|
On February 02 2014 05:09 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 03:31 aZealot wrote:On February 02 2014 03:25 Bagi wrote:On February 02 2014 02:57 aZealot wrote:
Anyone been playing the test map rather than theory jerk? Why does it matter? Are you a good enough player that you can draw balance conclusions from your own play? I'd say anyone below GM is better off theorycrafting. Because otherwise we have a repetition of the same inane points over and over and over again? What does that achieve? And given that I play at a level way below GM, as do most people, I'd like to know what the play might look like at those levels. That makes sense to me. Of course, if you like to theory stroke go for gold. Then get out of the thread? Whether the people here are playing the map or not doesnt change how well informed they are on actual balance, but they like to discuss it anyway. Seems like your only agenda is to act all holier-than-thou and spew dumb bullshit like "theory stroke" as if you knew any better.
No, I don't. But, I'm honest about it. I'll leave you to your "stroking" though. Clean up after you're done.
|
On February 02 2014 05:12 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 05:09 Bagi wrote:On February 02 2014 03:31 aZealot wrote:On February 02 2014 03:25 Bagi wrote:On February 02 2014 02:57 aZealot wrote:
Anyone been playing the test map rather than theory jerk? Why does it matter? Are you a good enough player that you can draw balance conclusions from your own play? I'd say anyone below GM is better off theorycrafting. Because otherwise we have a repetition of the same inane points over and over and over again? What does that achieve? And given that I play at a level way below GM, as do most people, I'd like to know what the play might look like at those levels. That makes sense to me. Of course, if you like to theory stroke go for gold. Then get out of the thread? Whether the people here are playing the map or not doesnt change how well informed they are on actual balance, but they like to discuss it anyway. Seems like your only agenda is to act all holier-than-thou and spew dumb bullshit like "theory stroke" as if you knew any better. No, I don't. But, I'm honest about it. I'll leave you to your "stroking" though. Clean up after you're done.
Thanks for proving my point, retard.
User was warned for this post
|
what about rather than ebay for missile turrets have missile turrets cost 100mins more without it, then back to normal when built?
|
On February 02 2014 04:27 Clbull wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 02:57 aZealot wrote:
Anyone been playing the test map rather than theory jerk? Based on no variations of the map ever being popular or open on Custom Games; I think nobody will be testing it. I think it's at the point where Blizzard should threaten to implement it anyway unless people (pros included) give actual feedback. Or they should maybe host an invitational with the changes up and offer a prize pool.
As a terran I really don't have any reason to test the map (in my opinion that is) because:
My mid-late game when I would have ghosts in my army anyways is not "really" being affected to much by the change. It's nice but I am not usually at a point where "ugh I wish I had more ghost energy at this point" because I will have the energy upgrade already and using them. This "could" help with pushing and them having spammed templars already but honestly it just...it doesn't address the issues I'm having in the matchup.
The 10s reduction on photon overcharge just...it's not really that big of a deal to me. I come in and I want to catch them without important tech units like collosus/templar because they used their resources to be aggressive on me (blink all in, dt, immortal push,oracle harass or w/e else) and deal damage. But that's still 50s of basically completely safe timing to get out army units or tech to stop the push completely.
The MSC change on time warp is good because it means they need to be a bit more careful with time warps instead of just using, but honestly all they need is one time warp and the game is over. It doesn't address the issue of "well you lost because their attack is ridiculously strong and the addition of time warp just makes it that much harder".
For TvP at least, these changes really just don't do anything to help with the core issue of terran being insanely terrified of dieing to any number of standard openers and being unable to punish a protoss after defending because of photon overcharge or rushing tech. This is almost exactly like the queen change, hellions were insanely good vs zerg and prevented any sort of opener outside of hardcore defense which set the zerg behind. So blizzard made queens outrange hellions and they shut down that sort of harassment almost completely in exchange for a more balanced matchup where zerg has a multitude of openers in both defensive and aggressive.
