|
On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element".
I agree that something can be buffed that has previously been nerfed, it's not a fallacy of logic. It just so happens that while they're going back and forth on nerfing and buffing widow mine radius, people are getting married and divorced, lives are being created and destroyed, etc. I just personally think it's time to pursue a different line of strategy when it comes to balancing a race. Then again, i'm under the [perhaps false] assumption that they put a lot of time and thought into making a change. My bad, yeaux!
|
On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element".
rofl, trial and error is not a scientific method...
|
I hope they buff the widow mines, just coz like watching pros get rekt by RNG.
|
TheDwf, I think you brought up some good points but also some that, like your original post, show some poor understanding of other matchups and suggest changes that would break them.
really
|
On July 02 2014 23:13 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element". rofl, trial and error is not a scientific method...
That is quite embarassing for you now. :O
|
Buffing medivac would just break TvT more with doomdrop every fucking games.
|
On July 02 2014 23:13 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element". rofl, trial and error is not a scientific method...
Are you sure about that?
|
On July 02 2014 23:13 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element". rofl, trial and error is not a scientific method...
He was being fictitious.
|
I see what you mean Engrish and i agree with you. Doom drops are the most obnoxious part of XvT that i can think of and a buff would make it exponentially worse. The late late game is the underlying problem and i think that an overhaul needs to be done on the terran unit tree in order to bridge the gaps between mid game, late game, and apocalypse-game :D but is a challenge that should be undertaken for LOtV. But for now, and im spit balling again so im sure im missing something, what if medivacs were nerfed in some way (whether it be speed, capacity, or having to load units in a similar way to unloading them) and having vikings be similar to the hellbat in that they are somewhat formidable on the ground instead of being made of Reynold's Wrap. Maybe they could get a armor boost when landing and/or a weapons upgrade. The viking seems to be such a one dimensional unit even though it has a transformation ability. Seems contradictory. The late game is something im not sure can be fixed without adding/subtracting units or abilities. Bio to Thor or BC isnt exactly a smooth transition and there needs to be something in between so that you arnt having an identity crisis at the end of MMM party time. The viking upgrade would make it so you have a strong ground unit that can be produced quickly and that can tank for the bio as you attempt to get some mech on the field. Also, the transition to BC's is much easier. What do you think?
|
On July 02 2014 23:13 TSORG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element". rofl, trial and error is not a scientific method...
God damn it, they'll take away my degree!
|
On July 02 2014 23:12 OPL3SA2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element". I agree that something can be buffed that has previously been nerfed, it's not a fallacy of logic. It just so happens that while they're going back and forth on nerfing and buffing widow mine radius, people are getting married and divorced, lives are being created and destroyed, etc. I just personally think it's time to pursue a different line of strategy when it comes to balancing a race. Then again, i'm under the [perhaps false] assumption that they put a lot of time and thought into making a change. My bad, yeaux!
Buffing the widow mine back to its old status is a widespread demand. I don't think it's their own best idea, but rather one of the more popular and foreseeable-how-to-turn-out ones.
Personally, I'd be fine with current mines and would rather see different changes. But the WM buff can probably go a long way.
|
On July 02 2014 23:11 Redfish wrote:
Reaper - I'm troubled by this, as I think it would be too good late game. Terran already has the best static defense in the game against Zealot/DT harrass. If you build Turrets and a PF, you're set, so I really don't think that this is an issue. Even if a Protoss warps in 8 DTs to try and pop it, that's a 1000/1000 investment that's not in their main army, and if there's a proper reaction time for SCV repair, you can hold it.
First off, the only place Planetaries are going to be found is a 4th and maybe a 5th.
Due to their size and cost you will never find them in the main, natural or third so those bases can be freely decimated by Protoss drops. Furthermore, you don't warp in 8 DTs, you warp in 8 chargelots to wreck the Terran main. They do just fine on autopilot with Charge and will require a decent number of Marine/Marauder to be cleaned up.
The Planetary is only the best defense when you can put your army next to it and it is placed as a 4th or 5th.
Otherwise is a big waste of minerals and gas that can be easily avoided.
Furthermore, a PF does not help at all against Stalkers behind the mineral line or a Storm drop.
On July 02 2014 23:11 Redfish wrote:
Tempest - Despite what you may think, no, this is not overkill versus Brood Lords because of the Viper abduct problem late game.
You can three shot a Brood Lord from 15 range. How is Viper abduct going to be able to consistenly prevent that from happening? Especially when you mix in HT to Feedback any Vipers on the field.
Battlecruisers are dead weight in TvP because they are so easily countered by Tempests as well as that they are so slow to produce and very expensive. The latter two is worked into the unit somewhat but Tempests currently just say no to Battlecruisers completely. Even Ravens with PDDs are very risky to add because of the cost, the fact HT will instantly neutralize them, as well as that they add very little to a ground army should Protoss switch to that.
