|
On January 27 2016 16:17 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 07:42 DinoMight wrote:On January 27 2016 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote:
PO was just a joke : turning your supply into some machine gun for only 25 energy while you have just bought a 100/100 unit that can aslo shoot ground, fly and scoot, recall and slow units.
25 energy was just too low, it was like P have unlimited photon canon, you can't even bait it and attacke somewhere else, the MSC still have enough energy to cast others PO.
I see a lot of protoss complaining about PvZ being Zerg favor. Just watch some top kor games : P is favor, they have better economy while having a more cost effective army.
But Kot P now harass while macroing and hurt so much zerg economy that got less larva, while P has super warprism +adept and phoenix.
But pretty sure the P who complain still play their old : I all-in or camp until late game.
Statistically Zerg wins a lot more than Protoss. This "but go watch top Protoss maaaaaannnn" is bullshit and it needs to end. So does this "but you're still trying to play your old style" crap. I've been playing LotV since the beta opened... more than enough time to adapt strategies. Protoss needs 50-100 apm more than they did in HotS to play PvZ and not get annihilated by equal skill opponents... Every strategy requires you to be ALSO harassing. In HotS there were allins, there was regular adaptive macro play, and there was turtling to a great composition. In LotV, the 3rd option no longer exists. And if you don't harass while you're getting to your allin, it will fail. It's just aligulac argument while we don't see Zerg crushing everything on tournament, but rather lagging to have the same results than T and P. Just look at the win rate of the best Kor : Soo, Dark, Life, Hydra, Rogue, Byul worst non miror match up are vs P, while Hero, Classic, Dear, Trap, Zest, Stats best non miror MU are vs Z. The APM argument, for me it seems that the game now balance. P could be GM with 110 APM on HOTS. Also, the count of APM have changed, and having + 50 APM compare to HOTS is nearly the same APM than HOTS (maybe just +10). But your arguments prove exactly what i'm saying : You complain you can't no longer turtle and get the deathball, and that you need to harass, multitask, soft harass, more APM. You just prove, it's a learn to play issue rather than a balance issue. You're stuck with your old habits, playing the old way, and refusing to learn the new way, but rather complains "need more APM, and no longer turtle : obviously underpower race...." A balance issue, is : "I've watched thousands of VOD, replays from pros, doing my best to find the way to counter that, but even them are failing, and have no clue to counter this, every Pro Player have trouble with this"
except that design-wise, as a protoss, it's more mechanics demanding with all the lurker and ravager AOE. That sucks.
|
On January 28 2016 00:11 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2016 23:56 MockHamill wrote:
2. Make Ravagers armoured.
Since tankivac are gone both bio and mech needs an alternative for countering ravagers. Making ravagers armoured make both tanks and marauders work against ravagers. Plus it makes stalkers better versus Ravagers making it easier for Protoss to take a 3rd in PvZ. We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right? We only have problems with certain rushes, not as much with the the unit, right? We want to have the unit still viable, so we introduce a patch that should change 2 early game shot relations, but after some upgrading everything will be back to normal. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, onwards we go to the ravager rushes: +150% damage from immortals +100% damage from marauders +66% damage from voidrays, +166% damage from charged voidrays +66% damage from unsieged tanks, +43% damage from sieged tanks +40% damage from stalkers ... Sounds fair, only the ravager rushes are going to be affected by that, right? And the patch after we deal with 2-3rax reapers: barracks cost doubled. Won't change terran at all, that's only gonna affect that specific rush. 
Ravagers are pretty much a cookie cutter unit right now, which they just shouldn't be.
|
On January 28 2016 00:23 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2016 00:11 Big J wrote:On January 27 2016 23:56 MockHamill wrote:
2. Make Ravagers armoured.
Since tankivac are gone both bio and mech needs an alternative for countering ravagers. Making ravagers armoured make both tanks and marauders work against ravagers. Plus it makes stalkers better versus Ravagers making it easier for Protoss to take a 3rd in PvZ. We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right? We only have problems with certain rushes, not as much with the the unit, right? We want to have the unit still viable, so we introduce a patch that should change 2 early game shot relations, but after some upgrading everything will be back to normal. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooo, onwards we go to the ravager rushes: +150% damage from immortals +100% damage from marauders +66% damage from voidrays, +166% damage from charged voidrays +66% damage from unsieged tanks, +43% damage from sieged tanks +40% damage from stalkers ... Sounds fair, only the ravager rushes are going to be affected by that, right? And the patch after we deal with 2-3rax reapers: barracks cost doubled. Won't change terran at all, that's only gonna affect that specific rush. Ravagers are pretty much a cookie cutter unit right now, which they just shouldn't be.
Care to explain why a unit shouldn't be cookie cutter?
|
While I want adepts to stay competitive vs bio, saying the -1damage is 1.5x less damage against marines is not really telling the whole story IMO
It is true if you play monobattles and only engage with pure adepts, but considering there's other units that can give the final blow to a marine that has taken two adept shots (stalkers, zealots, sentries) the result should not be that bad for adepts. At least I hope so.
|
On January 28 2016 00:12 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +We give adepts -1 damage vs light. So -4% damage vs light, -2% damage on average. You know, we want to keep changes reasonable, right? 1.5x less dmg against marine, scv in the parts of the game where they were considered powerful
On January 28 2016 00:18 Laserist wrote:
If you think adept nerf only affect the units damage output by %4, you are either an unsuccessful troll or something else I don't want to state in this environment.
