|
On December 27 2015 06:06 Qwyn wrote:I've got a great adept nerf for you. Won't require any other changes: Adept shades can no longer path through other units. Tah dah! All sources of adept stupidity have been removed  .
yeah that has been the obvious change since the introduction of adepts, but blizzard probably wants harass that can access your base no matter what. That has been the whole ideology behind Legacy.
|
On December 27 2015 06:06 Qwyn wrote:I've got a great adept nerf for you. Won't require any other changes: Adept shades can no longer path through other units. Tah dah! All sources of adept stupidity have been removed .
I suggested this during the beta a long time ago, but I remember people telling me that the shade (that basically becomes a forcefield) would then be abused... and that I was convinced. Can those people remind me of how this shade would be abused ?
|
I think it was me that pointed that if shades (were to be blocked by) and blocked units then they would be used to prevent enemy armies from retreating and forcing them to take more damage from disruptors or storm. Also to block ramps but I guess thats something minor.
|
On December 27 2015 06:43 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2015 05:17 Clipped wrote:On December 27 2015 04:01 BronzeKnee wrote:then Protoss will suffer even more in non-mirrors, as Protoss is under a 50% winrate in both non-mirrors already. Not true, PvT is 55-45 and while PvZ is pretty bad a lot of it is due to the three terrible maps (lerrilak, prion terraces and central protocol). SSL 2016 did not use the three named map GSL pre-season If you're going to use Aligulac results, why cherry pick events when you can see it all here: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/And what does that chart say? Protoss has a 49.57% win rate. It will be updated for December at the end of the month and we can track the changes then. But if we are going to cherry pick from December events, Protoss currently has 22% win rate in NationWars III... http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/NationWars_IIILet's wait for everything to be combined before we make inferences that PvT is 55-45. Those are the latest and highest level events, they illustrate the state of the current meta better than any other but nice straw man.
The problem with the adept in PvT is that the unit that is the most effective at countering mineral line harass is also terrible against them in combat. I think the change to armoured is pretty good and it would make sense since it is actually armoured. It's also the only change that I can think of that wont affect PvZ.
Currently it takes 8.54s (28 shots) for two marines to kill an adept and 18.19s (17 shots) for a marauder witch are more expensive (25 more gas) and harder to build (no reactor).
After the change it will take the same for the marines and 8.56s (8 shots) for a marauder.
The main difference of course is that the marauder is more useful in general against protoss.
|
On December 27 2015 20:31 Clipped wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2015 06:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 27 2015 05:17 Clipped wrote:On December 27 2015 04:01 BronzeKnee wrote:then Protoss will suffer even more in non-mirrors, as Protoss is under a 50% winrate in both non-mirrors already. Not true, PvT is 55-45 and while PvZ is pretty bad a lot of it is due to the three terrible maps (lerrilak, prion terraces and central protocol). SSL 2016 did not use the three named map GSL pre-season If you're going to use Aligulac results, why cherry pick events when you can see it all here: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/And what does that chart say? Protoss has a 49.57% win rate. It will be updated for December at the end of the month and we can track the changes then. But if we are going to cherry pick from December events, Protoss currently has 22% win rate in NationWars III... http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/NationWars_IIILet's wait for everything to be combined before we make inferences that PvT is 55-45. Those are the latest and highest level events, they illustrate the state of the current meta better than any other but nice straw man. The problem with the adept in PvT is that the unit that is the most effective at countering mineral line harass is also terrible against them in combat. I think the change to armoured is pretty good and it would make sense since it is actually armoured. It's also the only change that I can think of that wont affect PvZ. Currently it takes 8.54s (28 shots) for two marines to kill an adept and 18.19s (17 shots) for a marauder witch are more expensive (25 more gas) and harder to build (no reactor). After the change it will take the same for the marines and 8.56s (8 shots) for a marauder. The main difference of course is that the marauder is more useful in general against protoss.
So in your opinion it is totally OK that a single rax unit counters all gateway units?
|
On December 27 2015 07:51 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2015 06:32 Foxxan wrote:On December 27 2015 01:48 Elentos wrote:On December 27 2015 01:34 Foxxan wrote:On December 27 2015 01:04 Bohemond wrote:
HOW does it more than double it? Explain.
