there was a lot of ways to fuck up the attack and lose the lead to mines/tanks/lurkers or storms. SC2 is mechanically easier, therefore attacker is more likely to secure his lead and win the game. Hence, the anxiety - one unlucky engagement -> your behind -> you die.
The mechanics have nothing to do with defenders advantage. In a ladder game there is always going to be a disparity in mechanics where one players' is weaker. If he happens to have the lead and doesn't know how to end it, it results in a drawn out game. ONTOP of the fact, there is defenders advantage in SC2. It's slightly less significant than it was in BW, but it definitely exists, even with Protoss, yet people will just exaggerate to the extreme and say "well it's minimal so it doesn't exist at all #fuckwarpgates."
And it's not why anxiety exists. Go make a poll and see who votes for "no defenders advantage" over "winning is stressful."
1. Defender's advantage was far more significant in BW. I'm not gonna spend my time to explain. Just go and check liquipedia strategies. 2. Don't take it too literally, "no defenders advantage" is only part of the problem. For instance, people complain a lot about protoss deathball, if defenders advantage existed, like say tanks, spider mines and lurkers in BW, we would have less issues with deathball and less frustration with the game.
Another reason of game anxiety is speed of the game and terrible damage syndrome. But thats whole different topic and has no place in this thread.
On September 28 2013 16:39 DomeGetta wrote: LOL - yesss innovation eliminated by soO - based on reverse logic this nerf terran patch (that's not about balance! it's about diversity in play! but it only nerfs 1 race and buffs the other 2! lolol) is looking even more necessary than before... Dimaga owns flash... Nerchiro owns forgg.... soO owns innovation? the "best player in the world" - still waiting to hear from someone about the foreign terrans rolling the korean zergs... oh wait..
Your examples are bad, because of your 3matches one is korean vs korean and one is foreigner vs foreign-training-korean (forgg has been staying in the Millenium house in France since forever). Nevertheless, I'm gonna do the stupid "let's throw out examples though they don't prove anything" with you, just so that you can see it does happen:
HeRoMaRinE beat Hyun Lucifron beat Yugioh Sjow beat Life
People love to throw out examples that "prove" their own point "Oh my god Innovation lost a game against a zerg and he's the best player in the world, now he doesn't have 100% win rate, Z imba!"
Personally, I will probably have a much harder time in ZvT after the patch. I play a ground-based style which works fine against widow mines, but it feels like tanks will shut that down. In pro games muta/ling/bane is already so dominant, and it feels like these changes will just force zergs into it even more. I would love if roach/hydra, roach/bane, ling/infestor, ling/ultra/bane etc were more viable so we could see some more diversity, but I feel like these changes does the opposite.
I agree these are weird changes. Many people talk about deiversity bun in TvZ mines are good againts ling/bling muta and this is most played composition by Zergs. So nerfing mines will make ling/bling muta even more popular. On other hand tanks are good againts roach/hydra which are barely played and post this change will probably be played even less. Alos what about TvT, Won't merging upgrades make mech having advantage over bio? I dont see how it helps mech in non mirror matchup.
I think the upgrades help turtle Mech and in general more defensive tank/thor+bio Terran styles, with broodlords against zerg and I guess it helps hellbats a bit back into MMMVG compositions. But I don't think it's major either. The problem I see with TvZ is that mass mutalisk makes bio+mine nearly required. I guess overall it could work out, but as I have repeatetly said, I don't think the mine is a core issue of that matchup lacking diversity.
I'd argue the muta is pretty much the core issue of both ZvT and ZvP. T have been able to deal with it, since mines provide such a high burst dmg against them, mutas can't poke much. Then their top usability is ofcourse to provide some AoE, so if zerg goes mass mass blings he can't just roll you over. P has had a lot more problem with mutas since they don't have this high burst dmg, with the regen storm is more like a tickle against muta pokes.
I was always in favour of the muta buff, or atleast more muta play at the cost of the infestor. That being said, it leads to both P and T requiring pretty strong anti-muta units. T has had it while P has been kind of fucked. I don't really see how you can nerf T's anti-muta unit without toning mutas down(and then what HotS changes are really left? they seem to be dieing off one by one).
