|
On July 06 2014 17:26 nonlamer wrote:
What do you think Blizzard should target with their changes to help Terran?
Dimaga "i think we need some sort of anti-energy unit or spell for Zerg".
What????, seem like he answer to wrong question.
He's referring to mass Ravens and how he finds it 'impossible' to beat. What Dimaga doesn't realise is that Mech cannot fight against swarmhosts without losses. Ravens at the moment is a crude solution to the Terran late game TvZ problem. Nerfing PDDs right now would make late game mech useless against swarmhost/viper compositions.
|
On July 06 2014 11:27 MiniFotToss wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 07:49 Hider wrote:I think the extra shield damage and ignore hardened shields ideas sound like *sspulls and change the game more than its acceptable. Well removal of hardned shield does as it affects Roaches vs Immortals as well + Maurauder vs Immortals, but Tank bonus vs shield buffs tanks vs protoss which could shake up the meta. But isn't that exactly what we want? Oracles don't attack on the move, you have to micro them, and they are not easy to use cause they are squishy and have a very low range Oracles have probably the worst control in the game. BW succesed with its air units because all of them were extremely reponsive but none of them were extremely OP when unmicroed. Unforuntatley, Blizzard didn't follow that concept with the Oracle which is the prototype of what not to do. are you guys serious? the immortal was meant to deal with seige tanks from BW, thats why they have hardened shield, other than immortals (or maybe so many zealots, it is hard to go out without already losing units to tanks, just buff tanks, dont nerf immortals, they were meant to counter tanks
Lol. They don't need Hardened Shield to "counter" Siege Tanks. In BW, Dragoons were cost-ineffective against Siege Tanks in a straight up battle. Even when you remove hardened shield from Siege Tanks, Immortals are actually still cost-effective.
It's just an absolutely terrbile design which means that mech cannot be aggressive in midgame vs protoss and needs to uber turtle. Bascially your logic could be applied to these changes as well;
- Siege Tank range increased to 20
- Siege Tank splash increased by 100%.
- Damage changed to 100 vs light but reduced to 10 vs armored.
Now, obviously basic logic would come to the conclusion that Siege Tanks were just really OP vs Blings for instance, but then we would have people like you arguing that "are you series guys, Siege Tanks was meant to kill Blings"....
|
I think the following change to Ravens could be interesting in multiple regards:
Raven
maximum energy from 200 to 100 (starting energy stays at 50/75 respectively)
PDD cost from 125 to 100.
Seeker Missile cost from 100 to 75.
Auto Turret cost to 50 to 25.
What does this do in terms of buffing?
Ravens spawn with a seeker missile. This makes transitioning into them much, much smoother.
Ravens cannot be feedbacked to death anymore. This is in my opinion the biggest reason why Ravens are not seen in TvP. All their useful spells require a lot of energy, which means Ravens basically always die to feedbacks - which is pretty hardcore, losing a 100/200 unit to 50energy. (feedbacking them would obviously still be good against them, removing all the energy and dealing up to 100damage)
Autoturret harass becomes much more viable, because 25 energy are regenerated much faster. Might require a small lifetime nerf to autoturrets to prevent lategame turrets fields.
To have a PDD, the raven only needs to acquire 25energy. Another thing that you are often missing when going for Ravens, but you can't even PDD for quite some time.
What does this do in terms of nerfing?
Maxed Raven armies don't have the ridiculous amounts of seeker missiles anymore that force you to dodge them so often that the opponent has already regenerated them.
Maxed Raven armies have a harder time PDDing bigger areas.
I think this could actually be quite helpful for bio (and mech too) in both matchups to transition into ravens, while the raven turtle becomes a little weaker.
|
On July 06 2014 16:10 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 15:21 Shinespark wrote:
I know koreans barely bother to reply when you guys ask them for opinions on balance, but due to the huge difference in opinion between them and foreigners, I don't think asking only foreigners will give anyone a very clear picture. Again, we did this on fairly short notice and couldn't get in touch with our Korean contacts. Either way, a lot of the opinions, especially those expressed by Xenocider, Snute, and qxc are all very insightful and make a lot of sense. And while there are differing opinions on the power of Protoss and Zerg, it seems that everyone universally agrees that the changes Blizzard is proposing miss the mark at actually helping and only target an extraordinarily powerful aspect of Terran. That said, I think, after the feedback Blizzard has received on these changes, they will start to look at more late-game oriented solutions to try and allow Terran to smooth out in the lategame instead of having to approach it with a huge lead from the mid game. If they make a change or propose another series of changes, you can bet that we'll be on top of it, and we'll probably include Koreans this time.
