EPTDidn't Blizzard say a month ago that Blink Stalker All-Ins were too strong on Ruins of Seras because they can blink from the 3rd to the main? I'm not sure why Blizzard is saying this map pool is doing great.
Community Feedback Update - December 11 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
Didn't Blizzard say a month ago that Blink Stalker All-Ins were too strong on Ruins of Seras because they can blink from the 3rd to the main? I'm not sure why Blizzard is saying this map pool is doing great. | ||
|
Bohemond
United States163 Posts
On December 12 2015 07:03 Big J wrote: Yeah, there are areas where they really should look into hardcounters a little bit. In this specific scenario I also think it is kind of blatantly obvious that the current ultralisk is too strong vs bio, but if we give them benefit of the doubt, it's probably a fine line they need to walk here. The strategic development within a game gets always driven by something countering another thing, hence someone has to change what they are doing. And given that people know about the other ones capabilities, hardcounter units often become softcounters because people will take them into account to begin with. In case of the ultralisk I think it just renders bio too useless. Even Terrans that play with tanks and liberators in the midgame and then additionally add ghosts when ultras pop have trouble defending against them, much more they can hardly move out against them ever. There should be a certain level of preparedness that gives you an advantage if the opponent still transitions into what you try to counteract, which at the moment isn't really there with ultras. On the flipside, that preparedness should be more than what it was in HotS, i.e. having a few barracks with techlabs so you can produce marauders and having a few medivacs, so you can counterdrop and stall for a minute to if you really need to. That really doesn't take preparation to begin with. I think that at the end of the day, TLO really hit the Ultralisk issue on the head. There is probably no way for it to be in a good place with its current design. As for the hardcounters thing, one of the main issues is the developers trying to impose their intent of the players, rather than just letting the players innovate. Making a unit hardcounter another unit to tends to create a situation where innovation gets squashed. | ||
|
p68
100 Posts
Problem is, tech switch into what? It can't be anything besides ghosts...right? | ||
|
WhaleOFaTALE1
47 Posts
On December 12 2015 07:12 p68 wrote: I don't get what Blizzard expects Terran to use vs Ultras. I'd like to hear what they're expecting to see (ghosts, I assume?). If they expect a tech switch, Terran has the hardest time doing that, but fair enough. Problem is, tech switch into what? It can't be anything besides ghosts...right? Their hope was to make cyclones the thing.... | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 12 2015 07:12 p68 wrote: I don't get what Blizzard expects Terran to use vs Ultras. I'd like to hear what they're expecting to see (ghosts, I assume?). If they expect a tech switch, Terran has the hardest time doing that, but fair enough. Problem is, tech switch into what? It can't be anything besides ghosts...right? Well ghosts, as you say. Then a lot of Terrans use tank/medivac combos throughout all of the game which is pretty decent because Zergs are mainly playing roach/ravager and tankivacs are pretty good for that. Then there are liberators, which are easy to switch into because you have the tech anyways and additionally see a lot of play through all of the game, because they are good against mutas, good for harass and can be decent to hold ground pretty much regardless of the enemy compositon. And there are some emergency tools that don't suck balls, like mass widow mines. So where they are coming from when they say they see games in which terrans are doing fine against them makes sense. But I believe even a combination of those tools is not really enough at that moment, or rather, the combination of those tools is necessary but all of those tools are also counterable by the zerg and often force the terran into a very defensive position around a 3rd, 4th or 5th base while the zerg can take the map and eventually still overrun the terran. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
the real hope is in mods | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On December 12 2015 07:28 summerloud wrote: i said it once and i ll say it again the real hope is in mods It is in BW. | ||
|
HomeWorld
Romania903 Posts
I wonder what the hell are they doing each and every day since the reality is totally different than what they try to present. The current map pool is a total disaster; nothing serious towards balancing units happened since early beta (we already know that most of the beta was wasted trying to implement mind-boggling economy changes); nothing serious is being tested post release, which makes me think, how (and why) the hell Blizzard tolerates such indolence and disrespect to their "job description) | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
I feel like there is so much more back and forth that there ever was, which is great. The games seem like like an honest match, (and don't last 40 fucking minutes). Nice job. As far as automated tournaments go, please implement a "team league" option. That would be a great format for tourneys, the cool thing about that is you don't have to invest more time than just one game, you teammates play the rest. Part of the reason I don't play tourney is cause i don't want to invest the time. | ||
|
Para199x
United Kingdom40 Posts
On December 12 2015 05:23 pr0n3d91 wrote: No don't push this map pool please...... Ulrena, Prion Terrace and Lerilak Crest currently favoured for Zerg which is 3/7 of the map pool. Zergs are going to win all the E-sports money, guaranteed. It has been three years, it's our turn =D | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