I'd be fine with mutalisks in themselves and especially Terran can combat them very well, and against Protoss, mutalisks are the only reason why you can be aggressive vs Protoss without mass swarm hosts. Without them every Protoss could just go for some robo/stargate turtle play and I really don't want to see double robo as the standard midgame of any matchup. Thing is, they are problematic in TvZ, due to the Terran having to trade and never actually building anything of worth. Which means that there often comes the point in the lategame where there are 3000/3000 or more worth in mutas, against a Terran whose army is still of the same quality that it was 10mins ago. And though the zerg combat power hasn't increased - having 1mutalisk instead of some ling/bling for the same cost/supply doesn't make you stronger in fights - the quality/utility of mutalisks just starts to shine through. (mostly in terms of terran not getting a new mining base in those situations) Terran just lacks the same quality in terms of units in the lategame, though having the raw power. What Terran needs is a transition/build up similar to the zerg units qualitiwise. And that must simply mean that the game needs to be balanced around higher tier units of terran, if we don't want the matchup to play out the way it does these days, every game. The excessive mineplay that we see these days is first and foremost a problematic because there is no alternative to it for Terran - and thuse the zerg counterstrategies must not be capable of shutting it down if they prepare for it.
Don't get me wrong, I do agree for the most part. That being said, I think we would be dreaming if we expect Blizz to do such ground breaking changes as have T3 T units better than T1.
I don't know, I personally always loved TvZ before the infestor era in WoL and would like the MU to go closer to it. marine tank vs ling bling muta into infestor BL. It was a war of attrition, such as I suppose TvZ is now, but right now the engagements are a clusterfuck of "do the wms blow up the T units or the Z units" while with tanks you knew roughly what you'd get for your buck. It was also a lot more of a strategy game rather than just "pile on the pressure". That still didn't require high tech T units(tank isn't much more high tech than mines, though I do suppose it makes gas geysers a bit more valueble, rather than just skipping them on 3rd/4th).
But yeah, the changes to the tank won't fix their issues in both TvZ and TvP. Ofcourse they will be stronger, but the core issue of why the tank sucks is still going to be stronger mutas require a more direct answer/they are more open to snipes with stronger mutas and vipers counter them to much(aswell as possibly ultra play, it's hard to say without more tank games that gets to lategame on even grounds). Then tanks in TvP have a huge combination of issues which IAS hardly touches on(with that said, tanks can work, though it is more as a sniper for hts/colossi so hellbats can reign supreme).
Well, specifically talking TvZ I do think the tankbuff is a step in the right direction of getting ZvT more into the direction of more maneuvering. Because tanks just have a very different dynamic, as in they are costly (so just going/rallying over the map isn't as strong) and they scale up very well (so not attacking is a good option). I think marine/mine as support for 1 (or 2 in the lategame) factories that produce tanks, as well as an occasional thor can keep mutas in check and I don't think vipers are a problem for as long as you play biomech. I think the main question that buffed tankbased play has to answer is whether it can recover from army losses or straight up prevent them. Which is hugely connected to the amount of units it can take with it into its grave and therefore with the costefficiency of tanks. I don't think Terran T3 units - or rather gasintense styles - are "bad". But it is missing some tiny costefficiency here and there in TvZ to overcome the units downsides (cost, mobility, predictability) with their upsides (raw power, supplyefficiency, defensive capabilities).
Terran T3 is just down right bad. First issue is infrastructure and build time. Second is mobility. Even with these 2 huge downsides, they aren't really out right dominate in a head to head fight.
This is similar to siege tanks in TvZ. If you get caught unsiege, you pretty much just lost the game. But even if you are sieged, the zerg can still trade evenly (especially on creep). So the risk and reward for tank play is very small. Having low mobility also means the zerg has enough time to harrass with mutas and then come back and engage if they need.
And it is not a tiny cost efficiency issue. That would be saying that P gateway units only lack a tiny cost efficiency vs stimmed bio. The gap between terran T3 and zerg/protoss T3 is pretty huge.
There is not such a thing as proper Terran T3. I think people missread Blizzard view.
Bli wants terran players to use as much units as they can, especially late game. They dislike mech style or such, as i read from them. Ideally speacking, Ideally speaking, "T3" would be more like a bio/mech style with air support (the shared mech/air upgrade will help).
A mobile bio force with tanks/mines in support and viking to deal with coloss or viper for instance.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
the problem with sc2 is that it's very frustrating if you win and even more if you lose. it's because of the gameplay you need to invest tons of energy into this game and still get punished for simple mistakes that can end the game. i hope with LOTV they make this game less apm intense because the apm required to be good in this game is hilarious and gets even worse the longer the game lasts or the better you are.
Sorry but I really just can't stand this attitude - make it easier for me but imbalanced for people who do it professionally please. The only way I would deal with this as blizzard is to throw out 2 rev's of the game - the actual game and then the game with training wheels. It's so sad because this really also seems like what blizzard is saying in why they want to patch the game right now.
