|
On October 15 2013 08:58 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote:
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for. but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement. Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed. The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact. Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio.
To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost.
In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply
In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply
Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
|
United States155 Posts
Guys....
Cut David Kim some slack. Balancing an RTS game is EXTREMELY difficult. One change can affect a multitude of units, entire unit compositions, matchups, everything.
They can't just make changes and say "lets hope this works" that will anger everyone even more. People get pissed when they don't make changes, but they also get pissed when they do make changes.
It's like walking on thin ice. I would love to see you guys analyze StarCraft 2 and make balance changes that actually work in the game.
Balancing an RTS is on the same level of difficulty as balancing an MMO's PvP.
|
On October 15 2013 07:24 Vanadiel wrote:
I just love to see terran saying was game was just balanced when terran was winning everything over the last nine month, and since the overseer buff and some news maps Innovation lost 3 macro games and every one is losing its mind and asking for buff. :D
Well, see stats, it's not only Innovation. Zerg has successfully adapted (they just need fuckload amount of time) to the hots metagame and micro, and now they clearly begin to dominate std macroplay in this MU.
But yeah an incredible Innovation violently dominate sc2, TvZ and hellbatwars for a few months, where we had 0 top-form ZvT (Life in top form showed ZvT was fine early hots, then he slumps a bit), so gonna nerf WM with 0 compensating buff while Z are over 50% at ZvT ? Sounds pretty stupid.
|
On October 15 2013 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 08:58 Qikz wrote:On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote:
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for. but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement. Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed. The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact. Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio. To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost. In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2)
I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
|
|
|
Isn't that WM nerf into slight buff, really a nerf into nerf?
With a 1.25 radius/100% damage, your first unit runs into the radius and at the time the mine shoots your other units are probably already closer to the mine than the first unit, the center of the clump is the best target already. You thus take more damage overall.
With a 1.75/100-1.50/75-1.25/50 isn't the scenario: first unit enters the 1.75 radius, mine starts loading, and at the time it fires it either goes off on the first unit or on a bigger clump that's still in the 50%/75% damage zone.
I hope it's clear and someone can confirm how it would work. I don't often play terran.
[edit] oh and i think the oracle change is a waste of everybody's time. All those people that spent time thinking about it, developing it, discussing it (fuck me, i am too...). All of that for such a small thing.
|
United Kingdom12067 Posts
On October 15 2013 09:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 08:58 Qikz wrote:On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote:
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for. but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement. Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed. The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact. Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio. To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost. In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2) I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
They're the same unit except one is fundamentally worse than the other. The removal of overkill doesn't make up for the massive nerfs it recieved at the beginning of the game partly helped along by steppes of war.
|
Does this mean the siege tank change is reverted or is still in the test map?
|
On October 15 2013 09:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 08:58 Qikz wrote:On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote:
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for. but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement. Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed. The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact. Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio. To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost. In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2) I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point?
I'm not trying to argue for buffing tanks, I'm just establishing the math people don't talk about very much when discussing supply cost differences.
|
they should keep at it and do the actual change after wcs world in nov at blizzcon.
outside of that i'm pretty on fence about changes. i'll adjust as necessary
|
On October 15 2013 09:36 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 09:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On October 15 2013 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 08:58 Qikz wrote:On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote:
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for. but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement. Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed. The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact. Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio. To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost. In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2) I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point? They're the same unit except one is fundamentally worse than the other. The removal of overkill doesn't make up for the massive nerfs it recieved at the beginning of the game partly helped along by steppes of war.
They are absolutely not the same unit because the two games are played very differently. I've never understood doing these kinds of straight comparisons to Brood War, it literally does not mean anything in regards to SC2.
