|
Canada8157 Posts
Multiplayer Design Team Plans
Hey everyone! We’re approaching the end of the year, and there’s a lot going on in Legacy of the Void. So we first want to talk in detail about our multiplayer team’s plans due to the Balance Test Map, additional tournaments, and holiday seasons that are all coming up.
- We are preparing a Balance Test Map right now for release next week.
- We will be looking very closely at the two big events going on this week and this weekend, and make adjustments as needed.
- We originally planned on having design team presence at Homestory Cup this weekend, but due to short time remaining before the holidays, we really had to focus our efforts on getting the balance test map out early next week. We’re sad to say that we can’t make it to HSC, but we are sure TaKe and his crew will run an amazing event as always! And of course, we will absolutely be watching the tournament from Irvine.
- We will be on holiday break for 1-2 weeks starting next week
- There won’t be weekly updates during these 2 weeks, but the multiplayer team will remain fully engaged in keeping up with the state of the game during this time.
- We will also be playtesting the Balance Test Map that will go up next week, as well as checking with pro players on the status of their testing.
- If the need to do a patch ASAP arises, we will be aiming for the first week of January to patch some or all of the changes from the test map into the game.
- We really need to see the upcoming events and how testing goes in order to know the answer to this, but currently it’s looking like we will want to make a couple adjustments early next year before the major tournament season begins.
That’s the current plan on our team. We’re also really looking forward to the pro matches this weekend… We recently learned that "precision beats power and timing beats speed”, so we’re interested to know if this statement also applies to professional SC2 games!
Balance Test Map
We want to review the list of changes we’ll be testing in the Balance Test Map. There could definitely be further changes to this list next week depending on how the upcoming tournaments go, but here’s where we are currently at.
Disruptor: Remove +shield damage
We originally were discussing reducing their effective damage only against other Disruptors, but we are currently thinking if it’ll be better if Disruptors 2-shot majority of the Protoss ground units that they currently 1-shot. The main reason for this is that we agree with the feedback that PvP could become a bit stale to watch if we continue seeing players just shooting Disruptor shots over and over without engagements really happening. What we’re seeing in our internal playtests currently is that the pace of Disruptor combat is a bit more interesting with 2 shots. We can see the possibility of maybe playing a bit more aggressive against Disruptors, perfect Disruptor hits will be more skill based due to needing 2 hits, or unit weapon attacks in combination with 1 Disruptor shot to finish off key units. We also hope to see a bit more unit composition diversity with this change.
Zergling attack speed upgrade bonus decreased from 40% to 30%
We agree with your feedback that maybe we went a bit too far with this change. We definitely want to see more Zergling usage in the late game, but we do also agree with your feedback that the damage bump may have been too much. We want to test going back on this change a little to see if we can tune this upgrade a bit better.
Viper spell damage reduced from 90 to 60
We explored potential design changes as well as numbers tuning in this area, and for now we wonder if tuning the damage down to give more time for opposing players to micro against the ability is better. After this, we will be able to gauge where the ability is, and go from there.
Thor AA damage to flat 12
We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units. While this is effectively a double-damage buff against armored air units, we were noticing in our internal playtests that it doesn’t feel super overpowered. This is probably due to the fact that their damage against armored units was pretty low to begin with, and Thors attack multiple times per hit, making armor also be a big factor as well. However, we also know that internal playtesting doesn’t provide the full picture of a change, so we’d like to test this one out with everyone in order to see if this is in fact the best move for the Thor.
Photon Overcharge
- Energy cost increased from 25 to 50
- Duration increased from 15 to 20
- Damage increased from 30 to 45
The current version of Photon Overcharge makes it a little too hard to threaten a Protoss player in the early game, so we’d like to take a little power out of it. We first tried doubling the duration and energy cost. What we quickly found was that it was a much bigger nerf than we expected. The reasons were that the DPS output for energy cost was halved, and it was two times easier to just kill the Pylon per energy cost used. Therefore, we decided to go less on the duration but also increase the damage so that while we do still have an overall nerf, it’s a smaller nerf compared to what we initially talked about. Let’s see how this plays out in actual games, and continue to tune further if necessary.
Ravager morph time increased from 12 to 20
Like we talked about before, we agree with your feedback regarding the timing and availability of Ravagers. This may be especially important in PvZ where Photon Overcharge is seeing a nerf. We believe a nerf to how quickly Ravagers are morphed from Roaches will definitely help out.
Ladder Revamp
We’ve been discussing the details of our ladder revamp and wanted to give you an update so we can get your feedback on the current direction. A good place to begin is to discuss season duration. With all the things that are changing, this is something we can entirely revisit. In Heart of the Swarm, Ladder Seasons aligned perfectly with the 3 seasons of WCS. However, we’re considering whether Ladder Seasons could be made shorter, allowing you to work towards achieving your maximum potential more frequently. There are definitely pros and cons that we see in each method, but we wanted to hear your thoughts to help decide how we handle Ladder Seasons next year. Please give us your thoughts on this.
We’ve got quite a few other ideas to discuss with you though. Let’s go in-depth and take a look at our current thoughts about the Ladder:
- Bonus pool tuning
- We like how bonus pool is effective as a tool that rewards players for continuing to play.
- The current numbers for bonus pool point accrual don’t seem appropriate for each matchmaking format. We intend to explore our data about how often players/teams play in each format in order to get better numbers per game format.
- Showing MMR
- We’re thinking we can show MMR as a tool for players to use so they can accurately tell exactly what someone’s skill is.
- Tier system
- We still believe it’ll be the most fun for players to focus on which tier of which league he or she belongs to.
- We’re leaning towards keeping mid season demotions disabled here. The main reason for this is that your current skill is portrayed by MMR already, so it will be cooler to see your highest rank that season through the League/tier system.
- Keep loading screen information simple, but have more transparency on the score screen (for example, showing the MMR of both players on there)
- This is mostly based on your feedback saying that too many details about an opponent before a match might introduce weird factors that could disrupt your ability to play well. We’re thinking we can focus on providing that information after the match has ended.
- We are exploring to see if it’s better to have separate leagues for GM and Master
- The main reason for this is that getting promoted to GM is such an awesome experience. If we were to combine these leagues like we discussed at BlizzCon, we would lose this cool factor.
- The most important issue to solve here is to still have accuracy even if we split the leagues. We definitely don’t want the situation that we currently have, where a player is clearly not at the GM level anymore but he can’t get demoted out of it as long as he’s active.
- The current discussion point here is to update GM at set, specific intervals. This way, players can expect a change will happen at a set point of time that is known to everyone, and play the game with this information.
We’re trying to finalize the design details and we hope to begin implementation next year. With this in mind, there is definitely time for everyone to give their input so let’s get discussions going in this area.
League percentiles/match making
We wanted to let you guys know that the sizes of lower leagues are a bit too big right now, and we will be working towards adjusting the lower league boundaries with the season roll early next year. This will mean that players at lower leagues will be more accurately place into their correct leagues.
We’ve also been receiving feedback from the top-end pro players playing the ladder regarding match quality vs. wait time, and we will also be taking a pass at this at the same time frame as well. This issue exists only at the top-end of the ladder, so the majority of players shouldn’t notice a big change. We expect the fixes on both ends will be strong, but we will definitely take measures to double check once the changes go live in case further adjustments are necessary.
Thanks for all your feedback thus far. Let’s get discussions going on the topics discussed above, and thank you as always for your valuable feedback.
linky
|
took an hour to post to TL? come on people step up the pace!
|
Reducing parasitic bomb damage isn't gonna do much other than being worse vs capital ships. Most air units have low health abyway and will get cleaned up by corruptors, which are decent at cleaning up
The real problem is the insta-cast and stacking damage.
|
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.
|
I am a little bit surprised that adept was not even mentioned.
|
Please don't nerf cracklings 
Also, enjoy the holidays balance team!
|
Surprised that there is nothing on reaper abuse and adepts. Everything else looks okish even if I don't think thors need something (losing the thor isn't a big deal and buffing it could lead to some balanced problems)
|
=( Please don't nerf Vipers. They keep us from having to deal with incredibly hard to deal with mass air armies, which basically are only beaten more more mass air.
|
Photon overcharge damage 45...?
1 shot marine
2 shot hydra
any pokes will be deflected so easily with PO and some adepts
DK are you gonna nerf or what man
|
Nerfing lings isn't a good idea.
|
|
|
Are Adepts actually broken? Or is it warp gate that makes it seem like they are broken?
|
Dude is this some kind of shock therapy to keep adepts? "Maybe if we make something else MORE ridiculous, and keep adepts, we can nerf more ridiculous thing and people will forget all about it! PvZ idk because mana is the most important factor, but PvT you can still get the bunker + 2 depots with the Beyblade rush....
Also more than the adepts... The warp prism pickup range is stupid
Edit) read a SGaller post saying PO damage will be "the same" since costs twice as more mana, but increased damage and time) so twice the mana, but twice the damage. I still think this is more of a buff.
|
LOL PO buff and no Adept nerf?
Really?
|
On December 19 2015 09:45 Bareleon wrote:
Are Adepts actually broken? Or is it warp gate that makes it seem like they are broken?
A mixture of both i think. But yeah warp gate keeps being a problem for sure. Will it get changed`? Obviously not
|
About PO:
0.89s-1 * 30dmg * 15s = 400 dmg (for 25 energy)
=
0.89s-1 * 45dmg * 20s = 800 dmg (for 50 energy)
So I wonder what the purpose of this change is when it comes to defend an early aggression with PO?
|
On December 19 2015 09:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 09:45 Bareleon wrote:
Are Adepts actually broken? Or is it warp gate that makes it seem like they are broken? A mixture of both i think. But yeah warp gate keeps being a problem for sure. Will it get changed`? Obviously not
Maybe increase the time it takes for them to warp in?
|
PO buff, no adept nerf, zergling nerf and viper nerf.
Yep, all seems to be right in the world. Only protoss is allowed efficient units.
|
I love that making Thor damage flat 'doesn't feel super overpowered' go figure.
Would a tank buff help TvP regarding adepts? Couldn't T siege up somewhere with good coverage so the tank helps zone out the adepts, so it's more important for P to be careful? Doesn't that add a really interesting timing dynamic too, does the tank come out in time? Does P rush adepts while T goes reactor expand so the tank is late?
how come this kind of basic discussion doesn't even seem like it's on their agenda
|
On December 19 2015 09:50 BiiG-Fr wrote:
About PO:
0.89s-1 * 30dmg * 15s = 400 dmg (for 25 energy)
=
0.89s-1 * 45dmg * 20s = 800 dmg (for 50 energy)
So I wonder what the purpose of this change is when it comes to defend an early aggression with PO?
If you kill the Pylon and overkill and defending more places at once.
|
Zealots were a bit too weak vs Zerglings late game, so I think crackling nerf is fine.
Overcharge, I really just want it at 35 energy, it's really the sweet spot I feel.
Thors change make it too similar to Liberator.
Parasitic Bomb, mb the nerf was needed, but it can still instant kill all, you just need 1.5x the number of Vipers now. Dno why they can't just leave it as strong as it needs to be, while removing the ability to stack. This way we might actually see the Abduct? See the Blinding Cloud? I feel like 2 abilities have been removed, because it's better to just rapid fire click this on everything air. They're really cool spells too.
|
Guys, there are no Terrans in SSL and GSL. let's buff Pylons and do some negligable nerfs to Zerg!
|
On December 19 2015 09:50 BiiG-Fr wrote:
About PO:
0.89s-1 * 30dmg * 15s = 400 dmg (for 25 energy)
=
0.89s-1 * 45dmg * 20s = 800 dmg (for 50 energy)
So I wonder what the purpose of this change is when it comes to defend an early aggression with PO?
Waiting out PO is the strongest tactic against it now since it cannot be spammed.
Still, this is a pretty shitty way to go about it. They more or less just made it more extreme.
|
On December 19 2015 10:02 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 09:50 BiiG-Fr wrote:
About PO:
0.89s-1 * 30dmg * 15s = 400 dmg (for 25 energy)
=
0.89s-1 * 45dmg * 20s = 800 dmg (for 50 energy)
So I wonder what the purpose of this change is when it comes to defend an early aggression with PO?
If you kill the Pylon and overkill and defending more places at once.
Pylons counter everything Terran now with half the shots. lmao.
|
On December 19 2015 09:39 Isarios wrote:
=( Please don't nerf Vipers. They keep us from having to deal with incredibly hard to deal with mass air armies, which basically are only beaten more more mass air.
Lol... You dont say?
|
United States12231 Posts
Showing MMR. Boy howdy. Talk about a 180 from their WoL stance where they adamantly said it would never, ever happen. Wow, wow, wow.
|
MMR pr. race didn't happen yet, did it?
|
On December 19 2015 10:07 ejozl wrote:
Zealots were a bit too weak vs Zerglings late game, so I think crackling nerf is fine.
Overcharge, I really just want it at 35 energy, it's really the sweet spot I feel.
Thors change make it too similar to Liberator.
Parasitic Bomb, mb the nerf was needed, but it can still instant kill all, you just need 1.5x the number of Vipers now. Dno why they can't just leave it as strong as it needs to be, while removing the ability to stack. This way we might actually see the Abduct? See the Blinding Cloud? I feel like 2 abilities have been removed, because it's better to just rapid fire click this on everything air. They're really cool spells too.
This is something I have never understood. Why do the spells absolutely have to be a multiple of 25 ?
|
I don't see the thor change actually being OP, the damage would be pretty big, but at the end of the day, thors still suck, wich plays a big factor. Altough I think a tank buff is way more needed to make mech actually playable, but its still a good change.
|
If you kill the Pylon and overkill and defending more places at once.
You wont even try to kill a pylon with this kind of dps with an early push, and the mid game defense with 2 or 3 pylons on steroids will be even more insane!
|
I know it's just a balance map but nerfing three things the same time for one race is a bit much.
|
I really prefered GM and Master being the "same league". Once you hit the top 200 mark you get into GM. Staying rank 1 masters forever really isn't fun for anyone.
|
On December 19 2015 10:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Showing MMR. Boy howdy. Talk about a 180 from their WoL stance where they adamantly said it would never, ever happen. Wow, wow, wow.
the decision making team behind stuff like this is probably a different group of people compared to March 2010. Pardo really had a "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen" type of mindset. As time passes since his departure this kind of mindset amongst Pardo's former underlings at Blizz diminishes,
|
You can buff thor anti-air to the moon and I still dont think people woud use them.. Too slow and clunky
|
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can destroy pylons fast..
|
On December 19 2015 10:37 StarscreamG1 wrote:
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can the destroy pylons fast.
agreed!
|
On December 19 2015 10:21 ejozl wrote:
MMR pr. race didn't happen yet, did it?
Not yet, no.
|
On December 19 2015 10:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Showing MMR. Boy howdy. Talk about a 180 from their WoL stance where they adamantly said it would never, ever happen. Wow, wow, wow.
Other games forcing their hand.
|
On December 19 2015 10:25 BiiG-Fr wrote:You wont even try to kill a pylon with this kind of dps with an early push, and the mid game defense with 2 or 3 pylons on steroids will be even more insane!
2 Pylons for 50 energy did more damage. It's overall a nerf, but like I said they simply made a more extreme version that's weaker in effectiveness but stronger at what it's meant to do (defend early aggression). Still, just waiting out of range is a powerful strat since it can't be spammed now.
|
If you really want mech play to be viable, you need incentives. Right now there are multiple counters to mech play yet other areas were nerfed.
There are 2 huge and glaring holes to this. You would need:
1)solid factory AA unit that can double as meatshield for tank that can respond to opposition air addition without having to go back to produce viking/air (hole for viper or broodlotd on Tvz and any stargate in tvp)
2) siege tanks need to hold ground
Maybe thor will fill the belated Aa role; but my worry is that big supply units often need critical number and the power goes down exponentially once down
Second part:siege tank needing to hold ground is big part- right now, siege tank is arguably the weakest siege unit of 3 races it trades most mobility while giving it least splash and firepower. We've seen few lurkers and meatshield front hold its own vs protoss army and others while siege tank is wholly ignored and blinked/charged in.
Solution isn't to give it medivac mobility so it's a glorified widow mine splash giver. Its to actually allow it to hold ground and prevent opponent from rushing in, just like lurker and Disruptor provides in each matchup
In addition to lack of firepower, siege tank had least health of siege units-which I think is right. 200 hp on lurker and Disruptor is bit much since they can take and give damage judt as well. Siege units really should have lower health since they are zoning tool that should hold ground but shouldn't be able to by itself without support.
