|
On February 05 2016 09:46 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 09:15 Silvana wrote:What we need is an honorable Zerg that says PvZ is broken and thanks David Kim in his interview after beating a Protoss  What we need is frustrated plat/diamond players to stop whining. The winrate has already been adjusting upwards for protoss in recent weeks because they've figured out how to play the matchup (even in presence of the adept nerf), and it's now at ~45%. If you remove or adjust the ridiculously Zerg favored maps so they're balanced, I'm convinced the matchup will gravitate towards sub 3% balance differences very soon (at which point balance kind of becomes irrelevant, it means that when two equally skilled players play, one will lose 3 games out of 50 because of imbalance).
Apparently whining works since Terrans whining managed to make DK overlook PvZ 42-44% and prioritize PvT (I guess thanks Seeds's rant too) when statistically it was bad but not nearly as bad (granted the games were ugly mass adept but that's another problem). So yeah not happening soon until he at least acknowledge there is something definitely wrong. Can you believe he has not written a single time "PvZ" since december 18th as if it is a non-issue? Adept and overcharge got nerfed, frankly good riddance but no sign of making another move. Really? Are we doomed to always put huge restrictions on maps' layout or else lose half a season until they get patched in the hope of bandaiding a more radical issue?
|
On February 05 2016 10:24 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 10:23 seemsgood wrote:
People like tankivac because they don't care how siege tank was designed.
Actually it's a bad unit that doesn't do much until you get 10 + of them except against marines. That's SC2 tank for you.
Did they address why they nerf siege tank damage back from WOL ? i didnt find community feedback which address it.
We must know why they do that to reduce complain and find another solution.
Follow thier design goal is good way to keep both improve each other but of course not alway true.
|
blizzard sc2 team have only to listen kr progammer feedback .. just listen and do
|
On February 05 2016 10:32 jasonbourne907 wrote:
blizzard sc2 team have only to listen kr progammer feedback .. just listen and do
SC2 isn't Korea though.
|
Addressing the possible mech buff after the tank pick-up has been removed,
what are your suggestions ppl?
There were some pretty interresting ideas going on the forum already,
now's the best moment to let the dev team take a look at what we want.
Blizz seems to favor slight cosmetic changes that don't necessarily throw all the matchups off balance.
The Siege Tank damage buff could be the right move in my opinion.
Question is: should it be a flat damage increase? An upgrade, as someone had suggested in one of recent topics (the campaign upgrade), or the BW styled delay between the shot and the hit, which made them overkill?
Curious of what ya'll think
|
First of all, I agree that tankivacs are getting abused especially in TvT and maybe also killing mech in TvT because bio + tanks is way to mobile and has so high dps... Making them unload unsieged when picked up from medivacs seems like a pretty good idea...
But, with this ZvT ravagers is where the problem is at and also causing trouble in PvZ... Ravagers need to be nerfed in my opininon they are WAY too strong at the moment... At least give them a unit type, they have 1 armor but are not even armored unit type, hell how can any unit counter them effectively ?? Also maybe increase their spawning time to 20-30 seconds, hell they are as fast and easy as banes to morph and don't require any upgrades or additional buildings !! you could maybe even require a lair to make them... Disabling their damage agaisn't buildings is also another option that could be tested... but ravagers are the most problematic unit right now in my opininon...
Even in proleagues and GSL you see Zerg players such as Dark or Ragnarok completely abusing them and even ending games in like 6-7 mins with crazy all-ins...
|
1) Maps
Why is the mapool still the same? Change the maps already, it's been since the beginning of the beta that we play on the same maps. Basetrade TV already strarts to get custom mappool...
2) Balance
- Disruptor still is terrible design wise
- Cyclone is still useless
- Removing the tankivac IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. And please, don't make them unsiege in the medivac... Remove the whole thing
- Buffing the tank damage IS AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY. Maelstorm upgrade (+30-40 dmg on primary target, splash unchanged) seems nice with armory requirement, for 100/100 and with a LONG research time. Kind of a mech stim.
