EPTWhy they change Zergling when Ultral still OP.
Why they change Thor when Tank(core mech) is not tank anymore.
I think they should redesign Viper. It is just like Raven of WoL.
Community Feedback Update - December 18 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
imVNC
6 Posts
Why they change Zergling when Ultral still OP. Why they change Thor when Tank(core mech) is not tank anymore. I think they should redesign Viper. It is just like Raven of WoL. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On December 19 2015 13:30 imVNC wrote: Why they change PO when Colosy is useless. Why they change Zergling when Ultral still OP. Why they change Thor when Tank(core mech) is not tank anymore. I think they should redesign Viper. It is just like Raven of WoL. Zest doesn't seem to think Colossi are useless. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On December 19 2015 11:25 Excalibur_Z wrote: I'm gonna crosspost what I put on the Bnet forums: Wow, wow, wow. So much content to go over here. 1. 10 subdivisions per league is a lot. There's going to be a lot of tier changing per player. If you want the rankings to be accurate at a glance, if you want them to be meaningful, they need to also be current. There is one distinct advantage to no-demotions and that is being able to easily identify smurfs. When you see someone in Diamond playing against a true Bronze, you know that's a player who has intentionally tanked his rating (or is playing unranked, and those two things have a lot of potential overlap). However, this is sidestepped by the Leave League button. The solution here is simple: remove the Leave League button (why is it still there?), and clearly show on the score screen when a player is playing Unranked (change the color of the unranked player's MMR to match his race-specific unranked MMR: red for Terran, purple for Zerg, yellow for Protoss). Only by doing these two things will it still make sense to not have demotions. 2. Bonus pool is in a weird state, because there are still two parallel ranking systems that exist: points and MMR. As long as you're still using points, then it's okay to keep using bonus pool because the points effectively don't matter for accurate matchmaking, but they still do matter for ranking visibility within a tier. The bizarre part is that with tier buckets being so narrow, and because earned bonus pool points follow you across promotions, your current displayed position is even less of an indicator toward progress into the next tier than it currently is. For enthusiasts on Reddit and TL, it's not a big deal because eventually people will figure out the MMR breakpoints per tier, but it still feels wonky to have to consult external sources to figure out the age-old "okay, now how close am I?" 3. Separating Master and GM makes sense in a way, but feels bad at the same time. Assuming bonus pool sticks around, there is no other way to sort players than by points (since bonus pool influences points). GM would necessarily have to be separate because otherwise you would have weird inconsistencies where the #200 player has a lower MMR than the #201 player, but has more points, making them GM. The only way it makes sense to have one fluid league (which I advocate, by the way) is to eliminate bonus pool for Master+ and rank by MMR. In the event that you still need an activity measurement, require a set number of games per week for players in the top 200 (I'd even consider the return of MMR decay for this specific instance). If you're good enough to hit the top 200 but can't fit in 10 games for the week, you would decay some minor amount (or maybe your rating is set equal to the #250 or #300 player?). The other reason separating Master and GM feels weird is because the MMR threshold for GM is dynamic. Master players don't really have a way of answering "okay, now how close am I?" like they could for lower tiers, even when MMR is published. There's a lot of guess-and-check posting that could be avoided by making that more transparent, and the way you do that is by showing upfront who you have to overthrow in the #200 spot to get promoted. Creating periodic updates to GM league doesn't really address this. Overall, I'm really excited about these changes, and I'm expecting great things here. 1. You can get the same benefit of being able to detect smurfs simply by displaying their highest league in the season somewhere on the profile or perhaps the portrait border without needing to ditch mid-season demotions. 