Also, right now, for tvz mech to work, there needs to be anti-viper, but problem is, viper can deal with both air, ground, and high priority target with para bomb, binding cloud, and abduct. In hots, it was balanced due to there being hard counter for it (vikings) to zone out vipers from putting binding cloud, but as of now, viper has lots of utility. Para bomb nerfing won't do much as air units are inherently weak in hp anyway and para bomb biggest strength is its huge aoe radius and stackability in addition to it being hard to tell which unit if affected. Terran air upgrade split affects this as vikings won't be able to kill vipers quickly enough and production is slow to begin with. If air is cleaned up, tank will be free meat to binding/abducts for big time. Same with big 6 supply thor and abduct pick offs.
|
On December 19 2015 10:37 StarscreamG1 wrote:
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can destroy pylons fast..
whoa this was actually talked about in sgall
|
On December 19 2015 11:02 RCCar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 10:37 StarscreamG1 wrote:
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can destroy pylons fast.. whoa this was actually talked about in sgall
whats "sgall"?
|
...aaannnd teran just stay super strong . . nice!
|
On December 19 2015 11:04 StarscreamG1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 11:02 RCCar wrote:On December 19 2015 10:37 StarscreamG1 wrote:
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can destroy pylons fast.. whoa this was actually talked about in sgall whats "sgall"?
Its a Korean community for Starcraft. Interesting to see how two communities would think the same think
|
On December 19 2015 11:11 RCCar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 11:04 StarscreamG1 wrote:On December 19 2015 11:02 RCCar wrote:On December 19 2015 10:37 StarscreamG1 wrote:
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can destroy pylons fast.. whoa this was actually talked about in sgall whats "sgall"? Its a Korean community for Starcraft. Interesting to see how two communities would think the same think
Ok, nice then. The msc starting with 50 energy it can even cause stupid things like what parting did at dreamhack, destroying it to get another one eith the 50 energy.
|
|
|
United States12231 Posts
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.
|
What are they smoking? 45 damage? Is there any unit does this much dps in the game?? Why there need to be a heroic unit that kills anything comes close? PvZ is really really not fun at all. Zerg can't do any agressive moves while adepts running around between hatches like a walk in the park.
|
that 45 damage is really going to really stop that marine tank push that a good chunk of terran has been doing to stop protoss fast third due to this ablity. Not digging it very much.
|
On December 19 2015 11:14 StarscreamG1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 11:11 RCCar wrote:On December 19 2015 11:04 StarscreamG1 wrote:On December 19 2015 11:02 RCCar wrote:On December 19 2015 10:37 StarscreamG1 wrote:
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can destroy pylons fast.. whoa this was actually talked about in sgall whats "sgall"? Its a Korean community for Starcraft. Interesting to see how two communities would think the same think Ok, nice then. The msc starting with 50 energy it can even cause stupid things like what parting did at dreamhack, destroying it to get another one eith the 50 energy.
How is that stupid? It's a very rare and situational cool thing to see IMO  .
|
had to have a good chuckle at the first handful of posts saying the PO change was a 'buff'. TL never disappoints
|
This is an absolutely amazing community update. I can not wait to test these changes out and I do obviously hope every single balance change goes through.
|
Looking forward to testing the Thor change. Mech could use a little help!
|
Ladder revamp looks so good! Is this come to 2016 S1? or more later?
|
Here are my thoughts on the ladder revamp which I've posted on the B.net forums:
The "ladder revamp" is terrible. Basically, you want to remove the GM lockout, but for everyone else you want to reuse the same inaccurate ranking system that is wrong and distorted by bonus pool just with more precision by splitting each league into 10, and claim "Oh it's OK that the ranking system is wrong, because we'll show the MMR, which is right".
Why can't we have a ranking system that is right, and still show the MMR?
I don't think you've thought through the PURPOSE of a ranking system and the PURPOSE of displaying MMR, and how they differ.
Are you trying to create an accurate ranking system or a progression system? Because it's very clear that you're trying to create a progression system but calling it an accurate ranking system and telling us that it's OK because we'll display MMR.
It's not OK.
1. Bonus Pool Must be Scrapped
Bonus pool tuning
We like how bonus pool is effective as a tool that rewards players for continuing to play.
The current numbers for bonus pool point accrual don’t seem appropriate for each matchmaking format. We intend to explore our data about how often players/teams play in each format in order to get better numbers per game format.
No. Bonus pool is the most distortionary factor that makes your rank wrong and it needs to be removed.
By the end of the season, a extremely large majority of your points is bonus pool, meaning that ladder ranks are largely about massing games (up until bonus pool is spent at the end of the season), not skill.
Bonus pool creates a treadmill effect where you are penalized by having your rank intrinsically decline every single hour, and you need to play to get back up to the same position.
Bonus pool distorts ranks. When a player's MMR has actually decreased, bonus pool artificially props up his rank by increasing the time taken for points to self-correct.
Bonus pool penalizes people who start the season later. If a player has 1500 MMR, 300 uncertainty about MMR and spent all his bonus pool, and another player has join the season later, requires 100 games to spend his bonus pool, but after 10 games has 1500 MMR, 300 uncertainty about MMR, then why should the second player be ranked significantly lower after these 10 games, when in fact both players are the exact same? Why should the ranks be wrong until the second player needlessly plays an additional 90 games? There is no reason. It's an attempt to make ranks wrong by obfuscating them.
Bonus pool rewards activity, but there is no reason to reward activity when what we really want to know is uncertainty about MMR. There is no need to use bonus pool or activity as a proxy to uncertainty about MMR, when you can directly calculate uncertainty about MMR and factor it into ranks directly. There is a need to stop inactive players from clogging up the ranks, but that can be dealt with by having shorter seasons and a play X (X = 20 sounds about right) games in the season requirement.
When players are on multiple ladders (e.g. 1v1, 2v2, multiple arrange teams, multiple archon partners), they are penalized by the bonus pool unless they spend the bonus pool on every ladder. If a player is on 10 ladders, they will need to play 10 times as many games as an exclusively 1v1 player or else the bonus pool will heavily penalize them.
The ranking system will NEVER BE ACCURATE unless you SCRAP the bonus pool penalty.
If you disregard all these facts showing the bonus pool is distortionary and makes ranks wrong and choose to keep the bonus pool, at least use a more accurate name so that you are not deceiving your players because it's NOT a bonus, rename it to "penalty pool".
2. MMR vs League/Ranks/Points
Showing MMR
We’re thinking we can show MMR as a tool for players to use so they can accurately tell exactly what someone’s skill is.
Tier system
We still believe it’ll be the most fun for players to focus on which tier of which league he or she belongs to.
We’re leaning towards keeping mid season demotions disabled here. The main reason for this is that your current skill is portrayed by MMR already, so it will be cooler to see your highest rank that season through the League/tier system.
Keep loading screen information simple, but have more transparency on the score screen (for example, showing the MMR of both players on there)
This is mostly based on your feedback saying that too many details about an opponent before a match might introduce weird factors that could disrupt your ability to play well. We’re thinking we can focus on providing that information after the match has ended.
Displaying MMR is a great idea.
But having MMR and points being different and no mid-season demotions makes ranks inaccurate.
You are sending mixed and confusing signals to the player. On one hand you claim that MMR is skill (despite the name "matchmaking rating" doesn't exactly say "skill rating"), on the other hand you claim that league/ranks is skill. But rank and MMR are different. There will be people with high MMR, low league/rank and people with lower MMR, higher league/rank. Which one is really skill? Which is correct? Two metrics, which is the "true" skill rating?
Points should be changed to MMR or moving average of MMR or X% quantile of MMR (X = 5 or 10 or 20, this is what accounts for uncertainty about MMR so that you don't need to have a bonus pool as a terribly bad proxy of uncertainty about MMR) or moving average of the X% quantile of MMR. Or have points track one of these 4 metrics. Track means to have points start at 0 after placement and have points quickly converge to the metric after several games, or to set it equal to the metric after placement and then set change in points equal, up to a cap, to change in the metric. Finally, have leagues as a percentile of points, this is a fluid and continuous scale with no sticky league boundaries.
Under your "display both MMR and league/ranks" plan you are sending mixed signals about which is the "true" rank. Under this suggestion, it is clear: MMR is the current point estimate of skill rating. Points, depending on which of the above metrics you choose, is (the trend of) your skill rating (after accounting for uncertainty in your skill rating). And league/rank is the percentile of points out of all active players.
Distorting ranks by having no mid-season demotions just so that it can be a cosmetic display of your highest league per season is the opposite of what an accurate ranking system should be. If you want to show the highest league in the season, then just display that on the profile, or have the portrait border reflect that, don't wreck the ranking system for it.
Allowing player's to be demoted from their league tier, but not their league would arbitrarily make the league boundaries more special than league tier boundaries, privileging those who just barely scrape into a higher league and creating a bulge of players at the lowest league tier.
3. Season Length
Ladder Revamp
We’ve been discussing the details of our ladder revamp and wanted to give you an update so we can get your feedback on the current direction. A good place to begin is to discuss season duration. With all the things that are changing, this is something we can entirely revisit. In Heart of the Swarm, Ladder Seasons aligned perfectly with the 3 seasons of WCS. However, we’re considering whether Ladder Seasons could be made shorter, allowing you to work towards achieving your maximum potential more frequently. There are definitely pros and cons that we see in each method, but we wanted to hear your thoughts to help decide how we handle Ladder Seasons next year. Please give us your thoughts on this.
We’ve got quite a few other ideas to discuss with you though. Let’s go in-depth and take a look at our current thoughts about the Ladder:
At Blizzcon, you mentioned shorter seasons to reduce the effect of bonus pool, i.e. the effect of massing games, has on increasing ranks. Now you claim that it's "allowing you to work towards achieving your maximum potential more frequently". This statement has no meaning. I've read it again and again, I cannot work out what the meaning of "allowing you to work towards achieving your maximum potential more frequently" is. It is a completely vacuous statement.
Given that MMR, and hence league, is unchanged by seasons, what is the PURPOSE of having seasons if in a perfectly accurate ranking system, everyone would be put back exactly at the same skill rating (and if they're not it wouldn't be a perfectly accurate ranking system because it would mean the previous skill rating was wrong)?
Blizzard probably thinks of seasons of having 2 purposes that are not really valid:
1. To snapshot your ladder rank at a point in time (if so, then why not just snapshot without resetting).
2. A progression system to re-begin the ladder grind (this is antithetical to an accurate ranking system because your skill didn't reset to 0 like your rank at the instant that the ladder reset, in fact it's almost certainly the same, meaning a ladder reset should have zero effect).
But there's another reason to have seasons:
3. To kick inactive players off the ladder.
This is the only legitimate purpose to having seasons and for this purpose, it make sense to have shorter seasons (say, a season every 1.5 to 2 months). The problem, however, is that you want to use bonus pool to penalize inactivity, and bonus pool makes ranks wrong.
To deal with inactivity, it makes more sense to remove bonus pool, have shorter 1.5 to 2 month seasons, and have a play X games in the season requirement (X = 20) in order to have your rank snap-shotted at the end of every season.
4. GM and League Promotions/Demotions
We are exploring to see if it’s better to have separate leagues for GM and Master
The main reason for this is that getting promoted to GM is such an awesome experience. If we were to combine these leagues like we discussed at BlizzCon, we would lose this cool factor.
The most important issue to solve here is to still have accuracy even if we split the leagues. We definitely don’t want the situation that we currently have, where a player is clearly not at the GM level anymore but he can’t get demoted out of it as long as he’s active.
The current discussion point here is to update GM at set, specific intervals. This way, players can expect a change will happen at a set point of time that is known to everyone, and play the game with this information.
Oh, so you think the ladder system is going to be short enough to reduce the penalty of not massing games that is dished out by the bonus pool for the 99.999% of players not in GM, but it isn't going to be short enough for GM players?
Your dilemma here is nonsensical. If GM is the top 200 of Masters, then how do you "lose this cool factor" of being promoted to GM when you still actually have to get into the top 200 to get promoted into GM. So no, you don't lose the cool factor of being promoted. A promotion is still needed at some point in time.
On the other hand, if you make GM a league, i.e. with sticky boundaries, then you're deliberately distorting ranks to keep people who don't deserve to be in the top 200 in GM, hence undermining your claim that you want accurate ranks and for people who don't deserve to be in GM anymore to be kicked out.
Ideally, ALL leagues should be fluid like the GM/Masters boundary, i.e. there are no sticky league boundaries. Your idea of having GM promotions at fixed time intervals (once a week, perhaps) is not a bad one, and it's something I've suggested previously for all leagues, it is better than the distortion of sticky boundaries, because it can be interpreted by players, this is the percentile at a specific point in time, whereas players can not derive any such meaning from failing to be promoted/demoted due to a sticky boundary despite meeting the MMR requirement. Sticky league boundaries must be removed.
Whatever you decide (fluid league boundaries or league updates at fixed times, the former is preferable, the latter is acceptable, but sticky league boundaries must be rejected), it should apply to ALL leagues, not just GM. So if GM updates once a week, every league, including Bronze, should update once a week, there is no reason why only GM should be privileged with this less distortionary way of calculating ranks.
5. Summary of Suggested Changes
- Display MMR.
- Remove bonus pool.
- Reduce season length to 1.5 to 2 months.
- Introduce a play X (X = 20, say) games per season requirement for a player to be considered active. Inactive players are not ranked at the end-of-season snap-shot.
- Choose 1 of the following: Change points to MMR or moving average of MMR or X% quantile of MMR (X = 5 or 10 or 20) or moving average of the X% quantile of MMR, or to track one of these 4 metrics. Be transparent on which you choose, i.e. what points are.
- Determine league and league tiers based on a percentile of points out of active players.
- Add back mid-season demotions and remove all sticky league boundaries.
- Choose 1 of the following: Fluid league boundaries that are updated in real time, or league updates at fixed times such as once a week. Apply this to all leagues, not just GM.
|
It's an overall good patch. I don't think the Thor change matters, Ravagers did seem to hit the field a bit early and parasitic bomb was obviously too strong.
Not sure what impact the Disruptor change will have, but it did seem rather silly watching Protoss just throw balls at each other just hoping they would hit for 10 minutes.
|
On December 19 2015 09:21 jinjin5000 wrote:
Reducing parasitic bomb damage isn't gonna do much other than being worse vs capital ships. Most air units have low health abyway and will get cleaned up by corruptors, which are decent at cleaning up
The real problem is the insta-cast and stacking damage.
Parasitic bomb should be a skill shot like Fungal then, easier to dodge with fast flying units.
|
On December 19 2015 12:51 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 09:21 jinjin5000 wrote:
Reducing parasitic bomb damage isn't gonna do much other than being worse vs capital ships. Most air units have low health abyway and will get cleaned up by corruptors, which are decent at cleaning up
The real problem is the insta-cast and stacking damage. Parasitic bomb should be a skill shot like Fungal then, easier to dodge with fast flying units.
just make unit glow green for 1-2 second before it affectrs the unit so opponent have chance to counter it
|
On December 19 2015 12:36 NKexquisite wrote:
It's an overall good patch. I don't think the Thor change matters, Ravagers did seem to hit the field a bit early and parasitic bomb was obviously too strong.
Not sure what impact the Disruptor change will have, but it did seem rather silly watching Protoss just throw balls at each other just hoping they would hit for 10 minutes.
Air units that'll care most about the Thor buff the most:
-Vikings
-Liberators
-Ravens
-Corruptors
-Vipers
-Void Ray
-Warp Prism
In TvT this'll most likely invalidate Vikings by a severe amount, and Thors will now win vs Liberators. In TvZ, Corruptors will get zoned out pretty hard and this'll keep Liberators safe. The PB nerf means more Vipers are needed and Thors will kill Vipers in three volleys. Nothing really changes in TvP.
Kim said this should be a mech buff but it's actually just make Thors a good support unit for Liberators in TvZ, which in turn will make Liberators a good support unit for Bio, which in turn is a buff to Bio, not Mech.
|
On December 19 2015 13:24 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 12:36 NKexquisite wrote:
It's an overall good patch. I don't think the Thor change matters, Ravagers did seem to hit the field a bit early and parasitic bomb was obviously too strong.
Not sure what impact the Disruptor change will have, but it did seem rather silly watching Protoss just throw balls at each other just hoping they would hit for 10 minutes. Air units that'll care most about the Thor buff the most: -Vikings -Liberators -Ravens -Corruptors -Vipers -Void Ray -Warp Prism In TvT this'll most likely invalidate Vikings by a severe amount, and Thors will now win vs Liberators. In TvZ, Corruptors will get zoned out pretty hard and this'll keep Liberators safe. The PB nerf means more Vipers are needed and Thors will kill Vipers in three volleys. Nothing really changes in TvP. Kim said this should be a mech buff but it's actually just make Thors a good support unit for Liberators in TvZ, which in turn will make Liberators a good support unit for Bio, which in turn is a buff to Bio, not Mech.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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...
|
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.
|
On December 19 2015 13:28 jinjin5000 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 13:24 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 12:36 NKexquisite wrote:
It's an overall good patch. I don't think the Thor change matters, Ravagers did seem to hit the field a bit early and parasitic bomb was obviously too strong.