TL:DR: These changes really don't help with any issues that terran is facing in early-game TvP. So I don't really need to test them IMO.
|
I think it is unanimously agreed upon these are not the changes we need. There's a "we'll take whatever we van get" attitude, but nobody seems genuinly pleased. All changed misd the mark
|
On February 02 2014 05:05 SirPinky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 04:48 Morbidius wrote:
Does anyone else feel Blizzard is extremely Arrogant in their changes?
They almost never remove/undo a change despite community feedback and it feels like they deliberatly avoid adding changes proposed by the community. But if they actually listened to the Pro community why would David Kim be needed? O' wait. Can you say job security? David Kim reminds me of one of those consultants companies hire to drive direction on ways to "improve" company efficiency. But what they are really doing is making things over complicated so they can bill-out never-ending change orders. I have to give it to David Kim, he certainly knows how to play company politics for releasing these whitewashed statements claiming "everything is fine". DK is polishing the china while the Titanic is sinking.
If they listened to the pro community, there would still need to be a liason between the company and the players, someone who could take the subjective opinion of the pro community and turn it into improvements to the game focused around what people are complaining about. David Kim should be that person, but I honestly wonder what he or anyone else on the balance team even does.
I never hear positive feedback from pros about Blizzard's outreach to them on issues with the game, and when balance maps are released (which no one will play) that implement changes that don't even affect the issues that they say they want to fix, and when has DK gone onto community shows and doesn't even answer the hard questions or dodges, I think the best way to describe it really is that he is polishing the china while the Titanic is sinking.
NOBODY asked for more ghost energy when the only viable way to play TvP is bio anyway and a lot of Terran players would enjoy having a unit composition that didnt require medivacs to be effective. NOBODY asked for a hydra buff to make PvZ/ZvP less boring to watch when it is a matchup dominated by hard counter units that allow for little to no back and forth with the endgame being a turtlefest with a unit that should have never entered the design process (swarm hosts). David Kim what the fuck are you thinking here man?
|
On February 02 2014 05:05 Morbidius wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 04:59 mostevil wrote:On February 02 2014 02:43 SiroKO wrote:
Blizzard have genious developpers and artists, but their balance teams are among the worse you could think of. They're actually pretty good at balance, it's good game design they don't get. The only balance we've seen so far is the one in the bigger picture. Each race dominates hard for a certain time period.
That's not true, though. Winrate-wise, the game has been very balanced on a few occasions, the latest of which was only a few months ago, before the latest patch.
http://www.aligulac.com/reports/balance/
Not that people on TL were any happier for it; people actually complained that the game was TOO balanced for a while, as weird as it seems.
Even now, the game isn't by any means in a terrible state balance wise. Early game TvP is poorly designed, and lategame PvZ is becoming a problem as well. Otherwise, it's pretty ok.
|
For TvP at least, these changes really just don't do anything to help with the core issue of terran being insanely terrified of dieing to any number of standard openers and being unable to punish a protoss after defending because of photon overcharge or rushing tech. This is almost exactly like the queen change, hellions were insanely good vs zerg and prevented any sort of opener outside of hardcore defense which set the zerg behind. So blizzard made queens outrange hellions and they shut down that sort of harassment almost completely in exchange for a more balanced matchup where zerg has a multitude of openers in both defensive and aggressive.
This is really my opinion about the matchup too. As long as protoss will have that many early good agressive/all in options, and good harassing options, plus the MSC for defense, I don't see how the matchup will be balanced in tournament. Smart protosses will abuse that as MC did against jjakji.
|
On February 02 2014 05:28 SC2Toastie wrote:
I think it is unanimously agreed upon these are not the changes we need. There's a "we'll take whatever we van get" attitude, but nobody seems genuinly pleased. All changed misd the mark
I think the MsC nerfs are spot on, to be honest. They're not quite enough, but they're definitely not missing the mark, IMO.
|
On February 02 2014 04:38 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 04:35 TheDwf wrote:On February 02 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote:On February 02 2014 04:15 Big J wrote:On February 02 2014 04:08 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 02 2014 02:02 tar wrote:On February 02 2014 01:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 02 2014 00:57 tar wrote:On February 02 2014 00:33 Destructicon wrote:On February 02 2014 00:10 tar wrote:
[quote]
It's funny that you start your post with claiming that shit was flung at someone yet then you yourself resort to condescending or plain insulting language.