- "bringing the Banshee speed upgrade down a tech level." REALLY???? Yeah mech can't win against roach ravagers BETTER BUFF TERRAN HARASS. Are you people for real???
- "Just like the pro feedback we get, ZvT looks to be a good mix of even games with both sides looking really strong in various games." NOPE NOPE NOPE. Terran plays on a timer and zerg has to survive way to many ways of aggression.
- TvP DOES look good. However the tankivac nerf needs to be compensated by a tank damage buff to still be used in this matchup
Overall I'm still absolutly stunned by how the dev team doesn't want to change designs, but stats only. Disruptor design, cyclone design, PO design, PB design, prism blink design : these are all things that are gonna be either ridiculously OP, either terrible and never used. Because the design is so bad you'll never manage to hit a sweet spot.
|
I think they have actually forgotten about PvZ. Also gold natural what.
|
People really underestimate the power of range-upgraded Liberators. Mass adepts will be raped hardcore by our Liberator girls. Just wait and see!!!
|
The thought of a gold natural is frightening and almost instant veto worthy, the rest of the changes seem in a positive direction
|
I think if you change tanks to deal more damage to the primary target and reduce their supply and cost slightly that would be fun.
e: I am also ambivalent on the Disruptor change seeing as how late they come into the match-up and the choices you need to take to get there having them make an immediate and powerful impact feels correct. Maybe instead of removing the + vs Shields damage try giving them radial splash damage?
|
Higher damage siegetank is a rightfully way to go. Abour Ravager problem, i think Davie has a point of what to do next: Banshee upgrade, higher damage Siegetank. Medivac picking up cause tank to unsiege is also a good help to solve this problem, it make siegetank have more chance to survive.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
On February 05 2016 11:46 chipmonklord17 wrote:
The thought of a gold natural is frightening and almost instant veto worthy, the rest of the changes seem in a positive direction
Gold base third is problematic too
What race are you to be afraid of a gold natural? I'd guess zerg - and zerg has map pool advantage overall right now
|
On February 05 2016 12:11 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 11:46 chipmonklord17 wrote:
The thought of a gold natural is frightening and almost instant veto worthy, the rest of the changes seem in a positive direction Gold base third is problematic too What race are you to be afraid of a gold natural? I'd guess zerg - and zerg has map pool advantage overall right now
I mentioned it in the previous thread, I think the map should be changed but the decision to move the gold base from the third to the natural makes the map go from zerg favored to...not zerg favored. In either ZvP or ZvT it is much easier for a Protoss/Terran to take and hold a natural compared to a zerg in a normal macro game. This is because of bunkers and walls for terran and pylons/MSC for protoss.
This is a problem for multiple reasons
1) Harass options for protoss and terran are better than those of zerg. Liberators/reapers/mines/adepts/cannons are all very good harass options, where as zerg requires a larger committal of units to do damage. Like mentioned earlier that is harder to do because of things like overcharge. This leads into
2) Because protoss and terran can hold said naturals more easily, and can harass more easily, having an easy to hold gold base puts things further in their favor. That single liberator that denied mining now means a lot more when the terran is both still mining AND mining gold minerals.
This all adds together with the fact that zerg units are worse than protoss or terran units. Zerg units are meant to be in mass and swarmy, so now you're giving the terran and protoss an easier to hold gold with the ability to produce better units. It just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
My solutions are:
1) Change the 4th base to a normal base and keep the third base gold. This might prove to be slightly zerg favored still but I think the ability to only get 1 gold reasonably might prevent that.