Not sure what impact the Disruptor change will have, but it did seem rather silly watching Protoss just throw balls at each other just hoping they would hit for 10 minutes. Air units that'll care most about the Thor buff the most: -Vikings -Liberators -Ravens -Corruptors -Vipers -Void Ray -Warp Prism In TvT this'll most likely invalidate Vikings by a severe amount, and Thors will now win vs Liberators. In TvZ, Corruptors will get zoned out pretty hard and this'll keep Liberators safe. The PB nerf means more Vipers are needed and Thors will kill Vipers in three volleys. Nothing really changes in TvP. Kim said this should be a mech buff but it's actually just make Thors a good support unit for Liberators in TvZ, which in turn will make Liberators a good support unit for Bio, which in turn is a buff to Bio, not Mech. 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.
|
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.
|
"We originally planned on having design team presence at Homestory Cup this weekend"
Send them to SSL or GSL, not HSC
you stuffy..
|
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
|
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
|
On December 19 2015 13:49 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
On December 19 2015 14:22 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 13:49 RaFox17 wrote: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. 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.
|
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.
|
On December 19 2015 14:31 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Ok thanks for explaining!
|
So....
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
|
On December 19 2015 14:31 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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?
|
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
|
Sounds good, a little worried about nerfing Vipers though in certain situations >_<
|
Okay I am not usually the bashing-community-feedback-everyweek-type
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO david kim! hand off my crackling!!!
|
On December 19 2015 14:52 ValidParties wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 14:31 HeroMystic wrote: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. 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?
There'll still be splash damage. The "Flat" just means it applies to all unit types (Light, Armored, Psionic, etc).
|
MMR. I almost forgot how u look like since i quit wow arena. I missed you buddy, welcome home. *tears of joy*
|
On December 19 2015 15:06 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 14:52 ValidParties wrote:On December 19 2015 14:31 HeroMystic wrote: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. 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? There'll still be splash damage. The "Flat" just means it applies to all unit types (Light, Armored, Psionic, etc).
Neat. So long, PvT mid-late switch to Void Rays. You will not be missed.
Fingers crossed that Blizzard decides to use Thor's 250mm cannon backpack instead of the dinky grey splotches (missile launchers) near the cockpit. They probably want to keep the attack as a projectile for the sake of PDD. They're creative fellows. I know they can find a way for the 250mm cannons to fire a projectile.
|
|
|
United States12231 Posts
On December 19 2015 13:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I saw your post in the Bnet thread. All valid complaints and criticisms.
I was definitely wrestling with myself when I was writing that post because I see it from both sides. I think I might make a more consolidated ladder revamp suggestion thread since there's a lot to cover. Simply though, for any ranking system, you want to cover two bases: accuracy and activity.
The bonus pool covered activity in a very interesting way. It's not punishing, it's constructive. What's more, the "soft point debt" that is the bonus pool accumulates gradually which means you can spend it at your own pace. Similarly, there's a lot more granularity. Those are tremendous advantages, and because of that, it doesn't feel like a chore.
They've used negative reinforcement activity models with MMR decay in HotS and War3, and those feel really bad. You had to play X number of games within Y time, and if you didn't, you suffered a penalty. Playing games just to keep the system happy does feel like a chore, and that's a sucky experience.
The downside of the bonus pool is obvious: it manipulates points. By doing that, it impacts ranking accuracy. So that sucks too. But, it sucks less if you have an under-the-hood system that's untouched by this, and therefore retains accuracy, so that's... something.
There's obviously more to it and I may write more in the future, but it's a pretty delicate situation.
|
Why does Lurkers have so much range and +Attack for armored anyway? If you compare what a Lurker was in BW it's kinda ridicilous. I think Lurkers range should be nerfed. Still waiting for Ultralisk nerf though..
|
Sounds decent but that leaves me with two big questions:
1# What about the blizzcon talk about allowing people to play each race with a separate mmr so people aren't locked into 1 race?
2# Why cant PO just be like 30 or 35 energy? Why is blizzard taking such a drastic approach to this?
|
On December 19 2015 09:50 BiiG-Fr wrote:
About PO:
0.89s-1 * 30dmg * 15s = 400 dmg (for 25 energy)
=
0.89s-1 * 45dmg * 20s = 800 dmg (for 50 energy)
So I wonder what the purpose of this change is when it comes to defend an early aggression with PO?
Cant be so difficult. With 80 enrgy u can cast 3 PO now. With the new version u can cast 1. So it is a nerf.
|
On December 19 2015 15:24 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 13:42 paralleluniverse wrote: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. I saw your post in the Bnet thread. All valid complaints and criticisms. I was definitely wrestling with myself when I was writing that post because I see it from both sides. I think I might make a more consolidated ladder revamp suggestion thread since there's a lot to cover. Simply though, for any ranking system, you want to cover two bases: accuracy and activity. The bonus pool covered activity in a very interesting way. It's not punishing, it's constructive. What's more, the "soft point debt" that is the bonus pool accumulates gradually which means you can spend it at your own pace. Similarly, there's a lot more granularity. Those are tremendous advantages, and because of that, it doesn't feel like a chore. They've used negative reinforcement activity models with MMR decay in HotS and War3, and those feel really bad. You had to play X number of games within Y time, and if you didn't, you suffered a penalty. Playing games just to keep the system happy does feel like a chore, and that's a sucky experience. The downside of the bonus pool is obvious: it manipulates points. By doing that, it impacts ranking accuracy. So that sucks too. But, it sucks less if you have an under-the-hood system that's untouched by this, and therefore retains accuracy, so that's... something. There's obviously more to it and I may write more in the future, but it's a pretty delicate situation.
Yes, I understand that bonus pool is an attempt to take activity into account. But as I've said, what you really want to know is not activity, but uncertainty about MMR. Activity doesn't matter for the purpose of ranking skill when you know uncertainty about MMR.
As for decay vs bonus pool, decay obviously can't be that bad when you suggested it yourself. In fact, decay has the advantage that people who join the season later don't need to play as many games as an equally skilled person who joined earlier to have the same rank, i.e. these two people with the same MMR, but joined at different times, have the same rank.
But I've moved beyond suggesting decay systems. Instead of, you must play 5 games a week or your rank gets decayed, the possibility of shorter seasons allows for the more elegant solution of, you must play 20 (or some other number) games a season or else you're inactive so that you're not going to get ranked at the end of the season.
No HotS player that I've seen complains that Blizzard should take activity into account for ranks, and so bonus pool should be added to HotS. If bonus pool remains, it should at the least be significantly reduced. E.g. instead of ~100 a week and consuming 12 per game, it should be more like 50 per season, and consuming 2 per game.
Anyway, at least we have MMR now.
|
|
|
I agree with all of the changes except Ravager morph time. Would it not be better to move Ravagers to Lair instead? 8 Seconds does not seem to be much when it comes to delaying the timing.
|
Disruptor: Remove +shield damage
Silly to have in the first place, this is good and over due.
Zergling attack speed upgrade bonus decreased from 40% to 30%
We'll see how OP Zerg really is once the metagame settles down, for now these small nerfs are definitely the right move, this is whatever.
Viper spell damage reduced from 90 to 60
Seems like it could be appropriate but I don't know, Vipers already require tons of micro and PB is decently countered by splitting, maybe something like reducing the damage on the outer half a bit more forgiving?
Thor AA damage to flat 12
Seems like it could be decent, mech doesn't seem particularly weak just kind of sloppily figured out, I guess nerfs can always be made if it's OP so whatever, probably worth trying out.
Photon Overcharge
Energy cost increased from 25 to 50
Duration increased from 15 to 20
Damage increased from 30 to 45
I'm a bit lost on this, I guess it means you will have half as many as you did before so drops might be a bit stronger but that initial one or two are going to hit early game hit squads hard as fuck so I fail to see how this will allow Protoss to be pressured in the early game, someone feel free to explain this to me if I'm missing something.
Ravager morph time increased from 12 to 20
This is good, definitely needed, might make Ravager all ins just a tad weaker in ZvZ which has become a shitfest
All in all I really like this patch, a good little tune up before the holidays, after this patch balance should be left alone and the next big direction should be improving the map pool and giving map makers more incentive to churn out balanced and innovative maps. It's kinda well known that the Blizz team doesn't crank out the uh...highest quality maps in the world.
|
On December 19 2015 15:41 Hotshot wrote:
Sounds decent but that leaves me with two big questions:
1# What about the blizzcon talk about allowing people to play each race with a separate mmr so people aren't locked into 1 race?
2# Why cant PO just be like 30 or 35 energy? Why is blizzard taking such a drastic approach to this?
2# They most likely did not like people simply spamming it which was the main issue. They seem to still want to try and keep the strength the same by buffing the damage but not sure if good or bad in the long run.
|
"We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units"
I hear swarmhosts are a bit underused. Any chance of buffing these underused units? nope. only gonna do that with Terran units.
to use the phrase "a bit" in the same way Blizzard is using it: Blizzard's use of "a bit" is a doing a bit of downplaying. Disruptors are a bit silly. Pylon overcharge is a bit silly also. Liberator zoning out of entire worker lines and thus auto - paying for themselves even when they don't actually kill anything is a bit silly. maybe instead of having a non-changing policy of buffing terran units that are "underused" why not apply the same logic to all races and buff zerg underused units like swarmhost. no, you nerfed that one into the dirt because you thought zerg used them too often in HOTS. terrans used speed boosted medivacs dropping widow mines a "blizzard bit" in HOTS. widow mines killed a "blizzard bit" of banelings and zerglings and they stayed not nerfed. reapers were used a "blizzard bit" and not nerfed. Hellbats got dropped a "blizzard bit" and killed a "blizzard bit" of zerglings and didn't get nerfed. Disruptor shots do a "blizzard bit" of damage. Blizzard is doing a "bliizard bit" of downplaying everything that is a serious problem.... and thus making themselves look a "blizzard bit" unable to
|
United States12231 Posts
On December 19 2015 16:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 15:24 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 19 2015 13:42 paralleluniverse wrote: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. I saw your post in the Bnet thread. All valid complaints and criticisms. I was definitely wrestling with myself when I was writing that post because I see it from both sides. I think I might make a more consolidated ladder revamp suggestion thread since there's a lot to cover. Simply though, for any ranking system, you want to cover two bases: accuracy and activity. The bonus pool covered activity in a very interesting way. It's not punishing, it's constructive. What's more, the "soft point debt" that is the bonus pool accumulates gradually which means you can spend it at your own pace. Similarly, there's a lot more granularity. Those are tremendous advantages, and because of that, it doesn't feel like a chore. They've used negative reinforcement activity models with MMR decay in HotS and War3, and those feel really bad. You had to play X number of games within Y time, and if you didn't, you suffered a penalty. Playing games just to keep the system happy does feel like a chore, and that's a sucky experience. The downside of the bonus pool is obvious: it manipulates points. By doing that, it impacts ranking accuracy. So that sucks too. But, it sucks less if you have an under-the-hood system that's untouched by this, and therefore retains accuracy, so that's... something. There's obviously more to it and I may write more in the future, but it's a pretty delicate situation. Yes, I understand that bonus pool is an attempt to take activity into account. But as I've said, what you really want to know is not activity, but uncertainty about MMR. Activity doesn't matter for the purpose of ranking skill when you know uncertainty about MMR. As for decay vs bonus pool, decay obviously can't be that bad when you suggested it yourself. In fact, decay has the advantage that people who join the season later don't need to play as many games as an equally skilled person who joined earlier to have the same rank, i.e. these two people with the same MMR, but joined at different times, have the same rank. But I've moved beyond suggesting decay systems. Instead of, you must play 5 games a week or your rank gets decayed, the possibility of shorter seasons allows for the more elegant solution of, you must play 20 (or some other number) games a season or else you're inactive so that you're not going to get ranked at the end of the season. Anyway, at least we have MMR now.
Yeah the decay suggestion was just one possible avenue, and I don't know if it's the best one considering it does separate the ladder into Master/the rest like you said. One thing I really hate in ladders is when you have a few players who get really high up and then never play again. The bonus pool handles this in an OK fashion, because eventually other players will surpass them, and those inactive players lose their relative rank but keep their point totals. However, it introduces point inflation which means you have to basically keep a running mental tally of what the current max bonus pool is, what everyone's adjusted points are, how much bonus pool everyone has saved up so you know how close they are to their potential, and it just gets messy quickly. So, I didn't want the bonus pool to be included in a league where the transition between Master and GM is fluid, which means sort it by MMR, but if you sort it by MMR you can have squatters who perch on their high rating and never play again.
I think having some quota for keeping your rank for the season is a decent idea, but it also feels arbitrary at the same time. 20 games, 30 games, 40, whatever it turns out to be, you can still get to whatever that number is and perch. There's no continuous reengagement, and the pressure is temporary. The same is technically true for soft or hard decay systems as well, depending on the frequency (play your 14 games a week and you can breathe easy that week), but they keep you coming back pretty often. One idea I had was similar to the bonus pool, but one that imposes some penalty every time it hits a multiple of like a week unplayed. I don't really know how you would surface this to the player or make it understandable (which is a big problem), but I do like the go-at-your-own-pace aspect and the fact that it takes match quality into account, although spendable on loss seems like an oversight for high-level players so I'd probably make it only spend through wins. I'll run through some more mental iterations until I come up with something that I think is elegant, sensible, and functional.
I would argue that activity is more important than measuring uncertainty (though they have similar goals) for a game because the game needs to be continuously relevant. You need that retention and reengagement for your game to remain healthy. You need a vibrant, vocal community that promotes and recommends your game to others, which drives new installs, which adds more players to the player pool, which reinforces ranking accuracy. Players won't play your game if they think it sucks, and they'll think it sucks if the game's matchmaking accuracy gives them poor quality matches. In that sense, it's cyclical.
|
good patch but ultras still need to be adressed. The better change for PB would be to just make it non-stackable since you can still kill an entire air ball with a few clicks. you just need to have 1.5 times as many vipers for it.
Not sure how i feel about the PO change.
|
It doesnt address everything, but its seriously a good start...
|
Good changes so far but ultras still need some changes.
Or if they really want terran use ghosts against toss and zerg, they could buff a bit snipe AND emp radius or damage ( radius as it was on WOL the same for the storms but of course not full shield of course as it is on BW and at the beginning of WOL if I remember well )
Protoss army is really strong for terran right now and so many players especially in homestory cup, and David Kim was talking about this event, are saying protoss imba, and that's said mainly by protoss players.
So if they would buff ghosts quite a bit for snipe and emp, that won't directly nerf ultras and protoss army directly which would be problematic to fix for ZvP match ups.
And if they want to re introduce a bit mech that wouldn't be a good idea to buff marauders. Ghost buff won't affect mech in TvT.
And with infestors that they are so effective combined with ravagers, banelings and ultras emp would help to prevent that fungals.
Also that would protect also against vipers especially to protect air units against parasitic bomb.
And of course snipe against ultras and broodlords, because marauders won't be enough and vikings to fragiles against vipers and corruptors and fungals too.
Buff ghosts would be imo a nice buff in the way blizzard wants to go :
- more ghost uses and more good play
- no only MMM for every single match ups
- no balance ZvP match up to fix by nerfing toss and zergs units
- no balance problem in TvT with mech play
|
Zerg finally got well needed nerfs on Parasitic Bomb, and a slight nerf on Ravagers (may not be enough).
However Photon Overcharge needed a straight nerf as well. Not a weird nerf/buff that looks more like a buff.
Also nice to see Blizzard exploring mech AA options!
|
MMR! MMR! MMR!
After FIVE fucking years, we are going to put an end to "but I am TOP gold!" ?! Un-fucking-believable.
Seriously, how is this thread full of the same old stupid balance discussion again, when they are giving us MMR.
|
I think the changes are worth a try but I am really worried about the fact, that the adept wasn't even mentioned as a potential problem.
I also don't completely dig the Viper nerf since losing your whole air army can be prevented by splitting. It's basically a disruptor vs. air and I don't see whats wrong with it. I like incentives to good micro and this definitely was one. If you follow the line of reasoning then you could say we should decrease the speed of the disruptor ball to give the opposing player more time to micro too.
I generally think that they first should look at units, whose stats are simply to good. E.g. potentially the adept and the ultralisk. As long as some effects can be completely negated by micro (Viper, disruptor, widow mine, etc.) give the players more time to adjust to it.
Another thing that I would also like to mention is that the Ghost could become a serious problem. It basically negates Zerg hive tech which I don't think is a good thing, even though ghots are expensive.
|
Lol, all these terrans complaining about Ultras need to learn to make ghosts.
|
On December 19 2015 18:40 opisska wrote:
MMR! MMR! MMR!
After FIVE fucking years, we are going to put an end to "but I am TOP gold!" ?! Un-fucking-believable.