Do you really think that Blizzard will react to the feedback?
The changes proposed are "not addressing the issue" according to almost everyones statements
That means that either the balance tem have an insight that the community does not share or that they are not understanding the problem.
Either way the feedback makes no difference
|
Some of those opinions are pretty funny.
Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game?
The joke is on us.
|
Are you one of those people that see one TvZ mech game and suddenly say "nerf PDD"? Yes PDD is powerful, but you are moving in the wrong direction. The Raven is the ONLY viable late game unit Terran has against Swarm Hosts.
Are you one of the guys that only watch Avilo's stream? That guy sits on 3 bases for 25-30 Minutes as he doesn't know how to secure bases. Everyone that happens after that is a very poor demonstration of balance.
In general, protoss air is such a big mess, and perhaps Tempest does need a supply increase. But it's very easy to confuse different types of problems with each other. As Siege Tanks are so weak in Sc2 it automatically makes protoss air better as well since you cannot devote as much supply into air as you would ideally want to. Faster transformation time of Vikings also means that the penalty for overmaking Vikings is less.
Swarm Hosts can (perhaps) be dealt with through faster Unsiege/faster transformation time of Vikings. If Muta/Swarm Hosts are still too strong, then I think there is room for a small Thor buff.
I would be careful about giving mech too many buffs in one patch, that can quickly escalate. Make a couple of buffs to more aggressive-based mech and then reevaluate whether it's enough. PDD, however, definitely needs a nerf if anyone wants to see more aggresisve usage of mech (over turtle mech). Because mech cannot be buffed in any way while not making turtlemech even more retarded.
I mentioned double hit for tanks, because it can just do the trick and its a cleaner change.
No, it's a very unclean change as your basically making a completely artifical rule that only applies to the Siege Tank + I question whether it's enough. All units in the game shoot twice if they have two attack animations per attack. The Siege Tank, however only has one.
And while I agree that Siege Tanks aren't terrible against other protoss units, I do think there is a bit of room to buff it. + Damage vs shield is much more in a line with what Blizzard previously has done and is thus are more likely change they would implement (though I think lower attack cooldown is even more likely).
Why would it be limited to Zerg anyway? Protoss regenerate too just shields instead of health. It could actually be a step in a mech TvP direction as it would help mech deal with immortals if their shields regenerated slowly. Also, complicated?
Wait, are you really implying that the thing mech needs vs protoss is to remove shield from regenerating? I cannot see why Blizzard should spend time in the editor developing that ability when they can spend 2 Minutes to increase the movement speed of the Unit or increase the splash size.
Yes, it's complicated because your adding a new concept to the game that didn't exist previously. One should only add new concepts to the game if they add new types of micro/strategies. If Snute could elaborate on how this would create more interesting interactions relative to a small splsash buff or a movement speed buff to the Thor, I would be quite interested in hearing it.
|
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote:
Some of those opinions are pretty funny.
Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game?
The joke is on us.
Define funny.
|
[Blizz]Snute all the way! Insight that makes terran players blush!
|
On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote:
Some of those opinions are pretty funny.
Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game?
The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight.
Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill.
|
On July 06 2014 18:30 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote:
Some of those opinions are pretty funny.
Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game?
The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight. Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill.
Fuck off with the game bashing.
|
Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill.
Totally unlike Diablo 2....
|
On July 06 2014 17:49 Big J wrote:
I think the following change to Ravens could be interesting in multiple regards:
Raven
maximum energy from 200 to 100 (starting energy stays at 50/75 respectively)
PDD cost from 125 to 100.
Seeker Missile cost from 100 to 75.
Auto Turret cost to 50 to 25.
What does this do in terms of buffing?
Ravens spawn with a seeker missile. This makes transitioning into them much, much smoother.
