|
On December 21 2015 23:06 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 22:49 Salteador Neo wrote:On December 21 2015 18:37 Sissors wrote:On December 21 2015 18:09 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2015 17:54 Topdoller wrote:
Protoss is fine, Zerg is fine but Terran might need a little help as one of its new units in this expansion looks very poor.
Sick of people bitching on this forum about balance when the maps are a train wreck. They need to be smaller, with no gold patches and better overall design.
SC2 Reddit has more constructive discussions than TeamLiquid at present its that bad with people and their hidden motives on how they think the game should be played by 99% of the SC2 gaming community.
If you dont like the game, just f^ck off and go play something else +1 maps are currently total shit, can't believe gold bases are still in the game, they are OP for Zerg in the early game and OP for Terran late game, size isn't much of an issue, there should be bigger macro maps and smaller pro aggression maps but they definitely DEFINITELY need better overall design. Genuinely curious, why are gold bases OP specifically for terran late game? I guess floating OCs there is nice, although a zerg can for example walk over spines/spores from mined out bases. Because of the MULE hammer. Mules on gold is waste of a perfectly good mule. Unless they changed it back without informing me (how dare they  ), mules gather just as fast from blue as from gold mineral patches. So you should almost always use mules on blue patches (only if you have just two mining bases, one blue, one gold, and the blue one is almost empty, and you have plenty of SCVs, then I would drop them on the gold).
Haha yeah I guess that's not the reason, it was changed a long ago :D I stand corrected.
I think this patch has basically all steps in the right direction. I'd like something different for ravagers instead of making them morph slower, but again it is the right direction (these things are avaliable just too early).
|
On December 21 2015 23:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 22:43 cop354g wrote:On December 21 2015 22:40 Big J wrote:On December 21 2015 20:17 Topdoller wrote:On December 21 2015 18:31 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 21 2015 17:54 Topdoller wrote:If you dont like the game, just f^ck off and go play something else That is what people are doing already. We usually call it D3AD GAM3!!111 Do you really think people are so negative about SC2 because they dislike the game? If they did, they would have left long ago. But they stick around and continue to point out all the things they dont like. Why? Because they actually love the game but are saddened to see what has happened with it. Stop looking at Aligulac with its bullshit stats. Anyone good with statistics can turn any number into anything on a fricken graph to justify their arguments. Anyone who has been made unemployed can tell you that figures are all bullshit. Hell politicians have been doing it for decades in order to "justify" their so called policies. That's really not true. It's the stupidity and lazyness of people that makes them believe the statistic supports the argument. That doesnt mean it actually does, it's rather that the presented conclusion often cannot be drawn if you actually look at all the parameters of the data collection/processing. But figuring that outwould be work and would require actual knowledge on the topic of statistics and so people just resort to saying that statistics are a meaningless tool and believe what they want to believe. When discussing imbalance, winrates are actually even secondary thing. Its alot more important to look at the quality of the games. Even if the winrate for all races was 50%, it doesnt exclude imbalance between races. If one race has to resort to 1 viable tactic to overcome another race then there is some form of imbalance regarding units and mechanics. That's totally up to how you define balance which in itself has a very vague meaning. Most of the "imbalances" in the game are usually attributed to racial asymmetry or other forms of "design" (e.g. strong "core" vs situational "support" units). I think going by some sorts of winrates and representation when talking about (racial) balance + Show Spoiler +in the sense of having a certain equality in the game to win the game regardless of race choices is the proper approach. But that doesn't mean we only look at aligulac winrates (GSL winrates, finalist/champion winrates, racial representation) or consider underlying parameters (sample size, extraordinary player performances, skill differences like Koreans winning foreigner tournaments in a settled meta). What you say about "only one viable tactic" is an example of something that is not good for the game, however, not that important for balance. Anytime a strategy is only the tiniest bit better than another one, optimally a good player that plays competetitvely to make money should always favor playing it, regardless of the viability of other styles. So from a balance persepective it doesn't matter. But obviously for the fun of playing the game, for the fun of spectating the game it is much better if multiple strategies are equally good, so that various different scenarios can unfold.