Going a bit more into detail on this… When we see suggestions that Ultralisks’ total armor needs to be nerfed, we definitely see some examples of that seeming needed. We also see games however, where they are countered well due to counters being out already or players capitalizing on the fact that the Zerg is preparing for an Ultralisk tech-switch and dealing enough damage before the Ultralisks arrive that they remain even or ahead. So we’re not sure if there is a clear balance problem here or not, though it is definitely something that we should be keeping careful attention to. We just don’t want to be in a spot where we are too quick to nerf something, and the end goal to improve the game also gets lost. Hard counters are bad. Five years into this game's life cycle, can we establish this as a hard fact? Hard counters are bad. Universally. Universally. Globally. All of the time. There is not a time when hard counters are not bad. Remember that time you made Banelings and Marines both counter each other, and everyone was like "holy shit TvZ is cool"? Remember that time that Marine/Tank vs Tank produced 10/10 TvTs? That was because those units soft counter each other. Soft counter as in not hard counter. Remember that time that people watched LotV TvP and PvP and said "holy shit Disruptors are cool"? That was because Disruptors soft counter Stalkers/bio, and are soft countered by Stalkers/bio in response. Remember that time the Colossus was a shitty unit? You guessed it! That's because the situations where it was very effective against bio were much more frequent than situations where the opposite was true! This isn't a conspiracy. This isn't a trick. It really is that simple. Also Colossi sucked because they were braindead A+move units. Kind of like Ultralisks. Which you have now made into a hard counter to Marines and Marauders. So to recap. A+move = bad. Micro = good. Hard counter = bad. Soft counter = good. HotS Ultra = bad. LotV Ultra = fucking kill it with fire. | ||
|
WhaleOFaTALE1
47 Posts
On December 12 2015 07:47 ShambhalaWar wrote: LOTV so much better than HOTS imo, I'm actually watching and interested in games. I feel like there is so much more back and forth that there ever was, which is great. The games seem like like an honest match, (and don't last 40 fucking minutes). Nice job. As far as automated tournaments go, please implement a "team league" option. That would be a great format for tourneys, the cool thing about that is you don't have to invest more time than just one game, you teammates play the rest. Part of the reason I don't play tourney is cause i don't want to invest the time. Long games are the most exciting most of the time, idk what you are talking about | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On December 12 2015 06:49 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Well said!!!! I didnt play BW but that late game sound paradise compared to hard counter bs While I completely agree that hard counters are bad for the health of the game, BW late game isn't the best example, especailly when it comes to Ultras. Ultras + Dark Swarm countered bio a hell of a lot harder in BW than Ultras counter anything right now. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On December 12 2015 07:55 WhaleOFaTALE1 wrote: Long games are the most exciting most of the time, idk what you are talking about The missing qualifier is, "My opinion is... ____________" I'm sure you said that of all the turtle mech and swarm host games. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On December 12 2015 08:03 Spyridon wrote: While I completely agree that hard counters are bad for the health of the game, BW late game isn't the best example, especailly when it comes to Ultras. Ultras + Dark Swarm countered bio a hell of a lot harder in BW than Ultras counter anything right now. I dunno. Ultras + Blinding Cloud/PB makes a pretty good case. | ||
|
WhaleOFaTALE1
47 Posts
On December 12 2015 08:13 ShambhalaWar wrote: The missing qualifier is, "My opinion is... ____________" I'm sure you said that of all the turtle mech and swarm host games. What a hippocrit. You said nothing about your opinion when you complained about the game length. And notice i said "most" of the time. Mech and swarmhost were obviously exceptions | ||
|
Mistakes
United States1102 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15957 Posts
but yeah, as already mentioned hardcounters are bad and the current ultras are the most extreme form of hardcounters we ever had. When zerg had to produce their units one at a time it might be okay but the problem is that zerg can just spawn 10 ultras at once. To expect terrans to be always prepared for that is very far stretched. Not to mention even if you have mass ghost liberator, a mass ultra viper infestor army is extremely hard to beat. | ||
|
robopork
United States511 Posts
On December 12 2015 03:50 blade55555 wrote: I don't think there is even a need for lurker nerf right now. ZvP was looking bad by Lurkers, but I feel like Protosses are dealing with it just fine. Now maybe Lurker rushes are destroying Protoss right now? Is that why they want to delay it? I haven't tried doing that yet so that would be interesting to know. ZvT I haven't seen a single pro game yet with Lurker usage... If there is one plox link me. In general a good overview of their thought process. I have been enjoying the lack of mass air as those styles have always been boring imo. I agree somewhat. I think late game tech switches are a bigger problem than lurkers. If lurkers were a problem I think tweaking disruptors so they 1 shot them while burrowed (probably would have to be something arbitrary and silly like +x to burrowed units but whatevs) would be a better solution than a nerf to the lurker itself. I like the idea of parasitic bomb dealing friendly fire. Maybe we'll see erasers again ^^ I just flat out disagree about a couple maps. I like diversity but destructible rocks into the main are a bad idea, especially on a map with an exposed third. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24202 Posts
Balance test map : the proposed changes seem kinda okayish. Where is the carrier build time buff though ? I don't really have an opinion about the rest, which doesn't affect P match-ups a lot. | ||
| ||