Seriously, how is this thread full of the same old stupid balance discussion again, when they are giving us MMR.
Because MMR doesnt change anything about how fair or fun it is to play. But yeah, really cool that this is finally being done.
|
On December 19 2015 17:19 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Viper spell damage reduced from 90 to 60
Seems like it could be appropriate but I don't know, Vipers already require tons of micro and PB is decently countered by splitting, maybe something like reducing the damage on the outer half a bit more forgiving?
I think decreasing the outer radius damage can be a bigger nerf, since the targeted unit will die even faster and deal less damage to surrounding units.
|
Thor buff vs armored units could be quite significant as it means you can go Liberator/Thor to deal with Ultralisks rather than Snipe as Corrupters aren't as good anymore.
|
On December 19 2015 18:55 Vedeynevin wrote:
Lol, all these terrans complaining about Ultras need to learn to make ghosts.
When you see players as Maru, Innovation or Ty got rekt by ultras, I think that's a pretty accurate sign that ultras are imba so far.
Casters and pros players say the same thing, everybody says "unkillable ultras"
|
Adding overcharge was the biggest mistake Blizzard has done to the game. That they're still trying to work out how to balance it shows this plainly. The start of Lotv was the perfect moment to remove it, and it's a damn shame they didn't. Instead we have this awkward thing that messes up the Protoss early game (or rather, playing against Protoss in the early game) with no apparent gain.
So we'll continue to have this back-and-forth balacing that won't ever find a good solution. Silly.
|
Just remove Photon Overcharge Blizzard. Its stupid to watch 1 click defense. With the economy changes from hots to lotv is doesent belong in the game anymore.
The sad thing is that they dont even seem to consider Adept nerfs in early game. They are way too "tanky" and hard to kill at the current balance.
So either remove PO or nerf Adepts.
|
please blizzard, make counter less counter.
make ultralisk a bit weaker, make ghost sniper ability weaker, etc.
|
I am REALLY suprised that they didnt mention nothing about Adepts and Ultras.. I thought these are the real problem now in the game. Adepts do extremely well in the early game all ins and I keep meeting Protoss players on ladder with their statistics being lower than 50% for PvP and PvZ and their PvT is 70%+ because marauders are too weak against adepts and adepts two shot marines. So I see a big problem there. But I have never thought about the idea that the Warp gate it self is a problem, that might be a good point to keep an eye on. And the Ultras are by far the strongest ground unit in the game. I don't know if that was what they were heading for but, I dont really like how the majority of Terran players just die straight up in the late game.
|
Photon Overcharge getting buffed is a weird one, Protoss players don't even build cannons anymore in their bases as its already so good. When they learn to refine pylon placement even more as the months go on its going to be even stronger.
Zerg used to be the fast expand race, but not anymore, as Protoss doesn't even need to make any units to get to 3 bases safely except MC
Thor buff seems fine i think, but personally i think the Cyclon needs to be looked at. Does anyone know its roll in the game, the players certainly don't seem to?
Too many nerfs to Zerg in one patch, as well being considered, which is never good for any game
As far as Adepts goes, i just think they need a longer cool down on the shade ability. Its silly how they can bounce around with ease.Protoss players don't even have to plan it, they just spam it as its so fast to recycle
|
Adept "pressure" reminds me so much of blink "pressure" in 2014.
It has an extremely high chance of instantly winning you the game but even if the terran somehow defends you're still ahead most of the time.
|
On December 19 2015 19:58 Topdoller wrote:
Thor buff seems fine i think, but personally i think the Cyclon needs to be looked at. Does anyone know its roll in the game, the players certainly don't seem to?
The cyclone's role in the game currently is early game defense. It's like the Terran mothership core. Only shit.
|
On December 19 2015 20:02 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 19:58 Topdoller wrote:
Thor buff seems fine i think, but personally i think the Cyclon needs to be looked at. Does anyone know its roll in the game, the players certainly don't seem to? The cyclone's role in the game currently is early game defense. It's like the Terran mothership core. Only shit.
Nice quote. U forgot the quotation marks dude.
|
On December 19 2015 20:19 Phaenoman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 20:02 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 19:58 Topdoller wrote:
Thor buff seems fine i think, but personally i think the Cyclon needs to be looked at. Does anyone know its roll in the game, the players certainly don't seem to? The cyclone's role in the game currently is early game defense. It's like the Terran mothership core. Only shit. Nice quote. U forgot the quotation marks dude.
Because it's impossible to come up with this comparison yourself when playing Terran.
|
On December 19 2015 11:14 StarscreamG1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 11:11 RCCar wrote:On December 19 2015 11:04 StarscreamG1 wrote:On December 19 2015 11:02 RCCar wrote:On December 19 2015 10:37 StarscreamG1 wrote:
The correct solution to fix early game was to make MSC start with 0 energy. Cause with this patch the spell is weaker at mid-late game, a lot of units can destroy pylons fast.. whoa this was actually talked about in sgall whats "sgall"? Its a Korean community for Starcraft. Interesting to see how two communities would think the same think Ok, nice then. The msc starting with 50 energy it can even cause stupid things like what parting did at dreamhack, destroying it to get another one eith the 50 energy.
Which dreamhack are you talking about? I predicted as a joke that you should destroy the msc to speed up energy regeneration in hots beta, I never figured it would actually be used. ^^
On December 19 2015 13:24 HeroMystic wrote:
Kim said this should be a mech buff but it's actually just make Thors a good support unit for Liberators in TvZ, which in turn will make Liberators a good support unit for Bio, which in turn is a buff to Bio, not Mech.
Every buff to factory units is a buff to bio, not mech, or so it seems.
|
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly.
|
|
|
On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly.
I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE?
|
On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move?
I can see why people ask for this. It is very frustrating to play against. As a terran player I have to say that Tvt has become a shitshow(just my opninion) with all those tanks flying around. I would love to see it removed. Seeing that TankVacs are a vital part of terran gameplay in other matchups however destroys all my hopes regarding that wish
|
Looks great. I'm really looking forward to this patch -I'm so fed up with disruptors in PvP.
Carrier build time though ?
|
On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE?
The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job.
|
On December 19 2015 18:41 JazVM wrote:
I think the changes are worth a try but I am really worried about the fact, that the adept wasn't even mentioned as a potential problem.
I also don't completely dig the Viper nerf since losing your whole air army can be prevented by splitting. It's basically a disruptor vs. air and I don't see whats wrong with it.
Yes, like an instant-casted disruptor. An undodgable storm. And there is a reason that disruptor was nerfed...
The reason is that just like the Viper it is completely unforgivable. Having to split is one thing. Having a few easy to cast spells (easy, since it just locks on whatever you select) be instant-gg when the enemy doesn't pay attention for one second is bad.
Compare this to the seeker missile. Which does indeed also damage ground units. But also allied units. And is idle for 5 seconds before attacking, and during this time it clearly highlights the target. And finally, it has limitted range, so if you don't have time to micro against it you just pull all units back and often will be fine.
On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job.
Tbh it is hard to position against shades which are unstoppable and unkillable until they are on top of your tanks.
|
I like the overcharge change on paper, but we will see how it turns out. Toss desperately needs something to be able to take a 3rd early and defend it. This way you still have the defensive power, but you can't just spam it everywhere for free, and might become easier to overcome. Plus combat shield timings might become much stronger?
The ladder changes are something i look forward to, altough i don't see what's the point of bonus pool+Visible MMR.
|
On December 19 2015 22:04 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. Tbh it is hard to position against shades which are unstoppable and unkillable until they are on top of your tanks.
That's more of an Adept problem than a Tank problem.
|
On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job.
The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong.
|
On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job.
I dont quite see how the tank can be this very good positioning unit while not beeing OP in larger numbers.
|
On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE?
Yeah, like Liberators, like Lurkers, like whatever it needs to be able to do it's job. TankVac made TvT stupid, it's a big buff for bio that uses a lot of vacs and mostly useless for mech. DK is very proud of it's creation IMO so i don't actually expect it to change. RIP Siege Tank
|
On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong.
So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me.
The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay.
|
Bravo Blizzard! I've been looking for the ladder transparency for years! We are very early on balance so I'm happy to see the interest in tweaking the numbers but no major commitment.
|
On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong.
Lurkers are strong and I don't see them being picked up by overlords.
|
2 more weeks of the non stop bullshit of adepts and roach ravenger rushes. the joy...
|
On December 19 2015 23:00 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. Lurkers are strong and I don't see them being picked up by overlords.
Lurkers are faster than overlords, you're not even trying.
|
On December 19 2015 18:28 bObA wrote:
Good changes so far but ultras still need some changes.
Or if they really want terran use ghosts against toss and zerg, they could buff a bit snipe AND emp radius or damage ( radius as it was on WOL the same for the storms but of course not full shield of course as it is on BW and at the beginning of WOL if I remember well )
Protoss army is really strong for terran right now and so many players especially in homestory cup, and David Kim was talking about this event, are saying protoss imba, and that's said mainly by protoss players.
So if they would buff ghosts quite a bit for snipe and emp, that won't directly nerf ultras and protoss army directly which would be problematic to fix for ZvP match ups.
And if they want to re introduce a bit mech that wouldn't be a good idea to buff marauders. Ghost buff won't affect mech in TvT.
And with infestors that they are so effective combined with ravagers, banelings and ultras emp would help to prevent that fungals.
Also that would protect also against vipers especially to protect air units against parasitic bomb.
And of course snipe against ultras and broodlords, because marauders won't be enough and vikings to fragiles against vipers and corruptors and fungals too.
Buff ghosts would be imo a nice buff in the way blizzard wants to go :
- more ghost uses and more good play
- no only MMM for every single match ups
- no balance ZvP match up to fix by nerfing toss and zergs units
- no balance problem in TvT with mech play
Ghosts are seriously strong in TvZ, you'll just need to not clump up, or Fungal will make them all useless. Also you still need a sort of varied unit composition.
One thing that should be buffed on the Ghost though is the Snipe animation+sound, it deals SOOO much damage to Ultralisks and Brood Lords that the little snipe "pew" really doesn't justify the strength of the new snipe, it should probably sound like a bazooka or something.
|
On December 19 2015 23:21 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 23:00 Lexender wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. Lurkers are strong and I don't see them being picked up by overlords. Lurkers are much faster than overlords, you're not even trying.
The point is that lurkers wouldn't even need speedilords for being viable (strength wise)
You could achieve the same with the tank if you tried, but just giving it more mobility through speedivacs is obviously easier. It's just a band-aid fix though, like a lot of stuff in sc2 :/
|
On December 19 2015 23:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 23:21 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 23:00 Lexender wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. Lurkers are strong and I don't see them being picked up by overlords. Lurkers are much faster than overlords, you're not even trying. The point is that lurkers wouldn't even need speedilords for being viable (strength wise) You could achieve the same with the tank if you tried, but just giving it more mobility through speedivacs is obviously easier. It's just a band-aid fix though, like a lot of stuff in sc2 :/
I don't see lurkers being used against Terran and they're not super common in ZvZ either. So there's clearly limits to their strength comparable to tanks. Even in terms of DPS the lurker is barely ahead against non-armored targets. So this comparison isn't really great to begin with in terms of viability.
The lurker is even easier to micro against than the tank as long as you see it's puny attack.
|
On December 19 2015 23:10 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
2 more weeks of the non stop bullshit of adepts and roach ravenger rushes. the joy...
Whole lot a' pain.
|
Blizzard wants to break up the MMM ball. Lets add another bio unit to it to counter the counter to bio with a gimmicky ability.
Also, cooldown on the snipe ability because otherwise it would be too strong. So why not cooldown on transfuse for queens, so they cant infinite transfuse 1 ultra or a nydus worm. Why the ling got buffed in the first place? no one knows. Why got the broodlord its range back? no one knows. Adepts? tvp on ladder is a nightmare. But lets wait for feedback from the koreans... suprise, they say the same. Tournement results are already affected by it. Glad the terran koreans have so many tournaments left to compensate for this season... oh wait... only 2 seasons :D
Buff the carrier because we dont see those enough, seems a legit reason. Why not buff nukes or battlecruisers, we see those all the time, right!? right?!
Terran has the worst design atm:
Mines: clearly visable + the line of impact
Burrowed zerg units, like an ultralisk , lurker? cant see them
Stasis from toss? cant see them
Liberator? everyone can see the ring of impact, can we see that from toss or zerg units? nope
Scouting possibilies for terran? after the reaper we have to use scans = less mules= less eco. Mules compensate for building time etc. But we need to cut eco to scout, and if we are lucky we might spot something, or we have to scan again.
Viking to ground mode? much delay and they are crap in that mode. Thor, most horrible AI ever but the delay between moving and shooting is so big, it makes it go full derp in a lot of situtions. Siegetank/liberator, to do extra damage it needs to siege. unlike the units from toss and zerg (except the lurker, but that one is fast with burrow and unburrow).
Static defence, just minerals, but for terran we got a weak pf that cost another 150 gas.
Tier 1 units with 3-3? lings and zealots go ham and are still useful, random 6 marines without medivac cant do shit.
Cyclones are a joke, expensive, super weak (2 shot by immortal) heavy on supply etc.
Creativity for terran? hardly any is left in lotv.
Oh wait we got "teleport" on bc's..... that opens the game a lot
And this is just a tip of the iceberg why terran suck atm.
|
On December 19 2015 23:30 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 23:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 19 2015 23:21 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 23:00 Lexender wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. Lurkers are strong and I don't see them being picked up by overlords. Lurkers are much faster than overlords, you're not even trying. The point is that lurkers wouldn't even need speedilords for being viable (strength wise) You could achieve the same with the tank if you tried, but just giving it more mobility through speedivacs is obviously easier. It's just a band-aid fix though, like a lot of stuff in sc2 :/ I don't see lurkers being used against Terran and they're not super common in ZvZ either. So there's clearly limits to their strength comparable to tanks. Even in terms of DPS the lurker is barely ahead against non-armored targets. So this comparison isn't really great to begin with.
I feel like lurkers simply come too late atm to be used in every matchup.
But that was just a side not anyway. The point is that tanks should be strong on their own, not when being teleported from one place to another. Tanks should be what liberators are now : scary
There wouldn't even be any need for liberators to begin with if the tank was actually a solid, strong unit.
|
On December 19 2015 23:35 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 23:30 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 23:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 19 2015 23:21 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 23:00 Lexender wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. Lurkers are strong and I don't see them being picked up by overlords. Lurkers are much faster than overlords, you're not even trying. The point is that lurkers wouldn't even need speedilords for being viable (strength wise) You could achieve the same with the tank if you tried, but just giving it more mobility through speedivacs is obviously easier. It's just a band-aid fix though, like a lot of stuff in sc2 :/ I don't see lurkers being used against Terran and they're not super common in ZvZ either. So there's clearly limits to their strength comparable to tanks. Even in terms of DPS the lurker is barely ahead against non-armored targets. So this comparison isn't really great to begin with. I feel like lurkers simply come too late atm to be used in every matchup. But that was just a side not anyway. The point is that tanks should be strong on their own, not when being teleported from one place to another. Tanks should be what liberators are now : scary There wouldn't even be any need for liberators to begin with if the tank was actually a solid, strong unit.
The liberator has the added bonus of being able to fight air units and being more convenient because you make it from reactor starports. Not to mention it flies so many units can't fight back.
Like, if you had the current liberator and a much stronger tank, I reckon the liberator would still be more convenient to make despite being more expensive. And I don't really have hopes of them changing the liberator and the tank in sensible fashion at the same time.
|
Holy shit...a patch where Terran doesn't get nerfed?
|
As much as I like the updates overall, nothing on adepts ? Increasing the ability cooldown would help so much -reducing the abuse while not destroying the viability in armies.
|
Hope all these changes make through! And I loved the McGregor reference.
|
Hello everyone!
The community update today reveals exciting potential balance- and ladder changes for a January patch. While the matchmaking part of the update is great, I will solely focus on the upcoming multiplayer changes and cover the Protoss matchups, but I will make a 4th category to summarize my thoughts on the consequences for the other matchups.
The actual update can be found here where all specifics are listed:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20042936861
Protoss versus Protoss
These changes are relevant for PvP:
Disruptor: Remove +shield damage.
Photon Overcharge: 50 energy, 45 damage per shot, 20 (15) seconds duration. - David Kim says 20 (probably HotS) seconds (33% increment) but the actual duration now is 11 seconds, so new overcharge should have 15 seconds of "LotV" duration.
As seen in the community update, Protoss versus Protoss is seeing some heavy changes this coming patch. I believe the famous (or infamous) disruptor wars has shown some concerning stalemates as stated in the update, but also great come-back play potential due to the tendancy of getting huge trades with the disruptor projectile.