Balancing three races, with asymmetric design principles, in a competitive environment is such an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, I think you have to look at, parse, and interpret stats. But you also cannot take away the human judgement. While the game doesn't technically have human referees (because the game itself basically prevents cheating), I do think you have a roughly equivalent human referee on the sideline watching these big tournaments. Someone who can say, "while this may not technically be imbalanced, this is awful for the game and we should consider changing it."
With all that said:
@Disruptor - the explanation behind the shield nerf essentially describes why it needs to be nerfed versus Terran also. It prevents an engagement and one-hits everything on the ground. Except that it's not two way, like in PvP, it's worse. Protoss expends a cooldown, and Terran has to expend a full-army stim every time.
@Viper - yes. This was needed. Though I still think it will be impossible to win an air battle versus Zerg, I do think this will help.
@Craklings - this is more of an issue for Protoss, I think. But Zerg's Hive tech is just too strong. All of it, so I'm glad to see it being toned back.
@Thor - what? I mean, I guess it's good that they're looking at the Thor. It would be nice if Terran tier-3 wasn't almost completely useless, except for narrow and niche roles.
@PO - Blizzard always does this give and take thing. They seemingly work really hard to balance their balancing. PO was just OP (most notably in PvT). I think you could have just raised the energy cost to 50 and solved the problem. Tweaking the duration and damage was totally unnecessary, imho.
@Ravager - don't know how delaying anything by 8 seconds is going to have a meaningful impact.
--My $0.02
@Marauder - revert the unnecessary nerf, already. This will help address so many issues, I think
@Liberator - move the damn research to Fusion Core already. This is silly.
@Adept - tweak Resonating Glaves, or their overall healthpool. The Adept is still too strong versus Terran.
@Immortal - give them back the old shields. This new immortal doesn't seem strong enough.
@Disruptor - nerf overall damage, or splash radius, or modify how the Nova ball flies. Something. It's too good versus Terran.
@Ultra - modify Chitonous Plating by -1 to armor.
|
Isn't Liberator research already on fusion core? Maybe they should just make their anti ground attack something you need to research. And nothing stupid like 200/200 which takes 2 minutes, but 100/100 max which is done relatively fast, but something you need to invest in, and requires a tech lab.
Regarding immortal: The old one had really a specific ability, which meant it was really good vs high damage units. The new ability is special also, but not special special. In practice it has no specific role with its ability, since it works pretty much equally vs all unit types.
|
Overcharge i think that with 35 of energy cost is more balanced and the same damage and durability, and the ravager morph at 18 is more balanced vs terran and in late game vs protoss, other think what i would do is change the lurker damage, why right now may be not note but, zerg is very very stronger vs terran and protoss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On December 23 2015 02:04 Sissors wrote:
Isn't Liberator research already on fusion core? Maybe they should just make their anti ground attack something you need to research. And nothing stupid like 200/200 which takes 2 minutes, but 100/100 max which is done relatively fast, but something you need to invest in, and requires a tech lab.
I'm not sure what problem this is meant to address, and how. All you're doing is opening up the window in which Terrans are already vulnerable to Protoss aggression, before Terran can stabilize. But if he does stabilize, and goes on to play a 20 minute game - the sort of game that might prove Liberators are too difficult to deal with - I don't see a one-time delay of 45 seconds having any meaningful effect.
Best course of action is:
1) don't do anything until after Adept nerf
2) wait until we have more than 1 top Korean late game TvP to judge Liberators by
3) if they're demonstrably too difficult to deal with, buff Stalker anti-air.
