|
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote:
I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unluck the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP aswell maybe?
Hear that, David Kim? We want another balance change for bunkers!
But seriously, it's kind of sad that that upgrade never gets used. They should just make it an upgrade for minerals only at the CC so someone could find a way to do a cute bunker rush with it :p
|
BAHAHAHAH it would be nerfed in a month cuz that seriously would be OP
|
On October 17 2013 02:57 Aiobhill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 02:45 vthree wrote:On October 17 2013 02:40 Aiobhill wrote:On October 17 2013 01:46 vthree wrote:On October 17 2013 01:40 RampancyTW wrote:On October 17 2013 01:33 vthree wrote:On October 17 2013 01:30 RampancyTW wrote:On October 17 2013 01:26 vthree wrote:On October 16 2013 23:48 LSN wrote:On October 16 2013 23:32 Fjodorov wrote:
[quote]
Widow mine splash radius decreased from 1.75 to 1.1
We'd like to push out the Widow Mine a little bit and bump up the Siege Tank so that bio play becomes more interesting. Ultimately, we believe a mix of Widow Mines and Siege Tanks with your bio army will be a lot more fun to watch than just Widow Mines with bio alone.
With these changes they expect terrans to play bio + siege tanks + widow mines.... hehe i mean you tell me if this comes across as well thougt out and reasonable. Well I tried to explain you why it is not of any matter what they write in their statements. It is just PR which tries not to hurt anyone too much and make most people happy lol. Obvious is that I and most others wont play a game in 1 year from now where every single TvZ game is stuck on bio/mine vs bling/muta that heavily relies on lucky/unlucky mine shots with no single other altenrative in the macrogame besides these easywin offrax and 2/3 base z all-ins. I doubt this exact bio/mine vs muta/bling clash will be interesting enaugh to watch it every single game. Many people start to complain already as this is just pure brain afk mechanics vs mechanics. It is like playing chess with always the same 30 initial moves. To get back to your final question (and @thedwarf): It certainly is not. I can only repeat that it is a step by step thing blizzards needs to do. This for sure wont be the ultimate patch and therefore there is no need to cry about things beforehand when they in general go into the right direction. Nerfing mines in TvZ is the right direction in general. I think what a lot of terrans are frustrated with is that TvZ got 'looked at' due to 4M being so popular and the matchup getting stale. But what about TvP, terrans have had to try to dodge 'lucky' storms since WoL. Why hasn't storm been tweaked while Protoss gateway units get buffed ? Probably because neither of these things need to happen. Storm is far from overpowered, and gateway units would absolutely be overpowered vs. T in the early game if made any stronger. And as we can see now, mines aren't overpowered if the Zerg controls right. People complain about mines ending games with a 'huge' shot. How is that different from storm? Also, improvement of gateway units can come in as height tech upgrades so it doesn't change the early game. I would agree that mines are not overpowered. I think the proposed nerf is reasonable, though. It's a closet buff to other T units, especially medivacs, in regards to friendly fire splash. I think the tank does need some further sort of buff to make up for the widowmine nerf to make it worth mixing in (I like the idea of transformation servos speeding up tank/thor/viking transformation time in addition to its current effect), but I have no issues with the widow mine nerf, even if they're not currently overpowered from a balance standpoint. So mine is not OP, but it is nerfed. Tank gets buff but is not enough to offset the nerf. But overall the mine nerf is ok? Not sure how that is logical at all. I don't think looking at a single unit is a good aproach. Mines don't exist in a vacuum. Looking at top level TvZ from the last few months, it looks as if MMMM might - yes might - be OP, but it is certainly too much of a Swiss army knife without a clearly defined counter. I've seen people switch to Ultras and being killed during the transition before thre Ultras spawn, I've seen people being killed after Ultras spawn as there was no support left, I've seen the Combo take out broodlords and infestors. I've seen RorO play masterfully - hitting with fungals, hitting with banes, creating surrounds - but die miserably to drops as he had no static defense. Something has to be done, Blizzard obviously doesn't even consider to touch the holy Marine, doesn't want to touch the Medivac, both better choices imho, so the mine it is. If this mini-nerf goes thru along with the proposed armory upgrade mergers and the tank buff, we can in the future as well expect to see at least as many Terrans at the top of rankings as the other races combined. So where is the clear counter for muta ling bling. People complaining against 4M needs to understand that it is the only comp mobile enough to deal with MLB that doesn't have a huge down side like mech. No clear counter either, conceded. Still three points: Terran can have the same economy with fewer workers, so bigger army cap. Terran static defense is better vs Muta/ling/bling than Zerg static d vs MMMM. And MMMM tends to trade efficiently overall and will always trade gas-efficiently, as Medivacs simply get away with boost. So without clear counter on either side cost-efficiency comes into the equation and that seems to heavily favor terran.