The problem with avilo's quite conservative proposals is, that in combination they are not conservative proposals anymore. It is a onesided approach to the issue that results in all problems for Terran solved while Toss would be where they were in the era of the infamous 1/1/1 with the added benefit of banshee buffs.
Back then, the complains of Tosses were similar to those of Terrans today:
lack of scouting info, variety of Terran harass options and macro follow ups as well a lack of harass options. Also, horribly strong Terran all ins (ie 1/1/1 or marine hellion drops)
Just some quick theorycrafting how avilo's changes would affect Tosses options:
-Going DTs? Well with old cost and no engibay-turrets? Reduced to an all in that needs to do significant damage (which it should not do anymore).
-Oracles? - slow oracles with turrets available on the fly basically make it the same as going DTs.
on the other hand:
-Tanks sieging your natural and cloaked banshees attacking your mineral line will be painfull without 14 vision range msc especially when you consider that tanks then would do bonus damage versus shields. This would be even stronger than in wol since tanks don't need siege mode research and cloak is considerably cheaper than it was back then.
All in all, the game would be back at super passive protoss turtle play with no aggressive options apart from heavy gateway all ins (only them being a lot weaker with widow mines, free siege mode and stuff)
I may reiterate that I don't find any one of those changes unreasonable in itself but they for sure add up and make mech play a round thing against Toss, while leaving Toss in a situation that reminds me very much of WoL and I don't want to think about the implications those change would have for PvZ. You seem to have missed the point where I said that, Protoss is already extremely safe against terran aggression while being able to put on a load of pressure themselves or even kill, one of those has to be addressed. Its either toss defensive power needs to be toned down, to the point where terran can put on enough aggression to force the toss to potentially spend more gas on being safe (thus slowing their tech and reducing their greed), or the toss pressures need to be severely nerfed. In the context of Toss still keeping their MSC defensive powers mostly intact (which is what this balance patch proposes), then having all the toss offensive options nerfed is a fair and justified. If you want toss to keep all its offensive toys then propose a nerf to the MSC defensive abilities, you can't have both extreme safety early game and extreme offensive power with no risk reward involved, that's not how an RTS is supposed to work. I find it amusing you mention banshees, they are hard countered by almost anything in the protoss arsenal. If toss goes SG for quick oracle then they will be able to also make 1 phoenix to shut down the aggression. If they opened Robo they can get an obs and stalkers to chase it away. Now, if siege tanks are sieging your nat, then you somehow lost your MSC early or threw down all your time warps willy nilly, which equates to you making a serious mistake and not having any Photon Overcharge, and if that results in you getting your nat nexus sieged then you fucked up royally and deserve to lose or got outplayed and still deserve to lose. Even with Avilo's proposed changes the 1/1/1 is still trash, a simple move out with basic GW units and MSC just kills it, time warps prevent marines from kiting back and allow zealots to close the gap on marines and tanks. And even if the terran gets close to the nat a simple PO will keep the tanks out of range long enough to get Colossus. If you opened with SG its even more one sided because oracles can provide vision via revelation, can be used as as fighting units in conjuncture with GW units, way earlier I should add, leading to the quick destruction of the push, you can also add Phoenix in to kill banshees, much more effective then stalkers. There is also no way a Terran player meching will push at you in the early game. A tank based army is very gas expensive, if he invested into that for a early push he is sacrificing infrastructure or upgrades, or both, and you gain a lead there, + he is sacrificing safety since he might not leave anything behind, and the mech army is still extremely fragile early game. So if he pushes with a tank based mech army at you early game and you didn't see it in time and crush it, then you, again made a very