Actually 3) might be a good idea regardless, now that Phoenix isn't a reliable counter to Muta.
|
On December 24 2015 07:13 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 02:04 Sissors wrote:
Isn't Liberator research already on fusion core? Maybe they should just make their anti ground attack something you need to research. And nothing stupid like 200/200 which takes 2 minutes, but 100/100 max which is done relatively fast, but something you need to invest in, and requires a tech lab. I'm not sure what problem this is meant to address, and how. All you're doing is opening up the window in which Terrans are already vulnerable to Protoss aggression, before Terran can stabilize. But if he does stabilize, and goes on to play a 20 minute game - the sort of game that might prove Liberators are too difficult to deal with - I don't see a one-time delay of 45 seconds having any meaningful effect. Best course of action is: 1) don't do anything until after Adept nerf 2) wait until we have more than 1 top Korean late game TvP to judge Liberators by 3) if they're demonstrably too difficult to deal with, buff Stalker anti-air. Actually 3) might be a good idea regardless, now that Phoenix isn't a reliable counter to Muta.
Wait, is this post suggesting that Liberators are too difficult to deal with as Protoss (just want to make sure I'm reading this right)?
|
On December 24 2015 08:55 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 07:13 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 23 2015 02:04 Sissors wrote:
Isn't Liberator research already on fusion core? Maybe they should just make their anti ground attack something you need to research. And nothing stupid like 200/200 which takes 2 minutes, but 100/100 max which is done relatively fast, but something you need to invest in, and requires a tech lab. I'm not sure what problem this is meant to address, and how. All you're doing is opening up the window in which Terrans are already vulnerable to Protoss aggression, before Terran can stabilize. But if he does stabilize, and goes on to play a 20 minute game - the sort of game that might prove Liberators are too difficult to deal with - I don't see a one-time delay of 45 seconds having any meaningful effect. Best course of action is: 1) don't do anything until after Adept nerf 2) wait until we have more than 1 top Korean late game TvP to judge Liberators by 3) if they're demonstrably too difficult to deal with, buff Stalker anti-air. Actually 3) might be a good idea regardless, now that Phoenix isn't a reliable counter to Muta. Wait, is this post suggesting that Liberators are too difficult to deal with as Protoss (just want to make sure I'm reading this right)?
That is the current consensus on TL. Based on anecdotal ladder experience and a single PvT between herO and TY.
|
On December 24 2015 09:32 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 08:55 TimeSpiral wrote:
Wait, is this post suggesting that Liberators are too difficult to deal with as Protoss (just want to make sure I'm reading this right)? That is the current consensus on TL. Based on anecdotal ladder experience and a single PvT between herO and TY.
I'm surprised to hear this as well. Don't get me wrong; it was very clear from the get-go that they would be game-changing, and the damage output is insane. But I think it's definitely a unit that, as the game matures, players have an easier time dealing with (regarding the anti-ground mode, that is). It's one of the few siege units that must be immobilized, it has a limited area in which it can fire, and this area is broadcasted to the opposing player. Also, like the siege tank, it has a window of vulnerability between moving and activation time. If you're unable to catch it then, you can still do your best to fight around liberation zones. Contrast this to the disruptor, for instance, which forces a retreat with every shot.
Regarding its anti-air, it's not as useful as it is against Zerg, that's for sure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Protoss air units don't struggle in this regard, unless the air army is clumped up vs a critical mass of liberators.
|
United Kingdom12047 Posts
On December 20 2015 08:41 Glorfindel! wrote:Well, you know a unit is broken when the Korean protosses repeats how broken the unit is in PvT, calling the match up a free win
Mech is actually pretty good vs Adepts. I laugh when they run into my base when I have hellions. >:D
|
Make the pylon overcharge hit only units and not buildings, like the liberator. That would solve a lot already
|
On December 25 2015 08:49 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Make the pylon overcharge hit only units and not buildings, like the liberator. That would solve a lot already
makes bit of problem vs bunker rush
|
Sad that they'd consider nerfing adrenal...after 5 years it suddenly went from the most worthless upgrade Zerg had to being a to-die-for upgrade that I love incorporating into builds. And the power of adrenal lings actually makes defensive, "counter-attack when they push while holding the home with lurkers" style builds and mass, mass ling builds feel powerful.