Ravens cannot be feedbacked to death anymore. This is in my opinion the biggest reason why Ravens are not seen in TvP. All their useful spells require a lot of energy, which means Ravens basically always die to feedbacks - which is pretty hardcore, losing a 100/200 unit to 50energy. (feedbacking them would obviously still be good against them, removing all the energy and dealing up to 100damage)
Autoturret harass becomes much more viable, because 25 energy are regenerated much faster. Might require a small lifetime nerf to autoturrets to prevent lategame turrets fields.
To have a PDD, the raven only needs to acquire 25energy. Another thing that you are often missing when going for Ravens, but you can't even PDD for quite some time.
What does this do in terms of nerfing?
Maxed Raven armies don't have the ridiculous amounts of seeker missiles anymore that force you to dodge them so often that the opponent has already regenerated them.
Maxed Raven armies have a harder time PDDing bigger areas.
I think this could actually be quite helpful for bio (and mech too) in both matchups to transition into ravens, while the raven turtle becomes a little weaker.
This is a big buff for mech turtle.
You have to keep in mind one thing, PDDs and auto turrets lasts very long (3-4min).
So if you lower the mana cost for these spells it means the terran player will have more pdds and auto turrets on the battlefield in the same time.
In most situations pdd is a lot better than seeker missile, especially for transitionning into a bigger army.
Yes the terran player can hope for a lucky strike and send 8 seeker missile in a big pack of roach/hydra army but if the zerg dodge these missiles you lost a lot of mana for nothing. You prefer to put 8 PDDs, each of them will block at least 20 attacks from hydralisk, which means you block 20*15*8 = 2400 damage
The difference between PDDs and seeker missile is rougly the same as between mines and tanks : you have one reliable option (tank and PDD) and one gamble option with possible very high outcome (mines and seeker missile).
|
On July 06 2014 18:31 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 18:30 Dingodile wrote:On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote:
Some of those opinions are pretty funny.
Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game?
The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight. Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill. Fuck off with the game bashing.
You should know that hard counter units dont give much room for micro. It's avoid more deep! Its not bashing, it is just true.
|
On July 06 2014 18:14 Nerchio wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote:
Some of those opinions are pretty funny.
Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game?
The joke is on us.
Define funny.
Largely contradicting one another.
Maybe it's just cheery-picking by the author but you are playing the same game.
|
On July 06 2014 10:55 ZAiNs wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 07:06 Faust852 wrote:
Lol some pro are really fucking biased lol. And Downfall's article that you jack off to isn't biased?
Because a 100k words article with over 40 references is more biased than Dimaga's "Terran is too strong" and MaNa's "Terran is imbalance in lategame TvP" ?
For real ? At least statistics tend to agree with DwF, not with MaNa.
|
This is a big buff for mech turtle.
Yeh I agree here. I acutally found one way to nerf PDD, but only against a zerg player that micro's well (I tested it works in the editor), but a multiple amount of changes needs to be implemented;
- PDD now costs 20 energy to block a shot up from 10.
- PDD energy regeneration increased significantly (like 4-5 times higher).
- PDD HP reduced to 10.
- PDD model size increased,
- PDD activaiton radius reduced from 8 to 7.
With all of these changes, the enemy player is actually rewarded for target firing PDD's as the PDD otherwise will regenerate super quickly. If he can do that really well, the PDD is a lot less effective and will only block 6-8 shots compared to the 10+ shots it currently blocks.
If on the other hand, the zerg just amoves, PDD could easily end up blocking like 15 shots. Atm. there is no actual reward for target firing and it's not really practical either for two reasons;
1) PDD model size is very small, hard to find during larger battles. Thus a model sice increase is mandatory if we want to encourage more target-firing.
2) With an activation radius of 8, the PDD can be placed behind the terran army which makes it difficult to target fire it. 7 radius here is, however, a much better number.
|
I think it is funny, when Protoss/Zerg complain about M.U.L.E. and supply issues.
P: Warpgate = unlimited amount of instant on spot reinforcement of tanky cannon fodder units like zealots or even damage dealing tanking Archon. Okay lategame 70 probes, 130 army supply + 20 Warpgates (3000minerals 10 extra CC for mule/scan on 5base =4000 mins) = 10 insta archons. 20 Charge zealot (= 3000 HP )
With chronoboost you can effectivly double the number of warpgates for a short time.
+ It is both strong in defense and Attack !