There has been a general consensus throughout the Protoss community that disruptors needed adjustment with respect to PvP. These are the two popular ways of doing so:
1. Remove all +shields damage (Stalkers, zealots, adepts will survive a disruptor shot)
2. Remove partial +shields damage. (Stalkers, zealots adepts will non survive disruptor shot, but disruptors will.)
The debate has been on/off whether it should be 1 or 2, but the fact is that it has been problematic that disruptors could one-shot each other. As mentioned above, comeback potential was one of the greatest aspects of LotV PvP, mostly due to the fact that gateway units would be oneshotted by the disruptor. However, this also created an incentive to simply produce disruptors non-stop and mostly only supply that army with stalkers as they can blink to avoid disruptor projectiles. So which one would be best?
The community update has suggested to remove all shields damage as they have found it to be more exciting in testing. Maybe this is due to the fact that zealots will be left with 5 hp and stalker/adept will be left with 15. They will basically be rendered useless in a fight if hit by a disruptor shot, so not all potential is removed by going for option 1. However, immortals and archons will be significantly stronger, so who is to say anybody will even build disruptors?
My take is that there will always be someone at the highest level who does not build disruptors, and there will always be someone who builds two, maybe four. It is very likely that mass-disruptor production with option 1 will completely disappear, and from a balance and design perspective that is amazing for the game in my book. Maybe the colossuss will be revived if people decides to play chargelots instead of stalkers?
Well, that will come down to testing. Because right now, the stalker is still an extremely well-functioning unit in PvP, and not only because of the ability to dodge disruptor shots. It is also perhaps the most capable unit of maneuvering around photon overcharge where adepts and zealots will take much more damage due to the need of close-range to deal damage with lesser mobility.
So if disruptors are weaker, will people just massproduce stalkers and immortals instead en masse?
This is a hard question to answer, but perhaps we can become smarter if we look at the proposed photon overcharge changes. For PvP there are a few key notes to mention:
- The defendor will have trouble photon overcharging pylons at multiple locations due to the limited energy, and may also not have full energy before timings/engagements, thus realistically at best have 3 overcharges at his/her disposal.
- The new photon overcharge will do 45 damage per shot over 15 seconds (it is unclear how long it is exactly as what is mentioned in the update is likely HotS-timer, but I am going to assume it is a 33% increase.) instead of 30 damage over 11 seconds. This means:
New overcharge will do 675 damage over 15 seconds with a maximum of 4 charges at 50 energy cost.
Old overcharge will do 330 damage over 11 seconds with a maximum of 8 charges at 25 energy cost.
(All numbers have been rounded as if photon overcharge would shoot once every second. The real attack speed is 0.89)
We can therefore assume, in value, that the old overcharge does 660 damage over 22 seconds at 50 energy cost.
I note, again, that the community update said 15 seconds and 20 seconds respectively for old and new overcharge, which roughly translates to 11 and 15 seconds of actual, LotV time.
So which overcharge is better in theory? Which overcharge is better in PvP?
If one overcharge does 675 over 15 seconds, and the other does 660 over 22 seconds for the same energy cost, for one overcharge, I believe we can assume that the new overcharge is better if a maximum of 4 pylons is in play. Of course, the old one can utilize up to 8 pylons simultaenously.
Another weakness, as mentioned, is that the new overcharge does not have as much "mobility" and cheap cost as the old one does, meaning it is more committed as well.
In PvP this means that stalker vs stalker wars can become a bit more volatile. If one does a timing attack and the other tries to take a 3rd, blinking into the main base for a better position can be problematic in some situations where old overcharge is perfered, but the higher damage output might be prefered in other situations. This will come down to testing as well.
For the rest of PvP, Photon Overcharge will probably be less significant. 50 energy cost to deflect phoenix/oracle might be problematic as 25 energy cost does the job better, especially for multiple locations, but it may also be the case that the extra damage is perfered (to force the air units out of shield as fast as possible i.e.)
The oracle may become a greater annoyance with the increased commitment to Photon Overcharge, and it has since HotS been a unit that is simply shut-down by phoenixes. Maybe we should consider changing the armor tag from the oracle from light to armored, as that will only affect PvP and make stalkers stronger versus oracles, but phoenixes weaker against them? This was originally an idea from Morrow as we disccussed the patch today, and I think changing the oracle to armored is one of the best things that could happen in PvP right now.
To conclude, the disruptor and photon overcharge changes will most likely have a positive impact on the game as compared to now. It is particularly the disruptor changes that can boost the excitement of the matchup some and hopefully make the disruptor engagements less volatile and reduce the arbitrary gameplay. A small concern could be mass stalker/immortal wars or blink stalkers abusing terrain and timing advantage to win games with position over someone who is taking a 3rd base with the same but less units due to a potentially weaker overcharge. Testing this will be exciting and hopefully things will turn out positive as predicted.
My suggestions for PvP:
- Make oracle armored instead of light. This will only affect PvP. Stalkers stronger, phoenix weaker versus them.
Protoss versus Zerg
These changes are relevant for PvZ:
Ravager: morph time from 12 to 20 seconds
Viper: Parasitic Bomb from 90 to 60 damage over 7 seconds.
Zerglings: Adrenal Glands attack speed increment from 40% to 30%
Photon Overcharge: 50 energy, 45 damage per shot, 20 (15) seconds duration.
Oh boy. Just Oh boy. Oh sweet mercy. This is where the fun stuff will happen in terms of Protoss versus Zerg. Just a disclaimer, it is my personal opinion that there are quite polarized strengths and weaknesses in this matchup. I do believe that Protoss does perform fairly well against Zerg, but I do also believe that Zerg might have a slight advantage, but most likely due to maps.
Starting from the beginning. The ravager and/or the debatable nerf (most likely a nerf) to photon overcharge simply does go hand in hand, and even the 8 extra seconds does not have to mean all in the world to the earlygame ravager timings, which, by the way, is the only area where I believe ravagers may be too strong. Still, this is something I find to be worth testing as the overcharge changes most likely will require compensation, and this is a reasonable one. Still, 20 second ravager build time will make mid-fight ravager morphs much less of an option, which I believe is also good, as ravagers otherwise would be a relatively easy gas-dump.
There are of course several mathemathical factors to be included in this matchup with reference to the damage of the new overcharge. As stated in the previous section, the 45 damage will change the killing-efficiency versus some units.
For instance, the old 30 damage would two-shot zerglings like this: 30 damage, 5 damage, 30 damage, 5 damage etc. If you rely mostly on overcharge to defend while say, taking a 3rd base, this two-shotting damage is quite ineffective. However, the new overcharge will effectively one-shot by delivering 35 damage per shot. That is almost a 100% more damage versus zerglings. In this case, the new overcharge is better.
When the patch is released, experimentation will likely reveal similar scenarioes where the new damage output (or the old) is more or less effective depending on situation. It is my belief that the zergling part of the earlygame is the most important when it comes to the overcharge changes.
On the other hand, Zerg will now be able to force overcharges at greater expense. 8 zerglings could for instance attack the pylon and force a 50 energy overcharge rather than 25. Plus, zerg attacks with say roach/zergling may be more difficult now as you can not maximize your damage output with more than 4 pylons. Plus, each pylon that zerg will kill now will mean more lost Protoss damage output. In a sense the "photon overcharge HP" is lost as well, and this is especially important due to the longer duration, meaning zerg has more time to kill pylons and therefore get rid of the additional seconds of damage that the pylon would have.
The old overcharge would have 8 pylons of HP, whereas the new one only has 4. This is a concern for protoss as well, mostly mattering in the PvZ matchup.
This does make one seem to think that the new overcharge theoretically is worse than the old one, despite it being mostly relevant in PvZ. Zerg is, however, due to receive a lot of nerfs here, so for PvZ a Protoss should not have much to say, and it might even be that the ravager nerf is enough compensation.
Whether or not the ravager morph nerf is vulnerable to timing attacks from protoss is unclear untill it has been tested as map variety is a huge factor here. It is of course worse for zerg, but how much? I do believe it is not significantly worse.
The next big thing is parasitic bomb. A spell that has received a lot of criticism especially in TvZ and versus voidrays and phoenixes. Initially, I believe, it even used to kill interceptors. Blizzard has recently talked about making it friendly fire, but I agree it seems more reasonable to go with a direct damage nerf. And a nerf there should definitely be, the question is, how big of a damage nerf?
Currently parasitic bomb stacks. Infinitely. This is the only AoE-spell in the game that effectively allows you to do more damage to a single terrestrial location. This is what makes it incredibely dangerous against air-units as their clumping-pathing makes them particularly vulnerable, however, it is mostly only smaller air units that tends to do this such as mutalisk, voidray, phoenix, viking, liberator, oracle etc.
The damage output of parasitic bomb, 90 over 7 seconds, is so great that it forces a limit on how many of each unit type you can produce. For example, phoenixes used to be a relatively amassable unit versus mutalisk, but the threat of parasitic bomb greatly reduces this fact.
So how strong is parasitic bomb exactly? well at 90 damage the short answer is very strong. But only versus the mentioned units above. In fact, versus tempest, carrier or battle cruisers, parasitic bomb is actually... just good, depending on the situation. Capitol ships such as these does not split as much, therefore parasitic bomb is not as great versus them. So what does this mean? Well, if you reduce the damage to 60 parasitic bomb might be too weak versus capital ships.
I personally believe the right approach is to go for 70 damage from 90. This will promote more production air units in the small-to-medium sized category, but still make parasitic bomb slightly more useful versus captiol ships as well. With that being said, I believe the parasitic bomb nerf is justified as zerg already has a large spectrum of lategame power through the vast buffs to it with LotV release.
The last part of the PvZ section is of course the adrenal glands nerf. "Cracklings", as they are called when this upgrade is present, was capable of perform, per ling, at full upgrades, 24 damage per second. 24. I would without calculation assume, per supply, that is the highest damage in the entire game. Cracklings are also extremely mobile, cheap too. At +/- 6.5 movement speed (more on creep) and only 50 minerals in cost, these fellas are extremely, extremely dangerous with a +40% attack speed upgrade. A nerf to 30% is simply a must.
But this is only to be said in a narrow perspective. The truth is, zerg might need extremely strong zerglings in the lategame. Protoss can seem unbreakable at times with walls, cannons, and who is to say that the disruptor is not like the crackling of zerg? A very strong unit but necessary to the grand design?
Well, as for now I think the 40 to 30% nerf is justified and should be tested, but with all the zerg nerfs combined here it is very likely zerg will not end up being the favored race here, but I predict it would still be relatively even. Protoss is received a significant nerf too, of course, but where does that leave zerg versus terran?
As far as PvZ goes, the crackling at 40% has been able to annihilate any X amounts of pylons and cannons even protected by walls cost-effectively. This has been a major weakness for Protoss in the lategame so far, but obviously protoss has different types of lategame strength too, mostly with the immortal versus ultralisk and for example tempest versus brood lords and... yeah... storm versus everything. Zerg seems to be very much only able to hard-counter complete air units through parasitic bomb and complete ground with ultralisk and zergling. It could seem if protoss is using mixed composition with ground and air, zerg lategame strength quickly diminishes.
My final thoughts here are as follows: In with every zerg nerf here, but consider leaving parasitic bomb at higher damage. Zerg has been strong for a time now, but protoss has also been increasingly showing strength. With the pylon overcharge nerf, these changes seem reasonable as well.
My suggestions for PvZ:
- Make parasitic bomb 70 damage instead of 60. Capitol air units needs to feel the damage.
Protoss versus Terran
These changes are relevant for PvZ:
Thor: Damage changed to flat 12. Buff versus armored air units.
Photon Overcharge: 50 energy, 45 damage per shot, 20 (15) seconds duration.
Photon Overcharge will be able to one-shot non-combatshields marines or stimmed marines. This does, to me, seem like an earlygame buff to defensive protoss versus marine-based timings, but since terran can open with different strategies, this one really comes down to testing. For example, drops might be much harder to gain space/range against with photon overcharge as you have much less charges available. This will promote especially widow-mine based drops a lot and Terran might find this to be a huge help versus protoss as they, recently, seem to think protoss is the hardest to play against.
Further is of course the midgame. Currently you would have 8 charges to force medivacs to back away, but with 4 charges, defending multiple locations as Protoss will be even harder now. Since terran is to receive no nerfs, I feel this is where protoss may seem to hurt the most, and I am not necessarily of the opinion that Protoss is too strong versus terran. I think adepts might be too strong, but the mid/lategame seems reasonable for Terran at the present moment.
It is unclear to me in which situations photon overcharge will be better or worse after changes versus terran, generally I think it will be worse in almost every situation, execept versus marines, where the damage efficiency was still relatively much the same with 30 or 45 damage per shot. I still believe all the changes in the community update a great, so it is 100% worth testing. If protoss is in need of compensation, we shall see. Hopefully the 45 damage per shot will be enough compensation for Protoss.
As far as thor goes, well. They will obviously be great versus armored air units now, but will the splash be sufficient to make them useful against, say, carriers? tempests? voidrays? As opposed to Liberators or vikings? This is unclear, but thors also have a very strong ground-attack, so with their support against ground, the answer is likely yes, they will have a place versus lategame protoss or with mech. Testing shall reveal this sooner rather than later as I think the thor changes makes the unit cooler.
There was not much to say about Terran versus Protoss, the matchup does not change much other than the fact that Terran can deal with photon overcharge more easily, and hopefully protoss will not suffer too much from the changes. The 45 damage compensation however should minimize the worst case scenarioes, and it is therefore very reasonable to go through with the changes with respect to PvT as well.
My suggestions for PvZ:
Other Matchups
Parasitic bomb nerf will probably mean the most in TvZ, and may be the reason why the damage is nerfed to 60. Ravens, liberators and vikings are the strongest terran air units and all small, thus more vulnerable to parasitic bomb.
It is not clear to me whether the liberator will be replaceable with the thor as they both have a strong ground attack.
Ravager nerf should make small-maps TvZ allins significantly better for Terran, and I have seen they have had a hard time too.
Thanks!
|
Nothing on the reaper grenades..
That's a shame
|
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D
|
On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D
Marauders are better than adepts in many things.
Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance.
|
Thanks for the patch breakdown Theo, i'm personally super excited about this test patch. I hope it goes through as is.
|
So Blizz want P to go back to skytoss every game with this patch seeing as there's absolutely no nerf for lurkers I guess. Fantastic -_-
|
On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance.
What "Many things"? :D
|
Lol.... didn't know Blizzard was such UFC and Conor McGregor fans. Used his quote right after the Aldo fight
|
What difference is 12 seconds for ravagers going to make? That is not even enough tine to train an additional marine. Why not just require the roach warren to morph to something ie ravager field/catacomb/cave etc
|
Will we finally get to see MMR? I can't wait.
|
On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D
Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do.
|
On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay.
How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple.
Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2.
Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment.
There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse.
|
I wish that the graphical indicator on PB was better. Its pretty difficulty to see with unit is affected.
|
photon overcharge 1 shots a marine. cool -_-
|
PO to 35 is the correct thing to do, I agree.
|
On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse.
Nah, just needs to do more dmg. The Lurkers shows that even low mobility when it's put together with a strong attack makes for a very powerful unit.
|
On December 20 2015 03:25 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. Nah, just needs to do more dmg. The Lurkers shows that even low mobility when it's put together with a strong attack makes for a very powerful unit.
The lurker doesn't have much higher DPS than siege tanks (it has lower DPS against armored units actually) and it's easier to micro against. Seriously the lurker attack damage is only 30, the tank is 35 but slightly slower (50 vs armored).
|
On December 20 2015 03:32 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 03:25 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. Nah, just needs to do more dmg. The Lurkers shows that even low mobility when it's put together with a strong attack makes for a very powerful unit. The lurker doesn't have much higher DPS than siege tanks (it has lower DPS against armored units actually) and it's easier to micro against. Seriously the lurker attack damage is only 30, the tank is 35 but slightly slower (50 vs armored).
Big potential AOE though
|
On December 20 2015 03:44 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 03:32 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 03:25 Sapphire.lux wrote:On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. Nah, just needs to do more dmg. The Lurkers shows that even low mobility when it's put together with a strong attack makes for a very powerful unit. The lurker doesn't have much higher DPS than siege tanks (it has lower DPS against armored units actually) and it's easier to micro against. Seriously the lurker attack damage is only 30, the tank is 35 but slightly slower (50 vs armored). Big potential AOE though
Potential yeah, although mostly from the fact that it can't be seen. By which I mean its attack, that animation is awful.
|
Wow, today until now no Terran won a single matchup at Home Cup, they are 12-1 on maps
|
On December 20 2015 03:49 TW wrote:Wow, today until now no Terran won a single matchup at Home Cup, they are 12-1 on maps
I mean Blizzard pretty much said during beta that that's not the level they're balancing the game around. At least it was implied considering they repeatedly said "Top level pros aren't playing yet" when all that was missing were a few KeSPA players.
|
On December 20 2015 03:55 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 03:49 TW wrote:Wow, today until now no Terran won a single matchup at Home Cup, they are 12-1 on maps I mean Blizzard pretty much said during beta that that's not the level they're balancing the game around. At least it was implied considering they repeatedly said "Top level pros aren't playing yet" when all that was missing were a few KeSPA players.