Now zerglings are going back to the trash heap (I know, not quite that bad, but the upgrade isn't nearly as alluring after such a big nerf).
|
On December 24 2015 07:13 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2015 02:04 Sissors wrote:
Isn't Liberator research already on fusion core? Maybe they should just make their anti ground attack something you need to research. And nothing stupid like 200/200 which takes 2 minutes, but 100/100 max which is done relatively fast, but something you need to invest in, and requires a tech lab. I'm not sure what problem this is meant to address, and how. All you're doing is opening up the window in which Terrans are already vulnerable to Protoss aggression, before Terran can stabilize. But if he does stabilize, and goes on to play a 20 minute game - the sort of game that might prove Liberators are too difficult to deal with - I don't see a one-time delay of 45 seconds having any meaningful effect. Best course of action is: 1) don't do anything until after Adept nerf 2) wait until we have more than 1 top Korean late game TvP to judge Liberators by 3) if they're demonstrably too difficult to deal with, buff Stalker anti-air. Actually 3) might be a good idea regardless, now that Phoenix isn't a reliable counter to Muta.
Well it would address the placing of Liberators in mineral lines early on, which sometimes seem to be a significant issue. Late game it of course doesn't change anything.
However 3) seems like a really weird solution. If the Liberator is the issue, why would you boost the stalker against medivacs, banshees, battlecruisers, overlords/seers, corruptors, broodlords, carriers, voidrays, etc?
|
On December 25 2015 17:06 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 07:13 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 23 2015 02:04 Sissors wrote:
Isn't Liberator research already on fusion core? Maybe they should just make their anti ground attack something you need to research. And nothing stupid like 200/200 which takes 2 minutes, but 100/100 max which is done relatively fast, but something you need to invest in, and requires a tech lab. I'm not sure what problem this is meant to address, and how. All you're doing is opening up the window in which Terrans are already vulnerable to Protoss aggression, before Terran can stabilize. But if he does stabilize, and goes on to play a 20 minute game - the sort of game that might prove Liberators are too difficult to deal with - I don't see a one-time delay of 45 seconds having any meaningful effect. Best course of action is: 1) don't do anything until after Adept nerf 2) wait until we have more than 1 top Korean late game TvP to judge Liberators by 3) if they're demonstrably too difficult to deal with, buff Stalker anti-air. Actually 3) might be a good idea regardless, now that Phoenix isn't a reliable counter to Muta. Well it would address the placing of Liberators in mineral lines early on, which sometimes seem to be a significant issue. Late game it of course doesn't change anything.
This doesn't seem to be a significant issue, from what I've seen. The only area of concern I have is Protoss's ability to engage into lategame mass Liberator compositions. Then again, if that's true, I don't know how it's different from Terran struggling to engage into Disruptors. I'm reserving judgment on Libs until we see more high level TvPs.
However 3) seems like a really weird solution. If the Liberator is the issue, why would you boost the stalker against medivacs, banshees, battlecruisers, overlords/seers, corruptors, broodlords, carriers, voidrays, etc?
Because 1) a lot of air units in SC2 are too strong in general and I'd like to see ground anti-air buffs across the board (Cyclone, Stalker, Hydra), and 2) Protoss is especially fucked because their only other reliable counter to Mutalisks, the Phoenix, is hard countered by Vipers. I think we're going to see a lot of games in the coming weeks with Protoss dying to Mutas or BL/Viper.
|
On December 25 2015 13:45 Qwyn wrote:
Sad that they'd consider nerfing adrenal...after 5 years it suddenly went from the most worthless upgrade Zerg had to being a to-die-for upgrade that I love incorporating into builds. And the power of adrenal lings actually makes defensive, "counter-attack when they push while holding the home with lurkers" style builds and mass, mass ling builds feel powerful.