The reason sc2 is on the map at all is because its professionally played. This is the exact attitude that is destroying the modern world -put training wheels on everything so I can lie to myself about being good at it. RTS is supposed to be hard - if it's just for fun for you then get over the fact that you won't be winning at a high level - or plead for a second more casual friendly rev but stop trying to ruin it for the people who dedicate their life to it as professionals.
Or - go to a LOL or DOTA type game.
While I do agree with your sentiment, I have to chime in a bit and say that SC2 needs to be more wholesome.
SC2 needs more reward for strategy. Micro and micro (mechanics) are definitely important, but there is little strategic depth in most games we watch.
The proof is in the pudding. Despite being a mirror-MU, TvT is a really popular matchup because it has the most strategic depth.
I think the strategic depth is hard to spot but it's there. Whether it's spotted really depends on who is observing and casting. If the casters or observers miss a cancelled building, don't know the history of how someone typically plays, the current meta, the previous meta, etc. you are going to miss the strategic depth. People like SoS and Soulkey show just how much depth there is in the non-TvT mirrors at present. It's just a little harder to spot there because P and Z units don't have the diversity of attacks that Terran units do, at least in the early game.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious
How dare you respond to Rabiator's theory crafting with examples from pro games! To make Rabiator happy Blizzard would need to redesign SC2 so that each player would only be able to select one unit at a time and a single siege tank could defend all of a Terran's bases simultaneously as long as it had high ground advantage. These simple fixes would solve most of the design flaws in SC2.
On September 29 2013 02:44 foreign2 wrote: i think the chances will have no effect on the game and i recognise many players going inactive or leaving the game. blizzard is too carefull at patching. It's annoying to see that blizzard doesn't want to listen the biggest part of this community and actually make this game fun to play. instead they continue focusing on "the balance" and messed the league system up. they simply do everything for not making this game fun and just listen the top 1% of the community.
For good 90% of community the best way to make SC2 fun is to give i-win button to everyone.
What?
Quoting some random friend that tried to play SC2 (and that soon enough returned to what they played before): 'Winning is fun, i liked SC2 but losing is not fun'. And trust me, he represents good 90% of community well. Team games are 'fun', cause lose is easy to blame on whoever of team mates, while winning (or losing in close game) will always be associated with own performance. There is a third category however, that seek fun in gameplay, but i dare to bet that most of players (yes, word community was wrong probably and 90% part was exaggeration, more than 2/3rds still probably) seek fun in winning, not in fun gameplay.
There are a lot of ways to lose in SC2 where you basically dont have a "snowflakes chance in hell" to win ... and you know this. That is why losing - at lower skill levels - is not satisfying.
In BW you had at least a chance to try and stop the opponent due to the defenders advantage, which could delay the inevitable and give you the ILLUSION of having had a chance. This is completely missing from SC2 because there is no defenders advantage and I would even say that SC2 has an attackers advantage because the attacker chooses where and when to engage and he will choose an advantageous spot ... which is easily chosen due to the high mobility of units/armies in SC2.
No, this illusion is created purely from an incompetent opponent, or you yourself being ignorant, and it happens for a variety of reasons other than defenders advantage which can simply be generalized as a possible opportunity for an opponent to botch a deathblow when they're far ahead. Consequently, this actually does happen a lot in SC2, because there are many dynamics in SC2 which yourself or an opponent can misunderstand to make an incorrect decision. In the vacuum of that game to such an individual without that understanding, it is not apparent like it would be to an outside spectator in hindsight whether or not the game should or should not have been winnable.
And in the end, this entire explanation doesn't really have anything to do with why it sucks much harder to lose a game in SC2. The answer is pretty straight forward: It's a 1v1 game, so when you lose it's 100% your fault. People generally don't like a wall of red, negative numbers confirming to them that they aren't as good as they'd like to be. But that's not an issue with a game, that's an issue with mentality. Because mistakes can't be learned from unless they're made. And it turns out SC2 isn't the only form of human expression that can induce anxiety for fear of failure.
Of course it does ... because in BW you had a defenders advantage, which basically means you could "block a swing with a sword". In SC2 without the defenders advantage the guy who pulls his gun first will most likely win ... because you cant deflect that attack with a defenders advantage. Thus in BW you have the "illusion" of having a chance while the opponent is slowly wearing you down to the inevitable end result.
This is how I see those two games: BW ... dueling knights with shields to block enemy swings. SC2 ... gunfight on the open street and whoever pulls his gun first only needs to hit to win without a chance to dodge/deflect the shot.