Good thing no kespa players played yet in any tourney or pre season or qualifiers!
|
On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse.
You define what is a solution or a workaround by looking at the function of the unit. Siege Tanks are meant to siege areas and hold positions. As stated from someone else, the siege units that compare to this are Brood Lords, Lurkers, Liberators, Disruptors, and Tempest. All aformentioned units you don't attack into unless you're positive that you can break through the contained position, or dismantle the Siege unit. All of these units except the Siege Tank fulfill this solidly. What we have instead is a requirement to have a secondary unit in order for it to function. This is not depth added to the Siege Tank but rather depth added to the Medivac.
What you're saying is being a siege unit isn't the tank's role anymore, when it still is and I don't really think that can be contested. Otherwise, what is it's role supposed to be? A Harass unit? Backline support? If that's the case then you can buff tank mode and increase it's movement speed so it can keep up with Bio. But that would be really silly.
|
On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do.
No, they can't.
And all of those are without upgrades.
A marauder in "blank state" does not slow. It also does not stim. "Things marauders do" is only after two upgrades, where as the adept comes straight out of the box with all it's strengths. And that's the idiotic part.
Make shade a researchable ability in cybercore, for 100-100, taking 120 seconds to research (same as stim) - adept fixed. It's so stupid to watch adept/warpprism over and over again.
edit: or, you know, change them from light to armored, since they kinda are armored. I never understood why marauders count as "armored" but the adept does not.
|
On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do.
Marauders are pretty clearly on the whole a much weaker unit without their upgrades. And I doubt Adepts will ever be balanced unless they're made into a Protoss version of the HotS reaper (useful early for scout/mild harass, crap later).
On December 20 2015 05:37 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. You define what is a solution or a workaround by looking at the function of the unit. Siege Tanks are meant to siege areas and hold positions. As stated from someone else, the siege units that compare to this are Brood Lords, Lurkers, Liberators, Disruptors, and Tempest. All aformentioned units you don't attack into unless you're positive that you can break through the contained position, or dismantle the Siege unit. All of these units except the Siege Tank fulfill this solidly. What we have instead is a requirement to have a secondary unit in order for it to function. This is not depth added to the Siege Tank but rather depth added to the Medivac. What you're saying is being a siege unit isn't the tank's role anymore, when it still is and I don't really think that can be contested. Otherwise, what is it's role supposed to be? A Harass unit? Backline support? If that's the case then you can buff tank mode and increase it's movement speed so it can keep up with Bio. But that would be really silly.
I think it's pretty clear that Liberators preform the function that Tanks were supposed to. Lurkers appear to work well so far. It does seem to be hard to justify the position that units of the Tank's type can't function in LotV. Not sure why some people are trying to argue the point. But then again, a bunch of people think that 8 armor Ultras, current cracklings, and beta Adepts were fine, so, I guess there's no hope for some people.
|
On December 20 2015 06:04 m4ini wrote:
edit: or, you know, change them from light to armored, since they kinda are armored. I never understood why marauders count as "armored" but the adept does not.
It's so they're in less of a counter relationship with marauders. Blizzard wanted them to become a core unit for Protoss. But they came to the conclusion that the new core unit shouldn't be armored in the face of stimmed marauders existing in the game. I guess because it turned out that the stalker was too squishy against upgraded bio and it was armored.
The zealot was better against bio in an actual fight but only with bandaid charge because of Concussive Shells. But Concussive Shells is already its own bandaid to help Terran hold attacks before stim (and combat creep movement speed bonuses), so they didn't wish to take that out. So they came up with the adept - tanks like a zealot and moves more smoothly than a stalker.
|
On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do.
Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game?
I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch
Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe.
|
On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe.
Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades or its full potential?
Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. The longer any matchup goes the less adepts you see. Marauders are built throughout the game in TvP and have use in TvZ all game.
|
On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades? So thors are better than ultras. Wow that's really OP, they should be nerfed. Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different.
Well that's partially because you described things that any unit that does +armored can. It's kind of the point of them.
It's like me saying "adepts are better at looking like adepts". Or i could do the same as you, and say "they're better at killing light, they're better at tanking damage, they're better at "not dying", they're also better at scouting thanks to shade.
That's kind of a non-argument, really.
edit: that's also leaving out the fact that two adepts can win you a game, whereas two marauders pretty much do fuck all.
|
On December 20 2015 07:25 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades? So thors are better than ultras. Wow that's really OP, they should be nerfed. Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. Well that's partially because you described things that any unit that does +armored can. It's kind of the point of them. It's like me saying "adepts are better at looking like adepts". Or i could do the same as you, and say "they're better at killing light, they're better at tanking damage, they're better at "not dying", they're also better at scouting thanks to shade. That's kind of a non-argument, really. edit: that's also leaving out the fact that two adepts can win you the game easily, whereas two marauders pretty much do fuck all.
And the point of that was to show that they fill different roles and have different strengths. Which goes against what the first guy implied that adepts are flatly better units. When you get hit with a roach attack, adepts or marauders? When you get hit with a blink all-in, adepts or marauders? When you want to kill workers, adepts or marauders? When you're attacked by mass zerglings, adepts or marauders?
What's better, a hellion or a zealot? A thor or an ultra? A medivac or a mutalisk? A phoenix or a corruptor? They cost the same but do different things. Can you flatly call one always better?
On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D
|
On December 20 2015 07:36 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 07:25 m4ini wrote:On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades? So thors are better than ultras. Wow that's really OP, they should be nerfed. Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. Well that's partially because you described things that any unit that does +armored can. It's kind of the point of them. It's like me saying "adepts are better at looking like adepts". Or i could do the same as you, and say "they're better at killing light, they're better at tanking damage, they're better at "not dying", they're also better at scouting thanks to shade. That's kind of a non-argument, really. edit: that's also leaving out the fact that two adepts can win you the game easily, whereas two marauders pretty much do fuck all. And the point of that was to show that they fill different roles and have different strengths. Which goes against what the first guy implied that adepts are flatly better units. When you get hit with a roach attack, adepts or marauders? When you get hit with a blink all-in, adepts or marauders? What's better, a hellion or a zealot? A thor or an ultra? A medivac or a mutalisk? A phoenix or a corruptor? They cost the same but do different things. Can you flatly call one always better? Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D
Yeah, you can. Upgraded Marines are the best basic infantry unit in the game, in terms of cost, microablity, mobility, etc. Are they better than Marauders vs. Banelings? Nope. Are they better in general? You can bet your ass they are.
When I played League a few years ago, Karma was the worst hero in the game. Was she a better healer than [insert hero with no heal here]? Yeah, she was. Was she better than that hero in some situations (situations that required heals, for example)? Yep. Was she a weaker hero in general? Sure was.
|
On December 20 2015 07:13 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 06:55 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 01:50 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 01:09 Glorfindel! wrote:On December 20 2015 00:34 Elentos wrote:On December 20 2015 00:24 Glorfindel! wrote:
A marauder comes for the same price as an Adept. What is the best unit? :D Marauders are better than adepts in many things. Though I will say adepts are a curious unit. 150 max health, 1 base armor, 2-shots workers, light unit that can teleport. And all of those are without upgrades. That amount of versatility and strength for that cost and that tech requirement is pretty hard to balance. What "Many things"? :D Marauders are armored. They have higher range than adepts. They can slow enemy units down. They are better at fighting armored units. They are better at destroying buildings. You know, things marauders do. Ohh, does it come with slow in your version of the game? I knew I should not had downloaded the last patch Seriously. Marauders needs shitloads of upgrades to do what you describe. Great argument. When you think about how good a unit is, you're not going to consider all its upgrades or its full potential? Also note that marauders need just 2 upgrades to be at full capacity but only 1 to do everything I described. They can do everything except the slowing part better than adepts even without upgrades. And they even scale better into the late game than adepts because their role is different. The longer any matchup goes the less adepts you see. Marauders are built throughout the game in TvP and have use in TvZ all game.
Yeah, you usually see Marauders wrecking buildings and fight armored units pre-upgrades.
....
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed.
|
On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed.
Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc?
I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it.
|
An adrenal buff at all really makes no sense in the context of the 'down with T1' arguments made in TvZ regarding the ultralisk.
|
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 
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it.
they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me!
I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units)
|
The alternatives being too good doesn't inherently mean that lings are bad.
|
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
They must be trying to distract us from something even more broken, they'd never do it otherwise. Or they're trying to bargain with Blizzard - adept nerf for Zerg nerf.
|
On December 20 2015 08:43 Liquid`Ret wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it. they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me! I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units)
Basically everyone is saying keep adrenal but nerf ultra's
Blizz pls
|
On December 20 2015 08:57 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 08:43 Liquid`Ret wrote:On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it. they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me! I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units) Basically everyone is saying keep adrenal but nerf ultra's Blizz pls
But reddit asked for crackling nerfs last week, how should they know they're supposed to nerf something different this week?
|
On December 20 2015 08:57 Penev wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 08:43 Liquid`Ret wrote:On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it. they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me! I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units) Basically everyone is saying keep adrenal but nerf ultra's Blizz pls
They're still stronger than HotS, I mean there it was +18%, +30% is still a hefty buff its not like lings wont be stronger, just a little less stronger.
|
On December 20 2015 09:19 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 08:57 Penev wrote:On December 20 2015 08:43 Liquid`Ret wrote:On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it. they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me! I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units) Basically everyone is saying keep adrenal but nerf ultra's Blizz pls They're still stronger than HotS, I mean there it was +18%, +30% is still a hefty buff its not like lings wont be stronger, just a little less stronger.
That said, Cracklings got nerfed faster than the original Snipe.
|
On December 20 2015 09:23 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 09:19 Lexender wrote:On December 20 2015 08:57 Penev wrote:On December 20 2015 08:43 Liquid`Ret wrote:On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it. they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me! I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units) Basically everyone is saying keep adrenal but nerf ultra's Blizz pls They're still stronger than HotS, I mean there it was +18%, +30% is still a hefty buff its not like lings wont be stronger, just a little less stronger. That said, Cracklings got nerfed faster than the original Snipe.
Snipe got nerfed into the ground. You'd have to nerf adrenal to below 18%, where it was still worth researching even if it wasn't a top priority, to have the same impact as the snipe nerf. You would have to make it not worth the resources at all.
|
On December 20 2015 09:23 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 09:19 Lexender wrote:On December 20 2015 08:57 Penev wrote:On December 20 2015 08:43 Liquid`Ret wrote:On December 20 2015 08:31 PinoKotsBeer wrote:On December 20 2015 08:14 Liquid`Ret wrote:I'm pretty sad about adrenal possibly being nerfed. Was the buff really needed in the first place? or was it to be able to kill adepts etc? I have no idea tbh, maybe you as a pro can explain it. they kicked ass in brood war, that's the only reason it felt right to me! I also don't want to end up having to play roach/ravager infestor in zvt like everyone is doing right now, that style sucks ass fun-wise.... so good lings are in my best interest. Ling/bane is pretty tough as it is with how larva intensive the style is...but.the damn ultra is too good to ignore..i'd rather have really great lings ( mobile/fast unit that is fun to use than 8 armor a-move bricks of units) Basically everyone is saying keep adrenal but nerf ultra's Blizz pls They're still stronger than HotS, I mean there it was +18%, +30% is still a hefty buff its not like lings wont be stronger, just a little less stronger. That said, Cracklings got nerfed faster than the original Snipe.
It was in the beta right from the start, wich by the way I still dont get, it was ok to buff late game zerglings, but going from 18% to 40% was over the top, Its one of those thing that where done for experimentación and Im guessing only made it to the game because it was rushed.
|
Why aren't there polls anymore?
|
On December 19 2015 17:28 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 16:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On December 19 2015 15:24 Excalibur_Z wrote:On December 19 2015 13:42 paralleluniverse wrote: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. I saw your post in the Bnet thread. All valid complaints and criticisms. I was definitely wrestling with myself when I was writing that post because I see it from both sides. I think I might make a more consolidated ladder revamp suggestion thread since there's a lot to cover. Simply though, for any ranking system, you want to cover two bases: accuracy and activity. The bonus pool covered activity in a very interesting way. It's not punishing, it's constructive. What's more, the "soft point debt" that is the bonus pool accumulates gradually which means you can spend it at your own pace. Similarly, there's a lot more granularity. Those are tremendous advantages, and because of that, it doesn't feel like a chore. They've used negative reinforcement activity models with MMR decay in HotS and War3, and those feel really bad. You had to play X number of games within Y time, and if you didn't, you suffered a penalty. Playing games just to keep the system happy does feel like a chore, and that's a sucky experience. The downside of the bonus pool is obvious: it manipulates points. By doing that, it impacts ranking accuracy. So that sucks too. But, it sucks less if you have an under-the-hood system that's untouched by this, and therefore retains accuracy, so that's... something. There's obviously more to it and I may write more in the future, but it's a pretty delicate situation. Yes, I understand that bonus pool is an attempt to take activity into account. But as I've said, what you really want to know is not activity, but uncertainty about MMR. Activity doesn't matter for the purpose of ranking skill when you know uncertainty about MMR. As for decay vs bonus pool, decay obviously can't be that bad when you suggested it yourself. In fact, decay has the advantage that people who join the season later don't need to play as many games as an equally skilled person who joined earlier to have the same rank, i.e. these two people with the same MMR, but joined at different times, have the same rank. But I've moved beyond suggesting decay systems. Instead of, you must play 5 games a week or your rank gets decayed, the possibility of shorter seasons allows for the more elegant solution of, you must play 20 (or some other number) games a season or else you're inactive so that you're not going to get ranked at the end of the season. Anyway, at least we have MMR now. Yeah the decay suggestion was just one possible avenue, and I don't know if it's the best one considering it does separate the ladder into Master/the rest like you said. One thing I really hate in ladders is when you have a few players who get really high up and then never play again. The bonus pool handles this in an OK fashion, because eventually other players will surpass them, and those inactive players lose their relative rank but keep their point totals. However, it introduces point inflation which means you have to basically keep a running mental tally of what the current max bonus pool is, what everyone's adjusted points are, how much bonus pool everyone has saved up so you know how close they are to their potential, and it just gets messy quickly. So, I didn't want the bonus pool to be included in a league where the transition between Master and GM is fluid, which means sort it by MMR, but if you sort it by MMR you can have squatters who perch on their high rating and never play again. I think having some quota for keeping your rank for the season is a decent idea, but it also feels arbitrary at the same time. 20 games, 30 games, 40, whatever it turns out to be, you can still get to whatever that number is and perch. There's no continuous reengagement, and the pressure is temporary. The same is technically true for soft or hard decay systems as well, depending on the frequency (play your 14 games a week and you can breathe easy that week), but they keep you coming back pretty often. One idea I had was similar to the bonus pool, but one that imposes some penalty every time it hits a multiple of like a week unplayed. I don't really know how you would surface this to the player or make it understandable (which is a big problem), but I do like the go-at-your-own-pace aspect and the fact that it takes match quality into account, although spendable on loss seems like an oversight for high-level players so I'd probably make it only spend through wins. I'll run through some more mental iterations until I come up with something that I think is elegant, sensible, and functional. I would argue that activity is more important than measuring uncertainty (though they have similar goals) for a game because the game needs to be continuously relevant. You need that retention and reengagement for your game to remain healthy. You need a vibrant, vocal community that promotes and recommends your game to others, which drives new installs, which adds more players to the player pool, which reinforces ranking accuracy. Players won't play your game if they think it sucks, and they'll think it sucks if the game's matchmaking accuracy gives them poor quality matches. In that sense, it's cyclical.
I don't think perching will be a big problem if season length is shorter, around 1.5 to 2 months. Sure, someone can play 20 (or whatever number of) games and stop but, firstly, that's not necessarily perching because in those 20 games their rating can go down not just up, and secondly, under any sort of reward/penalty system for activity, it's always possible to play the bare minimum amount of games. People can play the required number of games at the start of the season and stop, but it's always possible that a player plays only at the end of the season, even with bonus pool, and gets their rank locked in for that season. That's also in some sense, perching. The difference is that in the former, the games are massed at the start, the latter the games are massed at the end, and I don't see any particular reason to privilege the start over the end or the end over the start or even a uniform distribution of games throughout the season, especially if seasons are shorter. They'll still have to continuously engage every season to keep that rating.
So what we're talking about here is really "how many games do we want players to play in a season, how do we want them to distribute these games throughout the length of the season, and how do we reward players for doing this?"