2. Agree, except for conclusion that it is acceptable that points/ranks are wrong because MMR is right. Both should be right. But at least it's better than the current situation where points/ranks are wrong and MMR is not displayed. 3. If you remove the bonus pool for GM and Masters only, then you haven't eliminated the inconsistency between MMR and points, you've just shifted it from the GM/Master boundary to the Master/Diamond boundary. Sure, in terms of accuracy and precision, displaying MMR is about as accurate and precise as you can possibly get. However, having 2 parallel ways of ranking, MMR and points/ranks, would be confusing for the average player that doesn't have an extensive knowledge of ranking systems, and the latter system is inaccurate as a skill ranking. That's not to say, don't show MMR, MMR should definitely be shown, but the points/ranks system should also be accurate and the meaning should be made clear to players. When people ask "If MMR is my skill, then what the hell is my point/rank?", how will Blizzard respond? Ideally, the average player should be able to easily answer this question because they clearly understand the meaning of both ways of ranking and the difference between them. | ||
Tresher
Germany404 Posts
On December 19 2015 11:09 StatixEx wrote: ...aaannnd teran just stay super strong . . nice! Is this some kind of bad troll attempt or sarcasm? Because Terran isn´t strong at all. Especially vs the race you play. | ||
|
Dratini25
10 Posts
| ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On December 19 2015 13:47 Dratini25 wrote: lol still virtually no nerf for zerg... no ravager nerf. no1 cares about the whole 8 extra seconds it takes to morph a ravager now, NERF THE REAL CAUSE OF THE BREAKAGE OF ZERG the ravager stupid bile damage. the ULTRAS........... and well lurkers. how about a DAMAGER NERF instead of timing nerfs. is it really that hard to balance zerg no.. lol but whatever. zvp is stupidly favored for zerg right now and zvt is the same way... protoss and terran suffer at the feat of crappy zerg players that shouldn't be where they're at because of the inject queing and the ravager allin... Hero just crushed 2 of the best zergs in the world. We should be crying for decent maps and before that balancing is done half blind. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On December 19 2015 13:28 jinjin5000 wrote: eh? Nah. its a buff to mech. No way its straight up buff to bio tankivac you can argue its a buff to bio but thor? no way. The argument is it helps bio more than mech. Mech's problem is it gets countered way too hard and Thor's AA buff doesn't help with that. However with Bio we're already seeing Thors being used as meatshields vs Ultras to help Ghosts and Thors being able to zone out Corrupter/Viper gives them more reason to be used, as long as they have +3 Weapons which is feasible and actually common if you're going Marine/Tank. | ||
|
SirPinky
United States525 Posts
| ||
|
Thouhastmail
Korea (North)876 Posts
Send them to SSL or GSL, not HSC you stuffy.. | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On December 19 2015 09:31 Big J wrote: PO damage increase is bad, bad, bad. Workers 2 -->1 shot Marines 2 --> 1 shot zerglings 2 --> 1shot hellions 3 --> 2 shots to name some of the most massive changes. I mean so far you talked about wanting to nerf the PO down, now you argue that the nerf would actually nerf PO and you don't want it to be nerfed... What? Zergling change sounds good, Viper change sounds good as well, ravager change sounds good too. Thor sounds too much for me, dunno, but I've been playing mass Thor based Mech a lot in WoL and HotS against Zerg (and a bit against Protoss) and my personal experience in that matchup was that Zerg has a really hard time countering them with anything but Broodlords in the lategame if there is just a bit of hellbat support. There are still: - mass ravagers - neural parasite with 7 range (yes, it was buffed back from 6 to 7 range in beta) - lurkers (not so effective, eh) - blinding cloud and abducts - buffed ultralisks | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