On July 02 2014 23:11 Redfish wrote:
You talk about a disparity in reproducibility - late game, a Terran will be the one that has more effective reproducibility than Protoss, at least in units that matter. Massing a gateway-heavy army against a Mech army is a poor and inefficient choice, and so you can't really factor in warping in a bunch of units as heavily as you'd think.
This assumes the Mech army wins the engagement with a landslide victory.
If both armies trade somewhat evenly, the Mech army takes much longer to reproduce and the new units have to slowly move to the army whilst the Warp-in provides an instant replenishment on-site.
Sure it may not be the most efficient to warp-in 15 Chargelots against a Mech army, but if that Mech army already traded once, the sheer number can straight up overwhelm what is left, similarly to a Bio army.
Keep in mind it takes a whole Factory with a Tech Lab over 45 seconds to produce a single Siege Tank, 60 seconds for a single Thor, both of which will have to slowly move across the map to join the army.
Those 15 Chargelots, efficient or not, are there instantly, close to the army.
You can even warp in two cycles before the Mech reinforcements arrive.
You also still get to choose what you want to warp-in to deal with what is left.
A lot of Hellbats left but few Tanks? Warp-in Archons.
Lots of Tanks left but few support units? Warp-in mass Chargelot.
You do have a point in that Protoss can only warp-in Gateway units but that is still a massive advantage of the production over Mech units. Even against heavy Starport play you could still warp-in 15 Stalkers.
|
NOOOO! Stop making everything faster goddamnit! I don't need faster medivacs, I don't want faster medivacs! Medivacs are fast enough as it is!
Do something else, rather than generic number buffs. Look at some un-used units and see how they might fit in. re-add an ability (people are shouting ghosts, but I never played back then), or if you really want to do a number buff then buff the damn siege tank!
goddamnit Blizzard, we really need to work on our relationship...
|
On July 02 2014 22:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 22:35 TheDwf wrote:On July 02 2014 22:30 Big J wrote:meanwhile in the Code A qualifier...  Just kidding, but I really don't think we need to make massive adjustments right now. The one or other Terran-specific tweak and the race should be quite well off. A good amount of Terran players qualifying was expected since half of the qualified ones would/should have already been in Code A in the first place (most likely Flash, TY, FanTaSy, Reality, Cure). The real test will be Code A, and here I don't expect more than 4-5 Terrans advancing if Code A is played in the current state of the game. They wer expected to qualify under the assumption the MUs are somewhat fine 
I sure hope Flash 2-0 isjk isn't a measure of TvZ being fine.
Jokes aside, let's see the different paths to victory:
![[image loading]](http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/845891CAQ.jpg)
Moral of the story: in Code A qualifiers, if your race is weak... Work on your mirror.
Complete stats (list by hand, so perhaps there are mistakes):
TvZ: 28-18
TvP: 20-33
|
I like that they´re thinking of buffin terrans in generel. I think a good update here would benefit the game like nothing else.
But i think buffing terrans early-mid game again is the wrong move. Terrans weakness really is the late-game.
Pushing the Medivac and the mine only helps early aggression and Drop harassment in the mid-game. They should focus on terrans late game and fing something to buff there.
|
Sure these aint the best buffs but Ill take em lol. How many unnecessary buffs have the other races enjoyed? Terran should get its turn now too. I honestly think that msc nerfs and possibly a thor AA buff will balance the game almost on their own. Perhaps remove the hardened shields from immortals to increase mech in tvp as well as reduce the range of the planetary nexus so that a tank can actually attack it the way it SHOULD BE ABLE TO. Would love to see 1-1-1's come back as a counter to protoss psuedo-allins like blink pressure or proxy oracle.
|
On July 02 2014 23:35 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 22:48 Big J wrote:On July 02 2014 22:35 TheDwf wrote:On July 02 2014 22:30 Big J wrote:meanwhile in the Code A qualifier... Just kidding, but I really don't think we need to make massive adjustments right now. The one or other Terran-specific tweak and the race should be quite well off. A good amount of Terran players qualifying was expected since half of the qualified ones would/should have already been in Code A in the first place (most likely Flash, TY, FanTaSy, Reality, Cure). The real test will be Code A, and here I don't expect more than 4-5 Terrans advancing if Code A is played in the current state of the game. They wer expected to qualify under the assumption the MUs are somewhat fine I sure hope Flash 2-0 isjk isn't a measure of TvZ being fine. Jokes aside, let's see the different paths to victory: Moral of the story: in Code A qualifiers, if your race is weak... Work on your mirror. Complete stats (list by hand, so perhaps there are mistakes): TvZ: 28-18 TvP: 20-33
The point is that the Terran players are favored, because they are the "top4upwards" Terrans, while the Zergs are the "top11upwards" Zergs. The winrate reflects that. (1)
If Zerg was hugely favored over Terran, you'd expect the "top11upwards" Zergs to stand a bigger chance against the "top4upwards" Terrans.
Same argument should however also hold for the "top2upwards" Terrans against the "top5upwards Zergs". So I don't see how you'd expect (1) but not expect that Terrans should be able to somewhat hold their own compared to Zerg in Code A.