You know what? After seeing games 2 and 3 in Maru vs Flash listening tales about lack of defender's advantage is just hilarious
How dare you respond to Rabiator's theory crafting with examples from pro games! To make Rabiator happy Blizzard would need to redesign SC2 so that each player would only be able to select one unit at a time and a single siege tank could defend all of a Terran's bases simultaneously as long as it had high ground advantage. These simple fixes would solve most of the design flaws in SC2.
I approve of those changes. Spoilered the magic words to make sure Blizzard hears us + Show Spoiler +
Putin, bomb, чечня, terrorism
Okay enough with jokes. I suppose the exaggeration you made shows the problems with the wise man's theories well.
This might be a biased opinion. But I think the playerbase of both Zerg and Protoss is so massively huge, that Terrans are underrepresented in every discussion, tournament, ladder, live shows. Everytime a Terran comes up with a defensive opinion about his race (which can be true or not), 10 other zerg or protoss throw themselves over him with counter opinions (which are not true or true)
On October 03 2013 17:19 OneSpeed wrote: This might be a biased opinion. But I think the playerbase of both Zerg and Protoss is so massively huge, that Terrans are underrepresented in every discussion, tournament, ladder, live shows. Everytime a Terran comes up with a defensive opinion about his race (which can be true or not), 10 other zerg or protoss throw themselves over him with counter opinions (which are not true or true)
I've been around long time to notice this.
Perspective A makes a statement generally agreed by his respective group.
Perspective B and C respond, because they have differing opinions.
Result is statements by A will get more responses from B and C than it will get from other A's.
All the changes seem minor other than the tank change. This will just emphisize tank use even more in TvT. They'll still be horrid in TvP and they will still be useless in TvZ. Attack speed doesn't change the fact that they can't attck under blinding cloud. The only thing that could happen is some weird 2 base all in revolving around tank count. Ground and air upgrades combined was attempted in the beta and didn't work, I'm not sure why they think it will now. Finally, the Oracle speed will just make proxy stargate better. Using Oracles late game won't change.
On October 28 2013 03:51 Keeve wrote: Finally, the Oracle speed will just make proxy stargate better. Using Oracles late game won't change.
And any buff to the current oracle, which kills workers way too fast, will do the same thing (increasing early game use and not encouraging lategame use in any way). Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind a faster oracle that would need three hits to kill workers.
So like...nice 10 pool and/or proxy 8/8/8 reaper. I already have a flying unit noob. Also, pop quiz, let's say you go 5 rax marine allin; how many marines does it take to power through a planetary nexus + mothership core combo?
10 pool is still going to come before MS Core most of the time. Most people FFE in PvZ, so 10 pool works fine. If the opponent is Gateway expanding, 10 pooling sucks anyway, as a Zealot should be out in time to deal with it (assuming decent simcity). As for 8/8/8 Reaper, well, just don't do that build. It's not particularly viable in any matchup. Besides, good luck actually catching a Reaper with an MSC. There won't be any energy for Photon Overcharge when your all-in hits, so the MSC is just like a mosquito bite to your (numerous) Reapers (which heal absurdly fast if you just micro). 5 rax Marine all-ins were bad in WoL, and they're still bad in HotS. Yes, MSC counters them even harder (assuming a reasonably timed MSC and that the MSC is actually at the Protoss base/didn't have to recall out of the Terran's base, or something) but so what? Basic scouting countered it in WoL. Just add Gateways and use Sentries to delay if you have to and you'll be fine. Kite the push across the map with Stalkers. Whatever; it was easy, because 1Gate FE could defend it no problem just by adding 2 Gateways and hitting Warp cycles from early on (5rax is super obvious anyway, particularly in HotS where fewer people open gasless TvP).
I'm not sure why you're so bent out of shape over 5raxing not being viable, given that it was a boring coinflip, but particularly when nobody used it even in WoL.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8JkLXD3.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/R9X5Ch6.png)
Terran Mech ground and air attack upgrades combined![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SmPW9ph.png)
Widow Mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.25![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TkzXapn.png)
Siege Tank attack period decreased from 3 to 2.7![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jhykeiX.png)
Roach speed upgrade also increases the burrowed roach movement speed from 1.41 to 2.25![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aFj7S9K.png)
We’d also like to try a different set of changes for the Oracle:
![[image loading]](http://cdn.idigitaltimes.com/data/images/full/2013/03/08/6224.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Yr6KRLm.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RQXcwvI.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jbBs8xt.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hCb0Rpz.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dbS2Yme.jpg)
just try to play a test map.
Cheese![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images/4/4f/Corsair.png)