For the purpose of skill-based ranking, we should only care about uncertainty about MMR, not about how many games they play or how they are distributed. So one possible way to penalize inactive players is to rank by a quantile of their MMR, and increase uncertainty about MMR when there is inactivity. This makes intuitive sense: the longer a player is inactive, the more uncertain we are of the player's skill, and hence the lower the quantile. In this idea, we are not directly penalizing inactivity, but rather uncertainty. Maybe this solution is technically difficult for Blizzard.
However, you note that for the purposes of engaging people with the game, we should care about how many games people play and how those games are distributed throughout the season. That's the role of progression systems like the leveling system. The level cap should be removed like paragon levels in D3.
If the bonus pool stays (it shouldn't, and I think I would prefer a decay system if I had to choose), it should be significantly reduced. Currently, for a 3 month (90 day) season, the total accrual of bonus pool is 1342 points for Bronze to Diamond and 2314 points for Masters/GM, which is just insane. What % of a player's points should come from activity? I would say 0% to 5%.
|
Thor AA damage to flat 12
We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units. While this is effectively a double-damage buff against armored air units, we were noticing in our internal playtests that it doesn’t feel super overpowered. This is probably due to the fact that their damage against armored units was pretty low to begin with, and Thors attack multiple times per hit, making armor also be a big factor as well. However, we also know that internal playtesting doesn’t provide the full picture of a change, so we’d like to test this one out with everyone in order to see if this is in fact the best move for the Thor.
How much more AA does mech players need ? Liberators, vikings, widowmines, pdd ravens not enough ?
Instead of creating more problems maybe a simple revert back to the HOTS's mech upgrades system would be enough, splitting them was a bad decision....
Viper spell damage reduced from 90 to 60
We explored potential design changes as well as numbers tuning in this area, and for now we wonder if tuning the damage down to give more time for opposing players to micro against the ability is better. After this, we will be able to gauge where the ability is, and go from there.
After giving it much thought, i do not think its possible for the parasitic bomb to be balanced, its like the shredder(hots beta) but works on everything and attach itself on the units...the parasitic bomb is essentially a no fly zone in starcraft
I think removal of this ability is the right course of action.
Let vipers spawn scourges for energy. They will work like in BW and will assists corruptors and mutas vs stuff like phoenix, voids, and pdd defenses.
|
On December 20 2015 18:39 Gasi wrote:Show nested quote +Thor AA damage to flat 12
We are looking at ways to get a little more mech play in Terran matchups. Our first attempt at this will be to buff one of the more underused units. While this is effectively a double-damage buff against armored air units, we were noticing in our internal playtests that it doesn’t feel super overpowered. This is probably due to the fact that their damage against armored units was pretty low to begin with, and Thors attack multiple times per hit, making armor also be a big factor as well. However, we also know that internal playtesting doesn’t provide the full picture of a change, so we’d like to test this one out with everyone in order to see if this is in fact the best move for the Thor. How much more AA does mech players need ? Liberators, vikings, widowmines, pdd ravens not enough ? Instead of creating more problems maybe a simple revert back to the HOTS's mech upgrades system would be enough, splitting them was a bad decision....
the problem with mech upgrade split is not the cost its more the time and infrastructure to get the thing upgraded that is really annoying. increase cost but merge the damn upgrades
|
On December 20 2015 05:37 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 02:27 Grumbels wrote:On December 19 2015 22:35 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 22:14 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 22:03 HeroMystic wrote:On December 19 2015 21:49 Elentos wrote:On December 19 2015 21:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I like the Zerg nerfs, i hate the PO 2 shooting hellions and 1 shooting marines, the Thor buff doesn't do anything for mech viability IMO.
Yeah also, scrap the TankVac already and buff the Tank directly. I don't see why people keep asking for this. Removing the tank pickup entirely is a nerf to a ridiculous extent. It would mean tanks are at all times vulnerable to ravager shots. It would make them way more vulnerable against adept suicides and stalker blink-ins etc. because you can't save the tank anymore. Where do you want them to buff the tank damage to to compensate for the fact that it gets countered so easily because it can't move? Liberator level but with AoE? The tank should be saved by good positioning. And it would if it would actually do it's job. The tank is too slow of LotV without medivacs. Your positioning can be great for how the engagement starts but a few seconds later they'd be better off in a different spot because the actual fight is happening out of range. And you don't actually fix that by increasing its damage. Unless you increase it to a point where massing them becomes almost obscenely strong. So if Siege Tanks are strong, your opponent works on staying out of it's range... sounds like it's doing it's job to me. The big picture is, Siege Tanks do not trade efficiently right now, and Tankivacs is a workaround, not a problem solver. The Siege Tank count can't get too high because of the obscene amount of hard counters in this game. Buffing the damage allows it to trade efficiently before dying to good counterplay. How exactly does one clearly delineate what constitutes a fundamental solution versus a mere workaround? I don't think it's that simple. Siege tanks did not work in Heart of the Swarm to an appreciable extent and in Legacy of the Void they are much more flexible and useful by giving them synergy with the most ubiquitous terran unit. One main reason to call it a workaround is to restrict oneself by reminiscing about the siege tank's true purpose as derived from Brood War strategy instead of looking at its de facto role in SC2 and thinking of ways to improve it. I feel that if you think that way you are not really contributing to the conversation because the post serves only to foreshadow some larger, substantial criticism of all of Starcraft 2. Why should the siege tank be an efficient unit? I'm sure it was intended that way, but there are vastly more counters to the unit in this game to make that role difficult to fulfill. Generic counters, which increase the dynamic potential of an army as a whole. There is a general trend in the game to make units more survivable, resilient, reusable and so on which means that a dedicated player can virtually always overcome defensive set-ups that lack commitment. Blizzard's change goes a long way into allowing the siege tank to move with the times to function in this new environment. There can be specific issues with siege tank pick-up, like the delay to fire or the type of mode active upon returning to the ground and such, but if one conflates those with a larger criticism of the tank's role one's argument might become independent of any tinkering to balance the unit, i.e. one falls outside of the discourse. You define what is a solution or a workaround by looking at the function of the unit. Siege Tanks are meant to siege areas and hold positions. As stated from someone else, the siege units that compare to this are Brood Lords, Lurkers, Liberators, Disruptors, and Tempest. All aformentioned units you don't attack into unless you're positive that you can break through the contained position, or dismantle the Siege unit. All of these units except the Siege Tank fulfill this solidly. What we have instead is a requirement to have a secondary unit in order for it to function. This is not depth added to the Siege Tank but rather depth added to the Medivac. What you're saying is being a siege unit isn't the tank's role anymore, when it still is and I don't really think that can be contested. Otherwise, what is it's role supposed to be? A Harass unit? Backline support? If that's the case then you can buff tank mode and increase it's movement speed so it can keep up with Bio. But that would be really silly.
There is a difference between the extreme area control the siege tank offered in Brood War and the more limited artillery support and siege capacity that the unit possesses in Starcraft 2, somewhat independent of the unit's balance. The earlier iteration of the unit, with overkill and higher damage, would be trivially abusable in the Starcraft 2 environment. I think it obvious that the siege tank, in order to adapt it to Starcraft 2 should have balance features such as more power for tank mode, quicker sieging and maybe something like medivac pick-up. Calling the latter "depth added not to the siege tank but to the medivac" is silly by the way. Medivacs are omnipresent and introducing siege tank / medivac synergy therefore adds more to the siege tank than to the already ubiquitous medivac. And yes, maybe it should have a slight damage buff (the oft suggested +dmg to its primary target late-game upgrade?), I won't dispute that.
Unit functionality is a slightly dubious concept regardless since it does not literally exist in the game but is imposed over it by the machinations of the designers and the expectations of the players. This is very typical for Blizzard: create a unit with the intention to fulfill a certain role, only for literally the opposite to happen (swarm hosts). I don't want to call that a healthy sign, since there is an element of designer incompetence here, but speaking more abstractly, if units find a use not in accordance with its design this can illustrate the creative process which happens when you allow the meta game to develop organically. This is a sort of evolutionary process which will shape the actual uses of the units and as you might remember from biology in high school, nobody designed the eye to see, it simply happened that way because it was advantageous; similarly nobody designed the widow mine to synergize with bio units and that did not stop players from theorizing that the widow mine creates symmetry in TvZ by counter balancing the baneling-marine interaction with the zergling-widow mine interaction. At other times Blizzard creates units and then will admit that they have no idea how they are going to be used. This was one of the motivations behind the replicant, which was scrapped when Blizzard started realizing exactly what the effect would be of letting this unit loose on the game.
Now clearly the analogy with evolution breaks down at some point since Blizzard is actively interfering to change outcomes, so that if they were truly determined to turn the siege tank into effective area control they might be able to do so. Nevertheless, their agency is limited, in some ways which are theoretical and others which are self-imposed rules Blizzard has set for themselves. Don't change a unit unless it's a clear upgrade, don't create confusing mechanics, etc.. These are some of Blizzard's commandments, but they are not their only restrictions. They are not God, sometimes the game is too complicated for them to divine what would be exactly the right change to make, or maybe they lack testing or coding resources, or maybe the problem is not pressing enough to be worth the risk of making changes.
This was offered as background to the following point: if the siege tank can be used effectively in the game then it does actually work and if the medivac pick-up lets the unit function more effectively then it's an effective change, all regardless of whether it does not fulfill some Platonic concept of area control since that's merely a fancy of the community: it has a powerful hold on the imagination but it can be abandoned at no cost. The word "effective" serves as a proxy for a variety of more or less statistical considerations, the main ones being balance and usage. They offer something concrete that Blizzard can aim for which can demonstrably improve the game in this fashion. I don't think you can truly fault them for this as designers.
I'd like to see the siege tank in its true glory used for area control too, but it's just more in the line of abstract criticism and what you (and I) consider offenses to good taste, it's very subjective.
|
PO 45 dmg. Of course, you go on holidays blizzard developpement team, you apparently need to cool off.
Reminds me of the 30 dmg zealot charge. Stop taking pills, cut off the booze or something, it's getting embarassing.
|
At 50 energy, you can just proxy rax Reaper cheese for a free win vs. Protoss if they made anything less than 3 gates + core before expanding. 1 or 2 gates can't produce units fast enough to be able to whittle the Reaper numbers down until energy is out and you die.
|
On December 20 2015 21:23 JackONeill wrote:
PO 45 dmg. Of course, you go on holidays blizzard developpement team, you apparently need to cool off.
Reminds me of the 30 dmg zealot charge. Stop taking pills, cut off the booze or something, it's getting embarassing.
Why is that bad?
It's less dps for more energy than before and one pylon can also be faster sniped than two.
It's still a big nerf.
|
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded.
|
On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded.
You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage.
|
On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage.
Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets.
Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such?
|
On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such?
With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong.
|
On December 21 2015 00:03 aQuaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such? With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong.
Wait what? So you are all for improving Terran early game defense against Protoss game-ending moves, but not unless we take out Terran's economy out of the game? Do I read that correctly?
|
On December 21 2015 00:13 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 00:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such? With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong. Wait what? So you are all for improving Terran early game defense against Protoss game-ending moves, but not unless we take out Terran's economy out of the game? Do I read that correctly?
I'm sorry if it sounded like a real proposition, it was not one.
|
PO 45 damages ? OS marines and zerglings ? Yeah, pretty sure it's going to nerf the PO as expected..
|
rly? why incrasing the damage? with adepts protoss is so storng in the earlygame. PO shouldnt get a damagebuff.
|
On December 21 2015 01:30 SpecKROELLchen wrote:
rly? why incrasing the damage? with adepts protoss is so storng in the earlygame. PO shouldnt get a damagebuff.
It's a DPS nerf.
Right now, for 50 energy you get two pylons shooting for 30 damage each: 2x30 = 60.
With the nerf, for 50 energy you get one pylon shooting for 45 damage: 1x45 = 45.
Also, as other people have pointed out, since the PO is cast on a singe pylon instead of two it's twice as easy to destroy to stop the damage. Also a single pylon covers less area than two.
|
On December 21 2015 00:13 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 00:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such? With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong. Wait what? So you are all for improving Terran early game defense against Protoss game-ending moves, but not unless we take out Terran's economy out of the game? Do I read that correctly?
I like how every race has these pointless arguments. My race cant do X so its underpowered.
Sure, protoss has significant advantages by having a MSC and pylon overcharge. Also warpprisms and warpins are really good.
Then again, terran has siege tanks, liberators and the best mineral dump in the game, mules giving a much healthier economy and super easy access to detection with scan.
Terran can also do a complete wall off, using supply depots that dont cost 2 supply.
Im not sure what youre argument is, do you want all races to be the same?
Ter
|
On December 21 2015 05:49 Empirimancer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 01:30 SpecKROELLchen wrote:
rly? why incrasing the damage? with adepts protoss is so storng in the earlygame. PO shouldnt get a damagebuff. It's a DPS nerf. Right now, for 50 energy you get two pylons shooting for 30 damage each: 2x30 = 60. With the nerf, for 50 energy you get one pylon shooting for 45 damage: 1x45 = 45. Also, as other people have pointed out, since the PO is cast on a singe pylon instead of two it's twice as easy to destroy to stop the damage. Also a single pylon covers less area than two. You forget that it one shots units like Lings or Marines without shields. In this regard, the DPS is actually the same. It no longer fires twice to kill ling/marine, it kills it in one hit.
Also, if you want to pressure Protosses 3rd base, and he has 3 Pylons near it, it is much better to use stacked energy and have 3x45 damage Pylon cannons instead of 3x30. Most of the time, attacking army will not be in range of more then 2-3 Pylons. Therefore, the reasoning of "now you only have energy for 3 cannons instead of 6" is invalid.
If anything, the PO change is a buff when it comes to defending timing attacks.
It leaves Protoss more vulnerable once MSC comes into play, as it needs to gather energy first. But after that short window of time, Pylon cannons are only stronger.
|
Really liking those ladder changes!
|
What about those league distributions? At Blizzcon they said something like 8/23/23/23/23/4 from bronze to masters.
Will there be a Soft / Hard MMR Reset again if they make the ladder revamp? Seems quiet possible in my opinion?
EDIT: The season 4 ends at january, the 31, but the season lock is 29 december? ingame mistake?
greetings
|
We recently learned that "precision beats power and timing beats speed”, so we’re interested to know if this statement also applies to professional SC2 games!
hahaha love the Connor Mcgregor quote
|
I thought something was going to be included in this update about Ultralisk armor?
|
Speaking of adepts, they absolutely brutalize hellions and hellbats
|
People, especially Terran players. Just stop whining about Ultralisks. We all saw at Homestory Cup as they were wrecked by ghosts. Just start use other units in T arsenal, not relying only on MMM (just as it is since 2010). Zerg nerfed hard, but i don't feel it's needed. Crackling nerf is overkill- u feel that lategame zerglings are too strong? Just look at 3/3 marines on stim- i don't hear about stim nerf coming soon. Ravager morphing time- well i can admit that they are coming too soon, especially on small maps where the rush distance is short. After watching HSC games i feel like it's time for Blizzard to reverse the larva nerf. I was sad when i saw Terrans with half the economy, overproducing Zerg with bio. I don't feel like Terran is underpowered in TvZ especially with the variety of early pressure they can deal. To be honest i feel like Zerg is compelled to make Roach/Ravager every ZvT. Everything else is not valid. So basically larva nerf makes us to do those nydus allins or mass Ravager pushes. Muta/Bling is weak, and almost every other composition doesn't work.
|
On December 21 2015 06:55 weikor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 00:13 Everlong wrote:On December 21 2015 00:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such? With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong. Wait what? So you are all for improving Terran early game defense against Protoss game-ending moves, but not unless we take out Terran's economy out of the game? Do I read that correctly? I like how every race has these pointless arguments. My race cant do X so its underpowered. Sure, protoss has significant advantages by having a MSC and pylon overcharge. Also warpprisms and warpins are really good. Then again, terran has siege tanks, liberators and the best mineral dump in the game, mules giving a much healthier economy and super easy access to detection with scan. Terran can also do a complete wall off, using supply depots that dont cost 2 supply. Im not sure what youre argument is, do you want all races to be the same? Ter
No, I don't want all races to be the same. I want the game to be balanced (it certainly is not at this point) so that every race can use their strengths and weaknesses, which ultimately makes the game interesting. But running away from obvious balance issues by saying that "every race has it's strengths and weaknesses" is not really going to help.