grave mistake and still deserve to lose. And if its tanks sieging your nat late game, then the game is over anyway and you are just delaying the inevitable. The reason I am using such an aggressive and condescending tone is because a lot of posters here have earned it, throwing around speculation with nearly no analysis behind it, they don't deserve any mercy, a lot of the arguments are bad and they should be treated as such and shot down instantly. I have not missed your point, I am just talking about avilo's proposals that you defended with regard to actually balancing and fixing the game. I am not proposing to keep the game as it is. I even agree that you have to somehow adjust the protoss aggressive and defensive options. However, taking away all the aggressive options completely can't be the solution. It might be fair if you want one side to be super passive and one having all the options but then we would just invert the roles in TvP instead of fixing the MU. Also, you mentioning how amazing stargate vs 1/1/1 or banshees in general is. However, with avilo's changes going through, toss would not open stargate anymore since it would be almost useless against bio play. And the power of the Msc and nexus cannon against tank based attacks is not that the nexus shoots but rather that the msc provides vision that is greater than the attack range of the tank.only that way you can actually protect the nexus from being shot at. This obviously is only a early/early-mid game problem, yet this is the stage that needs to be addressed in current tvp. Finally, I am rather astonished about what you say about tank pushes. with the proposed changes,toss would be forced to play very passive to be safe while Terran now gets free siege, cheaper cloak and a cheaper armory while being able to build emergency turrents without the need for an engibay. Thus Terran mech pushes would hit harder and/or earlier with a lot less draw backs. What? The power of the msc vs 1/1/1 tank pushes is the vision not Overcharge? I'm sorry, but with less vision it can accomplish exactly the same, PO is 13 range, MSC vision is 11, Tanks 13, Vikings 9, Marines 5. You can still provide vision ezpz no risk exactly like vikings in tvt do. Msc vision reduce changes NOTHING in Tank vs PO Ne us. Msc vision is 14 atm but even with 11 it would be alright, however, it was suggested to eliminate its vision or reduce it to a point it can't grant vision for stalkers to shoot up ramps (that would be about 3 range). With those changes PO would be useless against tanks I think you misinterpret that suggestion people do. Stalkers shooting high ground or blinking, no problem. That's fine. BUT the huge vision range makes the blink 100% safe because you have perfect information AND the MSC is nigh undeniable. I think 11vision range would be quite reasonable, yet wouldn't touch blinkallins too much. (though it would make early game MsC scouting for Protoss a little harder). Then what's the point of the change? Why should there be an entire patch to fix a minor consistency issue instead of just waiting until lotv? I'd rather have Blizzard leave the game alone instead of constantly micromanaging it. People should distrust serendipity. The msc vision range fix won't magically solve the game. Indeed, but it's too late now. You cannot leave the game alone anymore or we are going to watch PvP finals in 75% of the tournaments until LotV. Plus we're not even a year into HotS yet. Could you imagine if Blizz left P untouched for another year or more. Spectators would leave HotS faster than they did WoL when zerg dominated every tournament.
And the meta-game feels more stagnant than ever before right now from my personal perspective. In WoL we had balance patches that really shook up the meta-game quite frequently.
Besides proleague, most of the games have felt lackluster for me this year.
|
On February 02 2014 05:35 RaZorwire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 05:28 SC2Toastie wrote:
I think it is unanimously agreed upon these are not the changes we need. There's a "we'll take whatever we van get" attitude, but nobody seems genuinly pleased. All changed misd the mark I think the MsC nerfs are spot on, to be honest. They're not quite enough, but they're definitely not missing the mark, IMO.
They are.
Overcharge only affects pvp, Terrans timing is just as worthless after 50s as it is after 60s.
Time Warp should never even have been in the game at first, and 100 mana still allows for 2 at a time.