Well, let's see. Vs. Shields 5+5 = 10, will become 10+10 = 20. Vs Hull 4+4 = 8, will become, 9+9 = 18 8x2 = 16. 18 is more than twice 8. Mindbogglingly complicated calculations, I know. As far as adding tanks, a lot of people leave start up tank production directly after the 1st Cyclone comes out. I don't know if it's a top level strat, but I've seen it a bunch. Adepts will be as squishy vs. bio with this change as stalkers. Changing core unit stats this drastically without other large changes to compensate won't end well. I understand nothing from this post. Then you're not trying hard enough. What does hull mean? And what does shield mean? Protoss units have shields. Shields don't benefit from armor values, base or otherwise.
aha, smart.
|
The only 2 things blizzard should fix right now is the parasitic bomb stack, and reduce the starting energy of the MSC to 25 or 0. The other things should wait! I'm seeing things in streams, like a lot of more use of ghost snipe and emps at TvP, liberators pushes at TvZ, or infestors at ZvX, that can mix things up. The playstyles are green, and the meta inexistent. "Evolution is the Solution"
|
On December 22 2015 23:28 Bohemond wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 23:24 m4ini wrote:On December 22 2015 23:21 Bohemond wrote:On December 22 2015 23:15 m4ini wrote:
Not to be rude, but since you're doing it again (our last discussion you had the same problem) - you're stating that zealots against a stimmed army are useless. What kind of assumption is that?
If zealots have charge, and the terran doesn't have combat shields, conc shells and stim, the terran army just melts. But it's kind of a "no-argument", you always go charge if you go zealot heavy, the same way you always have stim if you go bio.
I also disagree alot with the idea that protoss needs to counter everything by just building warpgates. Bio isn't played by purely barracks either.
The armor change is also the only change to adept that doesn't touch ZvP at all. Every other change, like warp prism changes etc will touch ZvP as well. During beta a few people suggested changing the Adept damage to +12 vs. light. That way they kill Marines and SCVs in 3 hits but still kill lings and drones in 2. Sounds like it'd be worth trying at the very least. Won't change their effectiveness vs. marines with combat shields either, so it probably wouldn't weaken their midgame too much. Not too bad of an idea, didn't follow beta discussions so i didn't know about it. Certainly could be a solution as well. That doesn't mean that the armor change shouldn't be tested though, as long as it is on a testmap. I'd say that the armor change is dumb enough that it doesn't need to be tested. It's not DT speed buff stupid, but it's pretty bad. Marauder heavy comps backed up by mines will be hellish for Protoss to deal with. Edit: I think it was a pro's idea to do +12 vs. light, can't remember who though. Wish I could give credit, since I think it's the right band-aid for this dumb unit.
+1 to this solution. Marauders shouldn't be the counter to everything protoss has...
|
I'm all for an Adept nerf I want to see more longer PvT, but lategame PvT is almost impossible for Protoss to win right now (on reddit someone wanted to bring up the last game between TY and herO which was ended by a Pylon cheese but took some more time for the GG to happen so PLEASE don't use this as an example of a lategame macro PvT), so I would like a buff to Protoss, right now we have Storm and Archons as splash against Terran (noone uses disruptors Terran bio dodges that SOOO easily) so a buff to either one would be nice :D
|
On December 27 2015 06:43 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2015 06:06 Qwyn wrote:I've got a great adept nerf for you. Won't require any other changes: Adept shades can no longer path through other units. Tah dah! All sources of adept stupidity have been removed . That is great idea. Alternative maybe just lengthening the cooldown of the shade ability or moving more the attack speed to the upgrade could work. Making them armored feels like Blizzard is taking a sledgehammer to a problem that is best solved with scalpel. Show nested quote +On December 27 2015 05:17 Clipped wrote:On December 27 2015 04:01 BronzeKnee wrote:then Protoss will suffer even more in non-mirrors, as Protoss is under a 50% winrate in both non-mirrors already. Not true, PvT is 55-45 and while PvZ is pretty bad a lot of it is due to the three terrible maps (lerrilak, prion terraces and central protocol). SSL 2016 did not use the three named map GSL pre-season If you're going to use Aligulac results, why cherry pick events when you can see it all here: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/And what does that chart say? Protoss has a 49.57% win rate. It will be updated for December at the end of the month and we can track the changes then. But if we are going to cherry pick from December events, Protoss currently has 22% win rate in NationWars III... http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/NationWars_IIILet's wait for everything to be combined before we make inferences that PvT is 55-45.