Really, pointing out T's ability to wall off (so good with Blink/Prism right?) is not going to hide the fact that current early game TvP is in a really bad state. Pylon rush into Adept pressure of some kind (mostly with Prism) while expanding freely (because you can hold most early game pressure from T easily with the help of Pylons) puts T in a really bad position for the rest of the game. Mentioning Siege Tanks as a strength of Terran (?) is not going to help either.
|
On December 21 2015 16:51 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 06:55 weikor wrote:On December 21 2015 00:13 Everlong wrote:On December 21 2015 00:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such? With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong. Wait what? So you are all for improving Terran early game defense against Protoss game-ending moves, but not unless we take out Terran's economy out of the game? Do I read that correctly? I like how every race has these pointless arguments. My race cant do X so its underpowered. Sure, protoss has significant advantages by having a MSC and pylon overcharge. Also warpprisms and warpins are really good. Then again, terran has siege tanks, liberators and the best mineral dump in the game, mules giving a much healthier economy and super easy access to detection with scan. Terran can also do a complete wall off, using supply depots that dont cost 2 supply. Im not sure what youre argument is, do you want all races to be the same? Ter No, I don't want all races to be the same. I want the game to be balanced (it certainly is not at this point) so that every race can use their strengths and weaknesses, which ultimately makes the game interesting. But running away from obvious balance issues by saying that "every race has it's strengths and weaknesses" is not really going to help. Really, pointing out T's ability to wall off (so good with Blink/Prism right?) is not going to hide the fact that current early game TvP is in a really bad state. Pylon rush into Adept pressure of some kind (mostly with Prism) while expanding freely (because you can hold most early game pressure from T easily with the help of Pylons) puts T in a really bad position for the rest of the game. Mentioning Siege Tanks as a strength of Terran (?) is not going to help either.
I'm not going to say that the meta isn't in a bad place. But if you nerf Protoss, then you need to nerf Terran more in order to achieve your ultimate goal of balance, because TvP is slightly Terran favored according Aligulac at the moment...
http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
So let's always start with statistics and change from there. Not saying TvP doesn't need a lot of work and can't be better, but simply buffing the side that is winning more, regardless of how bad their early game might be, or nerfing the side that is losing more certainly won't achieve balance.
|
On December 21 2015 17:06 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 16:51 Everlong wrote:On December 21 2015 06:55 weikor wrote:On December 21 2015 00:13 Everlong wrote:On December 21 2015 00:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such? With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong. Wait what? So you are all for improving Terran early game defense against Protoss game-ending moves, but not unless we take out Terran's economy out of the game? Do I read that correctly? I like how every race has these pointless arguments. My race cant do X so its underpowered. Sure, protoss has significant advantages by having a MSC and pylon overcharge. Also warpprisms and warpins are really good. Then again, terran has siege tanks, liberators and the best mineral dump in the game, mules giving a much healthier economy and super easy access to detection with scan. Terran can also do a complete wall off, using supply depots that dont cost 2 supply. Im not sure what youre argument is, do you want all races to be the same? Ter No, I don't want all races to be the same. I want the game to be balanced (it certainly is not at this point) so that every race can use their strengths and weaknesses, which ultimately makes the game interesting. But running away from obvious balance issues by saying that "every race has it's strengths and weaknesses" is not really going to help. Really, pointing out T's ability to wall off (so good with Blink/Prism right?) is not going to hide the fact that current early game TvP is in a really bad state. Pylon rush into Adept pressure of some kind (mostly with Prism) while expanding freely (because you can hold most early game pressure from T easily with the help of Pylons) puts T in a really bad position for the rest of the game. Mentioning Siege Tanks as a strength of Terran (?) is not going to help either. I'm not going to say that the meta isn't in a bad place. But if you nerf Protoss, then you need to nerf Terran more in order to achieve your ultimate goal of balance, because TvP is slightly Terran favored according Aligulac at the moment... http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/So let's always start with statistics and change from there. Not saying TvP doesn't need a lot of work and can't be better, but simply buffing the side that is winning more, regardless of how bad their early game might be, or nerfing the side that is losing more certainly won't achieve balance.
I'm not saying the game is not balanced statistically. The "meta" is fucked up and certain parts of game are not balanced. It's mostly the early game and the late game, where it's quite obvious certain things are just broken (Adept, Viper's PB, Liberator, etc...). Maybe I should be more careful with the word "balance", people here are overly sensitive to it.
It reminds me of the era of pulling the boys before mid/late game TvP. It's the same story here, imo. Yes, people win TvP, it's around 50/50, so it's "fine". But it's not, really. You know what I mean.
|
On December 19 2015 18:40 opisska wrote:
MMR! MMR! MMR!
After FIVE fucking years, we are going to put an end to "but I am TOP gold!" ?! Un-fucking-believable.
Seriously, how is this thread full of the same old stupid balance discussion again, when they are giving us MMR.
MMR!!! :o :o Finally!! The technology is here!!!
You can ditch leagues entirely for what I care now. I already got my gold medal for getting into league 3 out of 7, thanks, essentially beat multiplayer. Gold: winning medal, I rulez. yep.
And yes: why are there posts that are not about MMR in this thread? Ban plz.
|
On December 21 2015 16:05 hiroshOne wrote:
People, especially Terran players. Just stop whining about Ultralisks. We all saw at Homestory Cup as they were wrecked by ghosts. Just start use other units in T arsenal, not relying only on MMM (just as it is since 2010). Zerg nerfed hard, but i don't feel it's needed. Crackling nerf is overkill- u feel that lategame zerglings are too strong? Just look at 3/3 marines on stim- i don't hear about stim nerf coming soon. Ravager morphing time- well i can admit that they are coming too soon, especially on small maps where the rush distance is short. After watching HSC games i feel like it's time for Blizzard to reverse the larva nerf. I was sad when i saw Terrans with half the economy, overproducing Zerg with bio. I don't feel like Terran is underpowered in TvZ especially with the variety of early pressure they can deal. To be honest i feel like Zerg is compelled to make Roach/Ravager every ZvT. Everything else is not valid. So basically larva nerf makes us to do those nydus allins or mass Ravager pushes. Muta/Bling is weak, and almost every other composition doesn't work.
Yea MMA vs foreigners lol
Please watch GSL and SSL games and you will change your mind about that
|
On December 21 2015 16:51 Everlong wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 06:55 weikor wrote:On December 21 2015 00:13 Everlong wrote:On December 21 2015 00:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:48 Everlong wrote:On December 20 2015 23:34 aQuaSC wrote:On December 20 2015 23:24 JackONeill wrote:
A clic on a pylone now 3shots a banshee. It 4shots a medivac.
Blizzard needs to stop making protoss so gimmicky and retarded. You forget about the fact that Medivacs can move around - what about turrets? They kill Warp Prisms very quickly if flown straight into one or two, would you propose a nerf? If I see a wall of turrets as you see pylons, I just retreat and try to find a different opening - while I agree that overcharge did feel a little bit weird, I like how it prevents some instant game-ending moves that previous installments were riddled with. We'll see if this change will be bad. Change from 25 to 50 energy is definitely a nerf, no matter the damage. Pylons are supply buildings as well unlike Missile Turrets. Also, Protoss player (I guess?) speaking about how he likes he's able to prevent some instant game-ending moves feels really funny. May I suggest an option for Terran to prevent game-ending moves too? Like Oracles, Adept/Prism, Blink and such? With MULEs removed, I'm all for that. It's funny how some people try to argument an issue with another possible issue. I'm a Protoss player, learning other races, and - attention, attention - I think Adepts are too strong. Wait what? So you are all for improving Terran early game defense against Protoss game-ending moves, but not unless we take out Terran's economy out of the game? Do I read that correctly? I like how every race has these pointless arguments. My race cant do X so its underpowered. Sure, protoss has significant advantages by having a MSC and pylon overcharge. Also warpprisms and warpins are really good. Then again, terran has siege tanks, liberators and the best mineral dump in the game, mules giving a much healthier economy and super easy access to detection with scan. Terran can also do a complete wall off, using supply depots that dont cost 2 supply. Im not sure what youre argument is, do you want all races to be the same? Ter No, I don't want all races to be the same. I want the game to be balanced (it certainly is not at this point) so that every race can use their strengths and weaknesses, which ultimately makes the game interesting. But running away from obvious balance issues by saying that "every race has it's strengths and weaknesses" is not really going to help. Really, pointing out T's ability to wall off (so good with Blink/Prism right?) is not going to hide the fact that current early game TvP is in a really bad state. Pylon rush into Adept pressure of some kind (mostly with Prism) while expanding freely (because you can hold most early game pressure from T easily with the help of Pylons) puts T in a really bad position for the rest of the game. Mentioning Siege Tanks as a strength of Terran (?) is not going to help either.
Yea and in Korea no terran because adepts warp prism so strong.
They have to fix a bit that because there won't be any terran in GSL and the very few in SSL will be eliminated quite fast
|
Reading the team's justification for their decisions gives me visual images of a Magikarp flopping helplessly back and forth. Like... What is this?
- Bonus pool tuning
- We like how bonus pool is effective as a tool that rewards players for continuing to play.
- The current numbers for bonus pool point accrual don’t seem appropriate for each matchmaking format. We intend to explore our data about how often players/teams play in each format in order to get better numbers per game format.
- Showing MMR
- We’re thinking we can show MMR as a tool for players to use so they can accurately tell exactly what someone’s skill is.
- Tier system
- We still believe it’ll be the most fun for players to focus on which tier of which league he or she belongs to.
- We’re leaning towards keeping mid season demotions disabled here. The main reason for this is that your current skill is portrayed by MMR already, so it will be cooler to see your highest rank that season through the League/tier system.
- Keep loading screen information simple, but have more transparency on the score screen (for example, showing the MMR of both players on there)
- This is mostly based on your feedback saying that too many details about an opponent before a match might introduce weird factors that could disrupt your ability to play well. We’re thinking we can focus on providing that information after the match has ended.
First off, ladder points were supposed to be a numeric representation of a player's ladder climbing in the absence of displaying their MMR. If we are going to have MMR, what is the purpose of points/bonus pool? Second, still preventing mid-season demotion continues to make a joke out of the tier system, as your tier is not necessarily reflective of your skill/position in the ladder. It's a worthless showpiece right now, and will be demonstrably so for many when putting it beside the player's actual MMR.
Just take some time to actually design a ladder system that makes sense, please. Either go with MMR as your information metric or have a points system (with hidden MMR) that actually helps the player understand whether they're climbing/falling -- and enough of this hand holding with the tiers; if a player gets Gold placement but quickly ends up in Bronze MMR ranges, then he is Bronze. For the points option, look at League of Legends as a benchmark if you have to.
|
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
User was warned for this post
|
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.
|
On December 21 2015 17:54 Topdoller wrote:
If you dont like the game, just f^ck off and go play something else
Man, the white on this knight has made me almost blind.
Stop buying manuals published by Blizzard on how to behave already and open your eyes. It's very healthy for the game to point out blatant issues when the dev team is clueless in certain areas.
And if you don't like it, just f^uck off and go read something else then "Community Feedback Update".
User was warned for this post
|
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.
|
On December 21 2015 18:09 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 21 2015 18:31 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Saddened with what, LoTV has been out about than 8 weeks?
Every time Blizzard has listen to you lot moaning and make rash changes it makes the game worse. HoTS almost killed the game with its flat 15 min no rush "lets sit back and defend" until we get to late game death ball tactics.
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.
The game is in the best shape for years, all races now have viable options to harass and defend. Its exciting to watch with action going on all over the map from minute one.
I just think we need to get the maps right first. Terran suffers the most on bigger maps due to low mobility on key units. For example on Steps of War tanks are godlike due to its ability to zone out a large percentage of the map.Now it looks like shit with maps the size of galaxys which take almost 1 minute to cross.
At least give the players time to work it out.
|
Canada8157 Posts
Not a big fan of the 1 shotting marines on PO
And I agree, maps can use some work
|
On December 21 2015 20:17 Topdoller wrote:
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.
I agree with you in general, that people present data in a very biased way pretty often, both unconsciously and consciously to support their own picture of the world. I just want to defend stats itself a bit, saying that if you are good with stats, it is not only possible to use it to trick people, but also to get useful information from data.
So in this case, I think the people over at aligulac are doing a good job at presenting their data. The problem is that all the TL and bnet people that come there to get confirmation that their race is UP, and all other races are OP are usually able to read that from the graphs even though the graphs are presented fairly and don't support their view. People just don't seem to be capable of taking home a more nuanced message than "OP!!!" or "UP!!!". I think the problem doesn't lay with aligulac, and your "Aligulac with its bullshit stats" isn't really justified imo. The problem is with people that go there to read out what they already "know", rather than go there and look what the graphs tell them.
|
On December 21 2015 17:06 BronzeKnee wrote:I'm not going to say that the meta isn't in a bad place. But if you nerf Protoss, then you need to nerf Terran more in order to achieve your ultimate goal of balance, because TvP is slightly Terran favored according Aligulac at the moment... http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/So let's always start with statistics and change from there. Not saying TvP doesn't need a lot of work and can't be better, but simply buffing the side that is winning more, regardless of how bad their early game might be, or nerfing the side that is losing more certainly won't achieve balance.
While those stats include November, recall that LOTV launched 10NOV2015. Let's see what December looks like when it's over.
|
On December 21 2015 20:17 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 21 2015 22:40 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 21 2015 18:37 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On December 21 2015 22:43 cop354g wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I would say that when discussing balance and imbalance the win rate is the ONLY thing that matters. Thats what it literally means: in a balanced game the win rates are equal.
But we dont care as much about balance as we do about fun. We want a game that is fun to watch and fun to play. Even if the game is perfectly balanced it is possible that it is neither fun to watch nor fun to play.
|
On December 21 2015 22:49 RoomOfMush 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. I would say that when discussing balance and imbalance the win rate is the ONLY thing that matters. Thats what it literally means: in a balanced game the win rates are equal. But we dont care as much about balance as we do about fun. We want a game that is fun to watch and fun to play. Even if the game is perfectly balanced it is possible that it is neither fun to watch nor fun to play.
Winrate imbalance means just that, winrate imbalance. But there can be balanced winrate with imbalances regarding units and mechanics between races, if all races have atleast one way to overcome those imbalances to keep balanced winrate.
Lets say marines could literally 1a move everything in the game, but only saving grace for protoss could be just teching oracle at very spesific time in game would result in 50% winrate, the game design certainly would not be considered "balanced".
|
On December 21 2015 22:49 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
On December 21 2015 22:43 cop354g wrote:Show nested quote +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
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.
|
On December 21 2015 22:49 RoomOfMush wrote:
I would say that when discussing balance and imbalance the win rate is the ONLY thing that matters. Thats what it literally means: in a balanced game the win rates are equal.
But we dont care as much about balance as we do about fun. We want a game that is fun to watch and fun to play. Even if the game is perfectly balanced it is possible that it is neither fun to watch nor fun to play.
Agreed. I think that good design has to come first during development and balance issues can be adjusted after the fact. I think questionable design decisions can actually make it more difficult to balance, as we've seen with the Colossus and the Cylcone, where there's a very fine line between "too good and frustrating/boring", and nearly-useless.
|
For fuck sake please fix mass reaper bullshit
|
On December 21 2015 18:37 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +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.
They're not OP for Terran late game, they're good for Terran in the mid game because Marines only cost minerals and with a gold base you can pump out more of them with fewer workers. For standard bio MMM, the mineral to gas ratio Terran wants is much higher than the other races want for any of their compositions.
Late game it matters much less. And don't believe the people who say Mules have something to do with it, Mules mine gold and blue at the same rate.
|
On December 21 2015 18:31 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Quitting SC2 was my 2015 New Years resolution. Came back temporarily to finish off the campaign and give the LOTV multiplayer a chance (despite my expectations), but it's been proven to not be worth my time. That said, I'll lurk periodically and give my thoughts on these community updates in the hope that what was once my favourite video game franchise will be fun again for me at some point. If my criticism can eventually help facilitate that, I'd be happy.
For now though, it's Destiny and League of Legends for me. But yeah, point is that there are people who have quit the game but are still holding out for a turnaround from Blizzard.
|
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 Kingdom12022 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.
|
On December 24 2015 09:32 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 08:55 TimeSpiral 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. 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.
Haha. Well that meta sure shifted quickly, lol. Last I heard, Terran was struggling mightily to win vs. Zerg and Protoss. There are plenty of lategame compositions that are difficult to deal with, and I find it comically ironic that Protoss would be complaining about a "difficult to deal with" late game composition. Lol.
I'm gonna go find the vod for that game and see what all the hoopla is about.
|
On December 26 2015 23:47 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2015 09:32 pure.Wasted wrote:On December 24 2015 08:55 TimeSpiral 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. 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. Haha. Well that meta sure shifted quickly, lol. Last I heard, Terran was struggling mightily to win vs. Zerg and Protoss. There are plenty of lategame compositions that are difficult to deal with, and I find it comically ironic that Protoss would be complaining about a "difficult to deal with" late game composition. Lol. I'm gonna go find the vod for that game and see what all the hoopla is about.
That's exactly what's going on lol. Roles have reversed since HotS, Protoss have the early game advantage thanks to adepts (altho armored tag will make them awful) and terran have the upper hand in lategame thanks to the DPS of liberator defender mode.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