Meanwhile: NO change to all ins, and the Ghost buff barely affects mech and really only changes that the 3 ghost scv all in hits -seconds- earlier (because ghost moving accross the map usually regenerated up to about 75 mana).
Hydra change is weird and unexplained, tempest buff has been explained but is a bandaid and not a fix (SH is the problem).
So yes, they all attempt to improve the game, but they all miss 'the problems' we currently have.
|
On February 02 2014 05:46 Frex wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2014 04:38 Nagano wrote:On February 02 2014 04:35 TheDwf wrote:On February 02 2014 04:31 Grumbels wrote:On February 02 2014 04:15 Big J wrote:On February 02 2014 04:08 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 02 2014 02:02 tar wrote:On February 02 2014 01:57 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 02 2014 00:57 tar wrote:On February 02 2014 00:33 Destructicon wrote:
[quote]
You seem to have missed the point where I said that, Protoss is already extremely safe against terran aggression while being able to put on a load of pressure themselves or even kill, one of those has to be addressed. Its either toss defensive power needs to be toned down, to the point where terran can put on enough aggression to force the toss to potentially spend more gas on being safe (thus slowing their tech and reducing their greed), or the toss pressures need to be severely nerfed.
In the context of Toss still keeping their MSC defensive powers mostly intact (which is what this balance patch proposes), then having all the toss offensive options nerfed is a fair and justified. If you want toss to keep all its offensive toys then propose a nerf to the MSC defensive abilities, you can't have both extreme safety early game and extreme offensive power with no risk reward involved, that's not how an RTS is supposed to work.
I find it amusing you mention banshees, they are hard countered by almost anything in the protoss arsenal. If toss goes SG for quick oracle then they will be able to also make 1 phoenix to shut down the aggression. If they opened Robo they can get an obs and stalkers to chase it away.
Now, if siege tanks are sieging your nat, then you somehow lost your MSC early or threw down all your time warps willy nilly, which equates to you making a serious mistake and not having any Photon Overcharge, and if that results in you getting your nat nexus sieged then you fucked up royally and deserve to lose or got outplayed and still deserve to lose.
Even with Avilo's proposed changes the 1/1/1 is still trash, a simple move out with basic GW units and MSC just kills it, time warps prevent marines from kiting back and allow zealots to close the gap on marines and tanks. And even if the terran gets close to the nat a simple PO will keep the tanks out of range long enough to get Colossus. If you opened with SG its even more one sided because oracles can provide vision via revelation, can be used as as fighting units in conjuncture with GW units, way earlier I should add, leading to the quick destruction of the push, you can also add Phoenix in to kill banshees, much more effective then stalkers.
There is also no way a Terran player meching will push at you in the early game. A tank based army is very gas expensive, if he invested into that for a early push he is sacrificing infrastructure or upgrades, or both, and you gain a lead there, + he is sacrificing safety since he might not leave anything behind, and the mech army is still extremely fragile early game.
So if he pushes with a tank based mech army at you early game and you didn't see it in time and crush it, then you, again made a very grave mistake and still deserve to lose.
And if its tanks sieging your nat late game, then the game is over anyway and you are just delaying the inevitable.
The reason I am using such an aggressive and condescending tone is because a lot of posters here have earned it, throwing around speculation with nearly no analysis behind it, they don't deserve any mercy, a lot of the arguments are bad and they should be treated as such and shot down instantly.