The only point I agree with is workers and economy - however zergs will still usually have a larger economy (especially gas economy). No reasonable amount of static D will hold a mutalisk ball. As long as creep is a factor the zerg army has the speed advantage and should be able to trade very efficiently with the terran army - even if gas is being traded zerg is harvesting more.
|
So, when are they putting up a new version of the balancemap then?
|
Slovenia171 Posts
On October 17 2013 03:04 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote:
I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unluck the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP aswell maybe? I would've said to make engineering bays cheaper so that building a seperate bay for these upgrades do not hurt that much, but then I thought of engi bay blocks.
Part of the reason for the suggestion is also terran being the least reactive race (having least reactive capabilities). So the bunker drop would be a good option when you see zerg (which is impossible to scout because of 1 building for all-game unit production) roach pushing for example, you can do some last minute adjustments.
|
On October 17 2013 01:58 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:22 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 23:36 TheDwf wrote:
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes. Nope. It's stale since Banelings are the only way to go in the midgame vs mass marines and since Mech is worse than before, mostly because of the Viper. The core of the problem lies there: Terran has to go marine/medivac based because nothing else works. Zergs has to go banelings/mutalisk based because nothing else works. Then you add a few sidekick units to those core compositions and that's the whole transitionpath you get. Edit: The queen patch did nothing but eliminate a fuckton of coinflips from the 2011/12 metagame and thereby revealing the balance problems of the matchup. (Terran having trouble in the lategame of WoL, after a balanced early/midgame) As usual your analysis of the consequences of the Queen patch is off; how can you even fail to recognize the gigantic difference in creep surface by midgame (something which have major consequences for Tank-based play as Zerg ground units on creep can overwhelm Tanks so easily) when you can start your spread 4 minuts earlier, or simply the difference between having a free 6' third and having to fight for it by making either speedlings or a few Roaches? Not to mention virtually eliminating timings (HotS gave back one strong timing to Terran with Hellbats, but of course it was promptly relegated to oblivion with a quick stroke of the nerf hammer; how convenient) because they cannot reliably equalize anymore. All of the attacks you refer to, Hellions/Marauders, 2 fact Hellions, etc., could have been easily shut down by the Overlord part of the patch alone (or even the HotS solution of overspeed at tier1), better maps (at the time there were still maps such as Metalopolis or XNC with wide open naturals), or even the natural development of Zerg's play with the systematisation of evos/spine/queens walls, etc. Yet strangely enough, all the easy Roaches coinflips Zerg still enjoys by now weren't patched; double standards as usual. Banelings are not even the main actor in the Zerg side of the 4M scenario as lings/mutas do well against low Marines numbers below a huge Medivac count; Banelings are there to make sure Terran cannot simply keep 50+ Marines in a ball and massacre everything, but Zerg doesn't have to get tons of them. Roaches/Hydras has also no troubles handling mass Marines so I have absolutely no idea why you bring back up your eternal rant about the Marine being too strong.
I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
|
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:58 TheDwf wrote:On October 17 2013 01:22 Big J wrote:On October 16 2013 23:36 TheDwf wrote:
The match-up is stale because Zerg's development (creep/production/tech) is out of control since the Queen patch and Zerg received much stronger mutas and ultras, not to mention the Viper nonsense, further killing off Tank-based play. Even 4M is struggling to bring Zerg's play under control. The core of the problem lies there; Zerg's macro is so powerful that only constant pressure from the Terran side (= 4M) can vaguely tame it. As long as Zerg can safely cover half of the map in creep + get 90 drones + rush Hive against any down-time in midgame, you will not see Tank-based play coming back unless the Tank's strength is dramatically increased (≠ a measly -0.3 attack speed to pretend there is a compensation). Fix this, and then you can tone down the Mine as a support tool for Tank-based play.