Z: Inject poof 100 Larvae. Fight. Select all larvae, rebuild immediatly according to terran composition, or SWARM out 100 Lings
That's game design, you can not see Mule/scan without the counterparts.
I think the tipping Point of TvZ was a game on "Whirlwind". It was 2 Koreans playing, but i don't recall who it was. Might be Innovation vs Jeadong/Life or some sort..
Hellbat was already nerfed, Mine still good.
The Zerg outmacroed Terran, stopped the 4M parade push at his 4th base in a 15min breathtaking fight on razor's edge. Zerg had stopped the Rax-Rally-Point play style, by macro harder, transition smoother into ultras.
Then Blizzard thougth, well wouldn't it be cool if mediocre players could do the same, and nerfed the widowmine into oblivion.
From there, when the players had already fixed the game, blizzard destroyed the "balance" just to tipp into Zerg favor.
4M Rallye over creep ? Well no way Josè. Its completely reversed. Zerg needs to make enough Ling Bling and even Roach to defend the Creep, until mutas show up. And then Muta Ling Bling can basicly ignore windowmines completly. They even get killed by the Baneling's splash that was killed by another WM.
Zergs got to a point where it is to be spot on with the macro and creepspread, while microing hard vs. WM, and then WM was basicly removed. Reversing the Odds. Terran pushes to your 3rd? Well Ling Bling it, and get a 4th and 5th.
Terran lost an army once? Well another base it is.
Mech-Go0dyGames
Well if the Swarm can not be stopped by 4M, you make the big M. MECH it is. Enough tanks to kill most Locusts, a PDD to minimize damage. Most Zergs STILL go Swarmhost and MUTA against it. If terran rebuilds Turrets fast enough, well some HMS will hit home and then it's over, zergs tears streaming. Is it easy for either side? NO ! is it imbalanced? NO ! What can zerg do? Guerilla tactics ! Not 40 Mutas against 10+ Thors ! Use infestor against air, Use Viper to BC tanks, Use Broodlords ! Use nydus, Drop , Burrow, Neural parasite,use your arsenal, dont go SH muta , ling bling ultra on auto pilot.
Zerg can get complete map vison, fast resupply, unlimited spine and spore. And still answer to terran is 50 mutas. DERP.
How long do Mecha-Zerg games go? Well mostly 60+ minutes. How satisfying are thy? Well HMS hitting 50 mutas while thor splash? Rrrrrrrrrrrrr damn sexy.
Is Terran even hurtiung? Well From most recent WCS Premier AM : T is fine, look Bomber, Polt, Taeja and Heart made it to ro8 #Terranisfinedontbuff.
Well if you look closely...it was not Terran winning the groups, it was koreans over non koreans. And in Ro8 two of four Terrans go out 0-3, one wins by 2-3 and violet got mauled by heart 3-0.
Okay game is still balanced if you not play Hyun and still playing like Bomber.
I wish Blizzard wuold be really really careful about the patches. Like not medevac and mine (because it will result in purely medevac+ mine attacks in the testing phase, wich therefore gives no hint of the viability)
Also any Buff on Terran will result in a very unstable TvT situation wich really is the most fun (for terrans) when it is Marine Tank vs Marine tank strategy.
|
On July 06 2014 18:39 FireCake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 17:49 Big J wrote:
I think the following change to Ravens could be interesting in multiple regards:
Raven
maximum energy from 200 to 100 (starting energy stays at 50/75 respectively)
PDD cost from 125 to 100.
Seeker Missile cost from 100 to 75.
Auto Turret cost to 50 to 25.
What does this do in terms of buffing?
Ravens spawn with a seeker missile. This makes transitioning into them much, much smoother.
Ravens cannot be feedbacked to death anymore. This is in my opinion the biggest reason why Ravens are not seen in TvP. All their useful spells require a lot of energy, which means Ravens basically always die to feedbacks - which is pretty hardcore, losing a 100/200 unit to 50energy. (feedbacking them would obviously still be good against them, removing all the energy and dealing up to 100damage)
Autoturret harass becomes much more viable, because 25 energy are regenerated much faster. Might require a small lifetime nerf to autoturrets to prevent lategame turrets fields.
To have a PDD, the raven only needs to acquire 25energy. Another thing that you are often missing when going for Ravens, but you can't even PDD for quite some time.