It's always hard to respond to such comments, because you either didn't read the entire post, you didn't understand it or for some fucked up reasons you consciously chose to ignore this part:
We want to have the unit still viable, so we introduce a patch that should change 2 early game shot relations, but after some upgrading everything will be back to normal.
On January 28 2016 00:12 Cyro wrote:
If Armored ravager doesn't work then stats can easily be changed. That's a design thing (should it be more vulnerable to X units and less vulnerable to Y?) rather than a final statement of balance. Right now it's a little weird to see Ravagers way more vulnerable to zealot/phoenix than immortal / VR. More vulnerable to marines than marauders assuming they stay alive.
Chances of blizzard redesigning units: 0.1%.
And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn.
|
On January 28 2016 00:30 Salteador Neo wrote:
While I want adepts to stay competitive vs bio, saying the -1damage is 1.5x less damage against marines is not really telling the whole story IMO
It is true if you play monobattles and only engage with pure adepts, but considering there's other units that can give the final blow to a marine that has taken two adept shots (stalkers, zealots, sentries) the result should not be that bad for adepts. At least I hope so.
After +1 for Protoss the change is moot.
|
United Kingdom20340 Posts
And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn.
There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts
|
On January 28 2016 00:35 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn. There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts
So the fact that some so-called pro gamers and casters of this game fail to read basic patch notes is now an argument for never changing the Ravager? I don't get what you are trying to say here...
|
On January 28 2016 00:35 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn. There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts
You just kind of expect any derivative of the roach to be armored, since roaches don't die.
Once you now, it's no big deal. I don't think it's strange.
Next someone's going to complain that stasis ward has a light tag
|
Prediction for patch date?
|
On January 28 2016 00:58 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2016 00:35 Cyro wrote:And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn. There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts You just kind of expect any derivative of the roach to be armored, since roaches don't die. Once you now, it's no big deal. I don't think it's strange. Next someone's going to complain that stasis ward has a light tag
We still have hellbat/hellion transformation that makes no sense 
|
On January 28 2016 00:58 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2016 00:35 Cyro wrote:And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn. There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts You just kind of expect any derivative of the roach to be armored, since roaches don't die. Once you now, it's no big deal. I don't think it's strange. Next someone's going to complain that stasis ward has a light tag
I think he has a slight point in that the aesthetic design of the Ravager just simply looks like something that is armored.
|
Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
|
Starcraft isn't realistic? #mindisblown
|
On January 28 2016 00:58 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2016 00:35 Cyro wrote:And I think the notion that "it's a little weird" is no more weird than anything else in the game we had to learn. There were a lot of comments from casters and even high level players a while back over "wtf, i thought the ravager was armored" and similar thoughts You just kind of expect any derivative of the roach to be armored, since roaches don't die. Once you now, it's no big deal. I don't think it's strange. Next someone's going to complain that stasis ward has a light tag
its a bit strange.
what Blizz needs is some new lore about some kind of special Carapace organic/veggie material that grows on Banelings and Ravagers. some crap about how its the next biological evolutionary step in the Zerg species or some crap.
This extra strong coating of Carapace is extra strong with unique protective properties making the zerg animal resistant to BOTH types of attacks that specialize in damaging Light AND armored units.and therefore and it requires 2 morph stages to develop because its so strong.. blah blah blah.
then it all makes sense.
did you know that Marauders are inside Firebat suits and that the Firebat had to be discontinued because too many of them were setting themselves on fire ?
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote:
Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random
It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles?
We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell 
|
On January 28 2016 01:44 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote:
Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles? We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell
OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL.
Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
|
What was the spore crawler change?
|
On January 28 2016 01:53 TentativePanda wrote:
What was the spore crawler change?
They wanted to reduce the bonus damage to biological (to +5 I think?) to make mutas better. Which would have been redundant since they're already great in ZvZ.
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
On January 28 2016 01:53 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2016 01:44 deacon.frost wrote:On January 28 2016 01:15 opisska wrote:
Weapons that do more damage to an armored target do not make sense in the first place, so arguing about any common sense in this aspect is pretty much random It depends on what you think exactly. But you are familiar with armor piercing ammunition, right? Anti-tank rifles? We can argue about tanks - in reality you don't care whether tank hits you with an AP or a "bunker buster" shot, you are still deader than dead. The shell radius is different though, when they hit you with AP the people next to you can survive, though they have shots that acts as a grenade - that kills everything living in the area. They can switch these pretty fast but then SC2 tank would be OP as hell OK, I should have known better than to be vague on TL. Weapons that do more single target damage when the target is armoured than when it isn't do not make sense, right? I really can't come up with a scenario when the sole fact of having an armor hurts you when being hit. In any case, such an armor seems like the first thing to drop in battle
Czech forces had a problem when doing NATO missions in Afghanistan. Their 7.62 x 39 ammo was too powerful(and kinda AP too) so we were leaving more wounded than killed when compared to forces using 5.56 So it's not an unknown thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