I have absolutely no problem with Tanks becoming the norm again in TvZ, but you're simply deluded if you think it all adds up with the proposed changes. Nope. It's stale since Banelings are the only way to go in the midgame vs mass marines and since Mech is worse than before, mostly because of the Viper. The core of the problem lies there: Terran has to go marine/medivac based because nothing else works. Zergs has to go banelings/mutalisk based because nothing else works. Then you add a few sidekick units to those core compositions and that's the whole transitionpath you get. Edit: The queen patch did nothing but eliminate a fuckton of coinflips from the 2011/12 metagame and thereby revealing the balance problems of the matchup. (Terran having trouble in the lategame of WoL, after a balanced early/midgame) As usual your analysis of the consequences of the Queen patch is off; how can you even fail to recognize the gigantic difference in creep surface by midgame (something which have major consequences for Tank-based play as Zerg ground units on creep can overwhelm Tanks so easily) when you can start your spread 4 minuts earlier, or simply the difference between having a free 6' third and having to fight for it by making either speedlings or a few Roaches? Not to mention virtually eliminating timings (HotS gave back one strong timing to Terran with Hellbats, but of course it was promptly relegated to oblivion with a quick stroke of the nerf hammer; how convenient) because they cannot reliably equalize anymore. All of the attacks you refer to, Hellions/Marauders, 2 fact Hellions, etc., could have been easily shut down by the Overlord part of the patch alone (or even the HotS solution of overspeed at tier1), better maps (at the time there were still maps such as Metalopolis or XNC with wide open naturals), or even the natural development of Zerg's play with the systematisation of evos/spine/queens walls, etc. Yet strangely enough, all the easy Roaches coinflips Zerg still enjoys by now weren't patched; double standards as usual. Banelings are not even the main actor in the Zerg side of the 4M scenario as lings/mutas do well against low Marines numbers below a huge Medivac count; Banelings are there to make sure Terran cannot simply keep 50+ Marines in a ball and massacre everything, but Zerg doesn't have to get tons of them. Roaches/Hydras has also no troubles handling mass Marines so I have absolutely no idea why you bring back up your eternal rant about the Marine being too strong. I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2. Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows. PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
People don't do it because mutalingbane is just as good in a straight up fight but is more mobile and can harass. There is no tactical gain for using slower non-flying units the mutalingbane can fight straight up just as well.
|
What was TvZ like before the doompatch? I know triple-orbital banshee / hellion was quickly becoming the norm for Terran, but was the build variety stagnating? How viable were 2-base builds vs Zerg? I was only a shitty low-masters zerg that hardly played anything but zvp customs, so I didn't get to see too much.
|
There was things tried liek 2 fact BFH attacks ...... Hellion / Marauder pushes.......... but as zerg its really really ez to stop these pushes if scouted which Ovie sac so common you really can't hide much
|
On October 17 2013 04:48 PineapplePizza wrote:
What was TvZ like before the doompatch? I know triple-orbital banshee / hellion was quickly becoming the norm for Terran, but was the build variety stagnating? How viable were 2-base builds vs Zerg? I was only a shitty low-masters zerg that hardly played anything but zvp customs, so I didn't get to see too much.
the doom patch where queens got buffed? that one?
|
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote:
I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2.
Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that.
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches.
PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS.
Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
|
On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote:
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
|
On October 17 2013 05:42 CakeSauc3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote:
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
It was fun to watch because of early game tension.
Zerg would use a combination of queens (to tank) and lings (to DPS) to protect spine crawlers that protected the creep tumors. SOme terrans made a LOT of hellions, some only made 2 and hence action started happening in the 3-4 minute mark even when both players were being greedy.
4 Range queens made it so this early game dynamic was gone and now we have all ins, 10 minute timings or 15 minute no-rush.
|
I really like this idea:
On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote:
I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe?
If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same...
On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this?
Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist.
|
You can bunker rush, it is the same what we have. But with 50 or 100 energy you can put 2 supply more into your bunker, this rquired a engineering bay otherwise bunker rush is too stronk.