I have not missed your point, I am just talking about avilo's proposals that you defended with regard to actually balancing and fixing the game. I am not proposing to keep the game as it is. I even agree that you have to somehow adjust the protoss aggressive and defensive options. However, taking away all the aggressive options completely can't be the solution. It might be fair if you want one side to be super passive and one having all the options but then we would just invert the roles in TvP instead of fixing the MU. Also, you mentioning how amazing stargate vs 1/1/1 or banshees in general is. However, with avilo's changes going through, toss would not open stargate anymore since it would be almost useless against bio play. And the power of the Msc and nexus cannon against tank based attacks is not that the nexus shoots but rather that the msc provides vision that is greater than the attack range of the tank.only that way you can actually protect the nexus from being shot at. This obviously is only a early/early-mid game problem, yet this is the stage that needs to be addressed in current tvp. Finally, I am rather astonished about what you say about tank pushes. with the proposed changes,toss would be forced to play very passive to be safe while Terran now gets free siege, cheaper cloak and a cheaper armory while being able to build emergency turrents without the need for an engibay. Thus Terran mech pushes would hit harder and/or earlier with a lot less draw backs. What? The power of the msc vs 1/1/1 tank pushes is the vision not Overcharge? I'm sorry, but with less vision it can accomplish exactly the same, PO is 13 range, MSC vision is 11, Tanks 13, Vikings 9, Marines 5. You can still provide vision ezpz no risk exactly like vikings in tvt do. Msc vision reduce changes NOTHING in Tank vs PO Ne us. Msc vision is 14 atm but even with 11 it would be alright, however, it was suggested to eliminate its vision or reduce it to a point it can't grant vision for stalkers to shoot up ramps (that would be about 3 range). With those changes PO would be useless against tanks I think you misinterpret that suggestion people do. Stalkers shooting high ground or blinking, no problem. That's fine. BUT the huge vision range makes the blink 100% safe because you have perfect information AND the MSC is nigh undeniable. I think 11vision range would be quite reasonable, yet wouldn't touch blinkallins too much. (though it would make early game MsC scouting for Protoss a little harder). Then what's the point of the change? Why should there be an entire patch to fix a minor consistency issue instead of just waiting until lotv? I'd rather have Blizzard leave the game alone instead of constantly micromanaging it. People should distrust serendipity. The msc vision range fix won't magically solve the game. Indeed, but it's too late now. You cannot leave the game alone anymore or we are going to watch PvP finals in 75% of the tournaments until LotV. Plus we're not even a year into HotS yet. Could you imagine if Blizz left P untouched for another year or more. Spectators would leave HotS faster than they did WoL when zerg dominated every tournament. And the meta-game feels more stagnant than ever before right now from my personal perspective. In WoL we had balance patches that really shook up the meta-game quite frequently. Besides proleague, most of the games have felt lackluster for me this year.
Mech viability could do that, so could a toss redesign, but for some reason blizzard refuses to make it happen. They wasted a huge opportunity for experimentation in the off season (that was THE opportunity to mess balance up a bit in favor of quality of game, because the amount of tournaments was low)...
|
None of these changes are going to make the game more exciting to watch or fun to play.
They might help winrate %, or "balance", but they don't make me want to play SC2.
|
Its often the case that very small adjustments to numbers can change the balance and meta. Taking 10 seconds off PO is not one of those cases. 10 seconds will not do anything and it just feels like a lazy- "well look, atleast we are doing something"- fix.
|
On February 02 2014 07:30 Fjodorov wrote:
Its often the case that very small adjustments to numbers can change the balance and meta. Taking 10 seconds off PO is not one of those cases. 10 seconds will not do anything and it just feels like a lazy- "well look, atleast we are doing something"- fix.
Well it'll make some PvPs 10 seconds shorter. But I dont see any other impact.
|
Blizzard I would like more than 1 or 2 stable TvP openings please.
|
How about lowering ghost mineral cost a bit, and also lowering their HP to compensate? I always thought it was strange that ghosts are used to tank zealot hits and that they were so much more expensive than they were in BW.
|
|
|
On February 02 2014 07:48 Fission wrote:
Blizzard I would like more than 1 or 2 stable TvP openings please.
There's 1? What opening is that? I get crushed every TvP game.
I'm serious. See my post in the Terran Help Me Thread.
|
XMFD does blizzard really think increasing ghost energy is actually a good idea?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