On a sidenote, Protoss representation in Code A is worrysome, making up 44% of the players.
|
I'm glad they recognized there is a problem (even if it's small). I would prefer buffs to Terran late game production, the possibility of a bio-to-mech or mech-to-bio transition, or mech play (such as brining back the war hound), but those are probably too risky for a simple balance patch. The medivac speed length and shorten drop time and splash might be enough of a bandaid though without being too risky.
|
We’ve listened to recent feedback and wanted to provide our thoughts on HotS balance since the last patch.
1. At the top pro level, Terran looks to be slightly weaker than the other races, and we’d like to start testing possible changes.
Then why are we looking into buffing?
2. In terms of recent tournament wins, the three races are performing quite evenly.
So, again, why are we looking into some buff?
3. Protoss and Zerg both seem to be performing well at the top level in terms of tournament wins and overall performance.
Ok!?? What? Now Protoss and Zerg seems to be doing well?
1 and 2 is completely mis-leading and sounds like he doesn't know what he is talking about. If 1 and 2 is true, then why don't we wait it out?
What is his true view on this matter??
A professional game-balance designer that is hired from one of the top, best game production company, players are expecting a much more in-depth view on the actual game. No just some vague statements, "Slight weak, slight under performing."
The entire pro-gaming scene really depends on the balance to be well thought out.
Which part of TvP does David Kim feels Terran is weak against? Is it the early game, mid-game or the late game. Does buffing medivacs or mines will fix it?
We’d like to be prepared with a general Terran buff while continuing to carefully evaluate Terran performance in both TvP and TvZ. We have some ideas for general Terran buffs that we’d love to get feedback on. Additionally, we’d love to hear feedback on other areas that could help Terran while also making the games more exciting to watch and play.
What is the goal in this patch? In this statement there are 3 goals. A) Buff Terran. B) More fun to watch. C) More fun to play.
Personally, I think TvZ are one of the best match ups to watch. No matter whether Terran is going Mech or Bio, it always draw out exciting early to mid-game. (Apart from boring stalemate Swarm Host vs Mech)
TvP is getting pretty boring, generally because:
1) No Terran All-ins except 1-1-1.
2) Only Bio. (I was personally pretty hyped when Maru went Mech against Hero.)
However, seems like DK's vision of fun and excitement is faster medivacs and bigger mine splash, but not well in other areas. That is the reason why in HOTS every patch units are getting faster and faster.
Mutas speed, oracle speed. Roach burrow movement speed. I think this is a very single minded balancing act.
Medivac
Medivac harass has been getting weaker since the beginning of HotS due to players improving at defending against them. If we increase the strength of Medivacs, we’d not only help out Terran on both matchups, but also help provide even more action-packed games to watch. We wonder if buffing the unload speed or increasing the duration of the speed boost slightly would help in a positive way.
Widow Mine
Widow Mines are quite core in both TvP and TvZ. They’re also one of the most exciting units to watch and create lots of diverse moments depending on the players’ interaction with them within each engagement. We’re currently considering a slight increase to the splash radius of Widow Mines, which we believe could be a good direction to explore.
Obviously, nothing is final since we aren’t even proposing specific numbers yet, but we’d like to start discussions going that would allow us to start a balance test map soon.
Unload speed of Medivac... I often don't think it is the speed of units or harassment that a drop deals the most damage. It is the un-expectancy that often creates the biggest drop effect. Unload speeds kind of tone down the high skill ceiling of drop play.
Better mine splash might be a decent move. But I think it won't make a huge difference. You can see in TvZ, players either completely defuse all mines or eat a ton of mine shots with banelings.
If Blizzard is truly sincere to hear our opinion, I actually would really want to hear what more David Kim thinks of the current meta-game. Would be awesome if some community figure can host a interview?? My biggest question is, why not buff mech in TvP?
|
On July 02 2014 23:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2014 23:13 TSORG wrote:On July 02 2014 23:05 Big J wrote:On July 02 2014 23:02 OPL3SA2 wrote:
I'm a terran, and I found myself voting no to both of these options. Widow mines are not complementary to terran's strengths, and as such, I have much more success just pumping out Hellbats out of a reactored factory. They're easier to control, do a TON more damage to lings, soak up baneling hits, don't kill your own units, and don't OFTEN DIE WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY DAMAGE, which widow mines have the potential to do. If you want to buff widow mines, they should come out of the gate with increased burrow speed if anything. Don't decrease their radius, then increase their radius, then sit back and think you're doing a good job balancing the game. That's called being out of your element, Donny
GG, you win the thread. Buffing something that has been previously nerfed should be out of the question due to random forum guy defining the most-used scientific methode (trial and error) as "being out of your element". rofl, trial and error is not a scientific method... That is quite embarassing for you now. :O
trial and error is just a general way in which animals, including people learn (from the past). there is nothing neccesarily systematic or scientific about it. just because trial and error is part of the many of the most used scientific methods (because of their dependence on the empirical) doesnt mean that trial and error is therefore itself a scientific method.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