Now zerglings are going back to the trash heap (I know, not quite that bad, but the upgrade isn't nearly as alluring after such a big nerf).
Very true. I kind was hoping they would buff Zealots rather then nerf the Zergling, maybe buff passive movement speed more after getting charge, or buffing the charge attack dmg up from 8.
And the issue is definetly more Toss related. Lategame Terran just needs to get building armor upgrade and its a huge help against ling run bys.
|
On December 25 2015 20:28 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 13:45 Qwyn wrote:
Sad that they'd consider nerfing adrenal...after 5 years it suddenly went from the most worthless upgrade Zerg had to being a to-die-for upgrade that I love incorporating into builds. And the power of adrenal lings actually makes defensive, "counter-attack when they push while holding the home with lurkers" style builds and mass, mass ling builds feel powerful.
Now zerglings are going back to the trash heap (I know, not quite that bad, but the upgrade isn't nearly as alluring after such a big nerf). Very true. I kind was hoping they would buff Zealots rather then nerf the Zergling, maybe buff passive movement speed more after getting charge, or buffing the charge attack dmg up from 8. And the issue is definetly more Toss related. Lategame Terran just needs to get building armor upgrade and its a huge help against ling run bys.
....building armor upgrade?
|
I research building armor quite often, maybe also because I am a bit a turtler, but against zerg it can be really good in the long run. (And also against the other races, although it is situational). I can't speak for toss, I do know cracklings kill my PFs crazy fast, but I also do know if I have proper simcity it is significantly reduced in effectiveness.
On December 25 2015 17:53 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 17:06 Sissors wrote:On December 24 2015 07:13 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 23 2015 02:04 Sissors wrote:
Isn't Liberator research already on fusion core? Maybe they should just make their anti ground attack something you need to research. And nothing stupid like 200/200 which takes 2 minutes, but 100/100 max which is done relatively fast, but something you need to invest in, and requires a tech lab. I'm not sure what problem this is meant to address, and how. All you're doing is opening up the window in which Terrans are already vulnerable to Protoss aggression, before Terran can stabilize. But if he does stabilize, and goes on to play a 20 minute game - the sort of game that might prove Liberators are too difficult to deal with - I don't see a one-time delay of 45 seconds having any meaningful effect. Best course of action is: 1) don't do anything until after Adept nerf 2) wait until we have more than 1 top Korean late game TvP to judge Liberators by 3) if they're demonstrably too difficult to deal with, buff Stalker anti-air. Actually 3) might be a good idea regardless, now that Phoenix isn't a reliable counter to Muta. Well it would address the placing of Liberators in mineral lines early on, which sometimes seem to be a significant issue. Late game it of course doesn't change anything. This doesn't seem to be a significant issue, from what I've seen. The only area of concern I have is Protoss's ability to engage into lategame mass Liberator compositions. Then again, if that's true, I don't know how it's different from Terran struggling to engage into Disruptors. I'm reserving judgment on Libs until we see more high level TvPs. Show nested quote +However 3) seems like a really weird solution. If the Liberator is the issue, why would you boost the stalker against medivacs, banshees, battlecruisers, overlords/seers, corruptors, broodlords, carriers, voidrays, etc? Because 1) a lot of air units in SC2 are too strong in general and I'd like to see ground anti-air buffs across the board (Cyclone, Stalker, Hydra), and 2) Protoss is especially fucked because their only other reliable counter to Mutalisks, the Phoenix, is hard countered by Vipers. I think we're going to see a lot of games in the coming weeks with Protoss dying to Mutas or BL/Viper.
Imo there the solution is first nerfing PB to normal stats. While toss seems to not be too great vs some air units, I think you really need to be careful, and a flat out boost of the most flexible toss unit against every single air unit seems really dangerous to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