Meanwhile SSL have 3 terran, 7 protoss, and 6 zerg. 2 GSL preseason won by 2 protoss, and even the protoss player from kespa said that protoss >> terran right now, i dont care about the your stats from aligulac, for me the true story telling is the korean tournaments.
|
On December 27 2015 20:31 Clipped wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2015 06:43 BronzeKnee wrote:On December 27 2015 05:17 Clipped wrote:On December 27 2015 04:01 BronzeKnee wrote:then Protoss will suffer even more in non-mirrors, as Protoss is under a 50% winrate in both non-mirrors already. Not true, PvT is 55-45 and while PvZ is pretty bad a lot of it is due to the three terrible maps (lerrilak, prion terraces and central protocol). SSL 2016 did not use the three named map GSL pre-season If you're going to use Aligulac results, why cherry pick events when you can see it all here: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/And what does that chart say? Protoss has a 49.57% win rate. It will be updated for December at the end of the month and we can track the changes then. But if we are going to cherry pick from December events, Protoss currently has 22% win rate in NationWars III... http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/NationWars_IIILet's wait for everything to be combined before we make inferences that PvT is 55-45. Those are the latest and highest level events, they illustrate the state of the current meta better than any other but nice straw man. The problem with the adept in PvT is that the unit that is the most effective at countering mineral line harass is also terrible against them in combat. I think the change to armoured is pretty good and it would make sense since it is actually armoured. It's also the only change that I can think of that wont affect PvZ. Currently it takes 8.54s (28 shots) for two marines to kill an adept and 18.19s (17 shots) for a marauder witch are more expensive (25 more gas) and harder to build (no reactor). After the change it will take the same for the marines and 8.56s (8 shots) for a marauder. The main difference of course is that the marauder is more useful in general against protoss.
It's worth noting that the Marauder is dead worthless against Oracles. So giving Terran more incentive to cut early Marines is far from risk-free.
I'm super curious to see how this will pan out for TvP.
|
my feedback here
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20351865174
TvZ after thor buff makes it seem like mech is playable! vipers no longer counter everything i can put out and gives zerg player a reason to be more careful with their vipers-although banshee/thor/hellbat is incredibly strong due to overseers/spores melting quickly.
|
Ahh... PvT is now even more Terran favored according to Aligulac... December was even more favored for Terran than November...
Why does Terran need this again? And if it goes through, what buff is Protoss going to maintain some semblance of balance?
http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
|
Only fools go that hard on the stats right now. What matters to me is how the great armee of terran excels vs a great armee of protoss. There are still alot of learn to play here imo for both sides.
Also, alot of rabbling about this change without even testing it.
I think what wasted wrote is also intersting, opening marauders is still far from risk-free.
|
On January 02 2016 17:33 Foxxan wrote:
I think what wasted wrote is also intersting, opening marauders is still far from risk-free.
I don't care about the risk to Terran. What I don't want this game to become is another Command and Conquer style RTS, where you just have to mass 1 unit (like prism tanks in RA2), in order to counter everything the other guy is making. Marauders being able to counter the entire gateway tech is simply bad for the game. It is as bad, as 30 damage on hit chargelots, which wrecked most of Z/T compositions by themselves.
|
On January 02 2016 16:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Ahh... PvT is now even more Terran favored according to Aligulac... December was even more favored for Terran than November... Why does Terran need this again? And if it goes through, what buff is Protoss going to maintain some semblance of balance? http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
I don't think we can really call much of balance at this point tho, we have to wait until the pros figure things out (kespa pros transitioned really late) to call it.
That being said this change is stupid, they just need to address the bullshit of early game with WP/adepts and general mass adepts in the early game, not to flat out nerf them.
|
The adept problem is more : too much mobility/tankypower/DPS vs light on early game
|
Zzzz... I think the Adept is fine. It's just the insanity of Warp Prism pickup range + fast warp-ins that is the problem, which completely destroys the defender's advantage and makes it a low-risk operation to harass with it
|
On January 02 2016 23:59 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2016 17:33 Foxxan wrote:
I think what wasted wrote is also intersting, opening marauders is still far from risk-free.
I don't care about the risk to Terran. What I don't want this game to become is another Command and Conquer style RTS, where you just have to mass 1 unit (like prism tanks in RA2), in order to counter everything the other guy is making. Marauders being able to counter the entire gateway tech is simply bad for the game. It is as bad, as 30 damage on hit chargelots, which wrecked most of Z/T compositions by themselves.
If you just massed 1 Unit type then you played that game wrong. While strategic depth was hindred because there was no fog of war, there was still more to it than just Massing one Unit. Most people just don´t know this. Really good players played quite different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