|
On October 17 2013 05:36 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote:
I'm gonna bring up my eternal rant about marines being the reason why other Terran stuff cannot be as good (=/= being too strong) for as long as you bring up your eternal rant about patch 1.4.3.2. Except my "rant" makes sense as the statistics of the Marine were left unchanged since beta, while the Queen patch had notable consequences on the way the whole match-up is played. But keep fooling yourself thinking the only significant consequence of Queen range 5 was the death of double Reactor Hellion all-ins and other stuff like that. Show nested quote +Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows. Indeed. No one knows how SC2 would look like had it followed its "natural" course because patches, patches, patches. Show nested quote +PS: And roach/hydra gets torn apart by Marine/Medivac play outside of a 1-1 or 2-2 timing. Or why do you think noone plays it? Because of mines? Get real, mineheavy play was the only reason why those builds were somewhat efficient at the start of HotS. Roaches/Hydras does not get "torn apart by Marine/Medivac play," you need either 6+ Tanks or ~15+ Marauders with 10+ Medivacs if you go pure bio before the Terran army becomes stronger/unbeatable. Naturally, you have none of those things when the timings hit. Even for a less timing-oriented style, nothing prevents Zerg from scouting with an Overseer if Terran goes Tanks as a reaction, and consequently rushing Hive to gets Vipers before Terran has too many Tanks for the Roach/Hydra army to handle, etc. The fact Tefel can be competitive against Mvp despite the massive skill gap between them says something about the style.
The fact that no one won with this build as a standard in ZvT and no one does it anymore , tells even more about the style.
|
On October 17 2013 06:36 Ghanburighan wrote:I really like this idea: Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote:
I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe? If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same... On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this? Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist.
Rather than doing a change like that (which is situational at most!) seeing more terran players get such an upgrade would be cute. But what is the benefit of 6 marines over 4 against counterattacks? That's two more supply sitting static that is probably going to get blown up by banelings anyway ^^. It's more about careful management of your base defenses than a bunker change ^^.
As you said, ahaha, "elegant change to a problem that doesn't exist."
|
On October 17 2013 07:01 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 06:36 Ghanburighan wrote:I really like this idea: On October 17 2013 01:59 _indigo_ wrote:
I honestly think Terran should get something done with the Bunker upgrade, since the upgrade is on engineering bay where there are already some of the most important upgrades in the game.
Are we really supposed to upgrade bunker to 6 slots @ 25 min when we have 3-3 done? I think Neosteel upgrade (for 6 slots) should be an orbital drop that uses energy just like mules and scan. To balance the bunker rush with neosteel drop you would, for example, need to build engineering bay first to unlock the neosteel drop.
What do terrans and non-terrans think about this? Should this upgrade increase bunker HP as well maybe? If an engineering bay is required, it cannot be used for bunker rushes. If the energy cost is 100, it cannot be used in all situations, and it's unlikely to be possible without 3 CC. But it would add a "I scouted a roach bust, let me get a neosteel bunker or 2." Don't know if it would actually help you hold it, though. As the HP of the bunker remain the same... On the other hand, you could also use the drop to a) increase planetary SCV capacity by 5. I wonder if SCV's can repair from inside the planetary... Anyone ever tested this? Conclusion: it's a very elegant solution to a problem that probably doesn't exist. Rather than doing a change like that (which is situational at most!) seeing more terran players get such an upgrade would be cute. But what is the benefit of 6 marines over 4 against counterattacks? That's two more supply sitting static that is probably going to get blown up by banelings anyway ^^. It's more about careful management of your base defenses than a bunker change ^^. As you said, ahaha, "elegant change to a problem that doesn't exist."
I much prefer if Planetaries got their own spells "Neosteel Drop," "Point Tracking Drop," "+2 armor drop"
|
On October 17 2013 05:42 CakeSauc3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote:
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that?
Depends on which side you are on. As a Zerg player, I definitely didn't enjoy seeing every second pro Zerg losing to a Bunker rush, or to random Hellion run-by.
Not saying that Queen patch was great, I think that they could've handled stuff the other way, but changes were needed.
|
On October 17 2013 07:08 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 05:42 CakeSauc3 wrote:On October 17 2013 04:12 Big J wrote:
Was writing a lot of other stuff but deleted it, because it's completely useless to discuss "what would be with 3range queens". Noone knows.
What we do know is that SC2 was a lot more entertaining to watch and play when queens only had a range of 3. Do we need to know anything more than that? Depends on which side you are on. As a Zerg player, I definitely didn't enjoy seeing every second pro Zerg losing to a Bunker rush, or to random Hellion run-by. Not saying that Queen patch was great, I think that they could've handled stuff the other way, but changes were needed.
4 range queens did not stop bunker rushes and hellion runbys....
Bunker rushes still hit too early and hellion runby were never stopped by queen.
Queen range specifically allowed a zerg to not have to make lings to protect early game creep spread. That's it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