On October 15 2013 10:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 09:17 KrazyTrumpet wrote:On October 15 2013 09:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2013 08:58 Qikz wrote:On October 15 2013 08:51 archwaykitten wrote:
That doesn't sound like a problem at all. That's the very definition of territory control that people have been clamoring for. but it's not territory control, because immortal shields come back a hell of a lot faster than EMP energy so either you EMP his immortals (you have to have all your army together or you get rolled over which is the issue of tanks being so bad) and he runs into your entire army and trades evenly still even with a bad engagement, or he gets emp'd, moves back for 10 seconds then moves back in and gets an insane engagement. Until units like the siege tank are better, then you'll never have proper territory control in SC2. You could even notice it in the game with Flash vs Curious. Tanks being so bad means that you can't leave 5-6 back at your bases in BW and actually have a strong enough defense to hold anything as they just a-move their entire army into them and there's nothing you can do about it. Not only that, but because of Tank's ridiculous supply increase to 3 it means that you can't have enough tanks to even spend 5-6 tanks trying to stop yourself just getting backstabbed as your main army is already screwed. The tank for the fact it costs too much supply and also is useless at doing any form of damage against pretty much anything in the game is the reason why mech is broken in SC2 and the tank is a terrible unit. They're just not powerful enough and you just can't get enough of them to deal with that fact. Now if they were 3 supply but did more damage it might elliviate the problem, same goes for if they were 2 supply but had the same damage they do now. You can either make it so you can build more tanks, or you make them more powerful and maybe then, maybe then might we actually see board control in SC2 and less ball armies of bio. To emphasize the comment about Tank supply cost. In BW, Tanks dealt 70 damage to "armored/large" for 2 supply => 35 damage/supply In SC2, Tanks do 50 damage to "armored/large" for 3 supply => 16.6 damage/supply Both deal 35 damage per shot to "small/light" at 17.5 damage/supply (BW) and 11.6 damage/supply (SC2) I wish people would stop doing these comparisons between BW and SC2 tanks. Like...what is the point? I'm not trying to argue for buffing tanks, I'm just establishing the math people don't talk about very much when discussing supply cost differences.
Not taking into account things like unit pathing/clumping, no overkill in SC2, etc, etc. Stuff like that is why these straight comparisons never actually matter.
|
lower viper blinding cloud radius.
revelation range buff was FINE what the fuck
|
Lol.. Oracle change, revelation is already underused but still useless change
|
On October 15 2013 10:19 Wolf wrote:
Does this mean the siege tank change is reverted or is still in the test map?
From what I understand from the first few lines of the post :
"Hi guys,
We'd like to tweak the changes on the current balance test map a little bit this week."
They just ajusted the things mentionned and kept everything else the same.
|
On October 15 2013 02:48 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 02:38 a176 wrote:
All these random balance changes, most of them he doesn't even go through with, it seems like David Kim doesn't have a fucking clue what to do with this game anymore. Pretty much all of the changes are in the right direction, and the only ones they don't go through with are the ones that the community shits all over. They aren't willing to make HUGE changes in the middle of HotS; game redesigns are for LotV.
You mean game redesigns are for SC3, which may or may not ever happen. HotS was an opportunity to fix the poorly designed race that is Protoss. LotV is another opportunity, but if they didn't do anything in HotS, they won't do anything in LotV.
I feel like the Revelation buff is more of a bug fix. Honestly, it seems pretty dumb if you can get rid of it simply by cloaking or burrowing.
|
Pls nerf wm to 1.25 rad...
|
On October 15 2013 06:10 Crisium wrote:This mine change is exactly (pat's self on back) what I suggested and wanted. I know there were some of us who were vocal about simply reducing the outer radius damage instead of a radius nerf, so I am glad Blizzard listened to us.
If only they would have listened to qxc when doing the ghost nerf wrong.
People often say to give +10 damage to shields by tanks, but that seems kinda gimmicky and if it worked against immortals, it would completely defeat the purpose of hardened shields. I mean, they'd still be fine against Roaches, which is probably the most important to not screw over PvZ, but I'd rather just see tanks to more damage to armored, say 60 instead of 50. With +5 damage per upgrade, they'd do 75 with +3, and 71 to units with 4 armor, which is armored units with +3 armor (marauders, stalkers, thors, tanks all have 1 base armor, and immortals iirc).
That would mean tanks 2 shot marauders and 3 shot shieldless immortals. Artosis would probably rejoice, and unsieged tanks would still get eaten by enough marauders.
|
Widow Mine just need a rework imo
Overlapping shots or not really make or break a game and this is a problem with it.
It is ok if it wasn't a key unit of a push, but to have a unit that is meant to act as terrain control be so unreliable and little room to micro them, it just sucks as a unit (not in terms of balance but in terms of a unit design)
Reminds me of ff except now they are automatically used and you spamming them
|
Terrans will really struggle mightily after this change goes through, and it sucks for them as its their profession, but as a viewer I don't really care. Bio/mine rallies are very boring to watch and this matchup, which was so good a couple of years ago, is far from being the best matchup in sc2 atm, it's terrible. Mass mutas flying around shitting over everything, or a bio/mine rally that may win a game, but increasingly not. It's bad. It was bad when terrans were dominating a couple of months ago, and it's bad now. Very one dimensional.
For the sake of this game as a spectator sport I don't mind seeing the change go through, hopefully terrans will experiment with new styles and strategies, maybe see more mech or various aggressive strategies instead of 3cc every game. In the short term it may suck, but in the long term, the game will be better for it.
|
The changes sounds reasonable to me. David Kim doing an excellent job imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