On December 19 2015 14:09 SirPinky wrote: Help me please: Thor AA damage to flat 12 - Is this a nerf to Thor vs Muta?? If this is to help Thor in the long game but suck more vs muta (other than switching to liberator ASAP) I don't want it. You're forgetting attack multipler. Thors will be same vs muta and do more dmg to non-lights | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On December 19 2015 13:49 RaFox17 wrote: Hero just crushed 2 of the best zergs in the world. We should be crying for decent maps and before that balancing is done half blind. So you want the game to be balanced around a predictable map pool, when we just got through WoL and HotS, where every map was basically the same. If you balance the game around a pool of substantially different maps, you have a healthier game in the end, screw what's easy or difficult to do, think about what's best in the end. | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On December 19 2015 14:22 NewSunshine wrote: So you want the game to be balanced around a predictable map pool, when we just got through WoL and HotS, where every map was basically the same. If you balance the game around a pool of substantially different maps, you have a healthier game in the end, screw what's easy or difficult to do, think about what's best in the end. These boring maps are great for finding out what really is too strong or underpowered. After you have done that you can make really strange maps use you know the strengths and weaknesses of each race. What you are proposing is like building a house without any blueprints and hoping for the best. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On December 19 2015 14:09 SirPinky wrote: Help me please: Thor AA damage to flat 12 - Is this a nerf to Thor vs Muta?? If this is to help Thor in the long game but suck more vs muta (other than switching to liberator ASAP) I don't want it. Right now it's: 6 (+6 vs Light) x 4, totaling to 24(48 vs Light) damage. In the PTR, it'll be: 12 x 4, totaling to 48 damage. Same damage vs light units(Mutas), but a pretty significant buff against non-light units. | ||
|
SirPinky
United States525 Posts
On December 19 2015 14:31 HeroMystic wrote: Right now it's: 6 (+6 vs Light) x 4, totaling to 24(48 vs Light) damage. In the PTR, it'll be: 12 x 4, totaling to 48 damage. Same damage vs light units(Mutas), but a pretty significant buff against non-light units. Ok thanks for explaining! | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
1) nothing about adepts, which are absurd atm 2) parasitic bomb will still be OP imo, stackable, u can have 10+ vipers that just insta do damage with it... 3) ultra 8 armor/marauder split attack? No word 4) they are BUFFING pylon overcharge to 1 shot marine/workers.... um ..... yeah.... @_@ please god no help us all 5) thor buff? bout time? Will it matter? Why still no word about siege tanks? Thread upon thread on TL about how tanks basically are terrible atm and got even worse in LOTV...this thor buff is really all blizzard has even said about "mech" and how many "mech" games have there been in LOTV in tournament play? ZERO?! I THINK?! Literally. 6) invincible nydus worm is still in this game -_- 7) making ravagers take longer to morph won't change the fact Z can just mass roach/ravager every single game 8) cyclones are basically non-existent in the game right now because their stats/cost/utility don't add up properly cost of marauder: 100/25/2 125 HP, has stimpack, healing from medivacs, can be loaded up+dropped, from barracks cost of cyclone: 150/150/3 120 HP (ROFL?), sluggish lock on, single target, low range can't even kill carrier/tempest/brood Yeah...i think it might be a problem when the cyclone is never made because the unit is so poorly balanced. The stats don't add up on it for the cost it has and for it's build time, etc. It doesn't even do it's job of anti-air because of the extremely low lock-on range that took many, many nerfs over the course of beta. IT's a new LOTV unit and it just is really in a bad spot right now - you just only build 1-2 at the start of every tvp and pray :D | ||
|
ValidParties
12 Posts
On December 19 2015 14:31 HeroMystic wrote: Right now it's: 6 (+6 vs Light) x 4, totaling to 24(48 vs Light) damage. In the PTR, it'll be: 12 x 4, totaling to 48 damage. Same damage vs light units(Mutas), but a pretty significant buff against non-light units. Will it still be splash damage? The article seems unclear - "Thor AA damage to flat 12". Are they flattening out the splash along with the bonus vs light? | ||
|
Wrath
3174 Posts
On December 19 2015 09:19 JamesT wrote: took an hour to post to TL? come on people step up the pace! I tried to hunt it, but it was 1 AM in my time. This was posted 2 AM and I had to sleep  | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10668 Posts
| ||
|
Yiome
China1687 Posts
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO david kim! hand off my crackling!!! | ||
| ||