What does this do in terms of nerfing?
Maxed Raven armies don't have the ridiculous amounts of seeker missiles anymore that force you to dodge them so often that the opponent has already regenerated them.
Maxed Raven armies have a harder time PDDing bigger areas.
I think this could actually be quite helpful for bio (and mech too) in both matchups to transition into ravens, while the raven turtle becomes a little weaker. This is a big buff for mech turtle. You have to keep in mind one thing, PDDs and auto turrets lasts very long (3-4min). So if you lower the mana cost for these spells it means the terran player will have more pdds and auto turrets on the battlefield in the same time. In most situations pdd is a lot better than seeker missile, especially for transitionning into a bigger army. Yes the terran player can hope for a lucky strike and send 8 seeker missile in a big pack of roach/hydra army but if the zerg dodge these missiles you lost a lot of mana for nothing. You prefer to put 8 PDDs, each of them will block at least 20 attacks from hydralisk, which means you block 20*15*8 = 2400 damage The difference between PDDs and seeker missile is rougly the same as between mines and tanks : you have one reliable option (tank and PDD) and one gamble option with possible very high outcome (mines and seeker missile).
yes, the duration is a little bit headache inducing with that change. 
|
On July 06 2014 18:40 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2014 18:31 Big J wrote:On July 06 2014 18:30 Dingodile wrote:On July 06 2014 17:52 pmp10 wrote:
Some of those opinions are pretty funny.
Remember when we all thought that pro players have some incredible insight into the game?
The joke is on us.
This game has literally no depth. Only players can it bit a bit deeper with skills but it is very very little because of many hard counter units (not much room for skills at figths). Not sure why everyone expect incredible insight. Same happened to Diablo3, its 98% gear-dependent, 2% skill. Fuck off with the game bashing. You should know that hard counter units dont give much room for micro. It's avoid more deep! Its not bashing, it is just true.
that's just phrases connected to each other what you write.
Marines hardcounter 90% of the units in the game, but are said to be very fun.
Banelings vs marines is one of the most fun things in the game imo, and banelings are very hard counters to marines. The reason it is fun is that you can diminish damage to the marines while dealing with the hardcounters.
Immortal drops are one of the coolest things a Protoss can do, and it's a fucking awesome hardcounter to anything armored (including buildings).
...
All of that shit about hardcounters is completely made up. Hardcounters are amazing if well designed and the single biggest reason why we micro units.
Focus fire? If no unit in the game is a harder counter than another, why focus fire? Everything is a homgenous blob anyways.
Splitting? Yes, to diminish damage taken by hardcounters.
Kiting? Yes, so that your ranged stuff doesn't get hardcountered and hardcounters lower ranged units.
Spell usage? Yes, to hardcounter something.
Countering (and hardcountering) is a the core of strategical play in RTS games. If you couldnt counter something, there is nothing you can do to influence the game. But it's funny, people keep on throwing around these stupid phrases as if there has ever been an RTS without hardcounters... Go ahead and build a valkyre in Broodwar. Build a firebat and see those zerglings melt. Build a siege tank and rofl-stomp those pesky marines.
Or you know, for once play a different RTS like a CnC game and see what a machine gun type weapon does to a tank there. Spoiler alert, that tank is going to destroy your whole base before going down to your infantry.
Anyways, I really shouldn't be answering to anything that uses the word depth in a 2sentence post (lol, that's some deep insight, harharhar). And that is obviously game bashing.
|
Marines hardcounter 90% of the units in the game, but are said to be very fun.
Banelings vs marines is one of the most fun things in the game imo, and banelings are very hard counters to marines. The reason it is fun is that you can diminish damage to the marines while dealing with the hardcounters.
That's not a hardcounter. Below is the definition;
A strategy that utterly dominates another strategy, leaving no question of the outcome.
Compare to soft counter. In a soft counter, the strategy being countered can still be victorious through skill or luck. There is no chance of this when a hard counter is used.
Marine vs Banelings is dependent on micro. Even Marine vs the majority of the 90% of the units which you claim it hardcountered depends on micro.
Hardcounter examples are however, Siege Tanks vs Immortals as there is nothing the Siege Tank player can do to become more cost-effective vs Immortals. The Immortals when amoved simply always beat Siege Tanks, which creates a terrible interaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