or in a more wonky solution
2) Rotate spawns ~90 degrees. Instead of top left and bottom right spawns spawn in the top right and bottom left where the high ground bases are. This would require a change to the ramp but once done would create the same general idea the current map has. The base directly to the right of the top left spawn (the normal mineral patch) would act as the easy to take natural, and the gold base in the middle of the map and where the current third base gold base are would act as harder to take bases. The center gold base would become the more natural 3rd but would still be wide open to counter attacks from the opposing race.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/n1Je9ij.png)
This is what I mean. You would have to remove the watchtower and change remove the ramp going from the new main to the other base (the normal mineral patch not labeled 2). You could also switch 2 to be the other side and remove the opposite ramp, it wouldn't matter
|
Give Siege Tanks an upgrade Blizz, make them glorious again. Bonus dmg to primary target, or at least give them 0.5 second delay between shot and hit..
|
On February 05 2016 08:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 08:11 blade55555 wrote:On February 05 2016 07:21 Heyjoray wrote:On February 05 2016 07:17 SC2Toastie wrote:
Okay, DK, superconstructive as to not demotivate your team:
Tank pickup can be changed. Nice change would be to drop the tanks unsieged, but still allow them to be picked up in Siege mode. The main scary interaction is Siege Tank vs Ravager All Ins from Zerg. I think buffing Siege Tank damage could be a way to go, but experimenting with an Armored tag on Ravagers might also work.
For PvT, I really dislike the opening phase where Terran HAS to play hyperdefensive and cannot really attack with anything other than Mine Drops, have you considered making Overcharge a (distinguishable) upgrade at Cycore? If Protoss wants to play defensively, they can get this upgrade, and the opponent can see this, so they won't have to fear Warpgate aggression.
Making Disruptors so they dont one shot full health stalkers sounds awesome.
And please have a look at PvZ. It's been avoided like the plague but could probably considered the most problematic matchup.
Ciao! PvZ is problematic? Odd, because i watch protoss win against zerg constantly. Why are so many people ignoring that? Ravager with Armor tag was hilarious: They disappeared instantly. Tends to be NA Protosses that complain who are still opening Robo first and going into sentry/stalker/disruptor (what an awful composition). Once the Protosses complaining start doing a phoenix into chargelot/archon/immortal, they will enjoy pvz a lot more. Terrans would have enjoyed TvP a lot more if they opened like jjakji did in first map vs Classic. Don't recall that this was a compelling argument at the time. And this was for a close to 50% match-up, we're talking 42-45% here.
It is a popular build order, though. The disadvantage was that despite what protoss did - attack or not, fail or succeed the protoss still got ahead 
|
i think the basic problem with PvZ is that it seems to take more strategy, control, work to win as P (for instance building placement), while Z can to go ravager and roach (and later lurkers). This means at a very high level PvZ is prolly more balanced where at lower levels Z is gonna kill it.
i think I=its reminiscent of TvP of early days, when T could win by making the simple comp of MMM. Also I think we need to keep the map pool in mind. Z has a great defenders advantage on creep and good counter-play with lings which allows them to hold more attack paths + potential scout and deny more bases....
|
+1 to removing siege tank pickup and buffing damage.
As for maps. I think they're going about this the wrong way. I don't want a "rush map" and a "turtle map" where there's only one strong strategy. That just makes games predictable and boring. Not to mention it upsets the whole balance between cheese, greed, and safe play. I would like to see maps that support a variety of strategies.
Besides, simplifying maps to rush or macro play is so boring. I have this crazy idea that in strategy games, taking and holding key locations/positions is a major kind of objective. The only way this exists in SC2 right now is mining bases. What about gameplay that revolves around fighting over ramps/chokepoints rather than just expansions? In BW this was called a "containment" strategy and you'd sometimes see it in TvT with tanks and missile turrets. Maybe this will never be important in SC2 because protoss will just warp-in/blink/cliff-walk past them and terrans will just lift up in their ubiquitous medivac fleets.
|
I like the idea of archetypes... and I actually like the archetypes you layed out. I'll just add...
3 macro maps = at least 1 of them a hardcore macro map (like dawn)
1 voted map, basically set up a poll with a couple options inwhich people vote for the map they want and go with it
|
YES! GOLD NATURAL... I never considered that a possible way to change Prion Terrace. This needs to happen!
Overall good changes, I still get nervous about TvZ and Ravager rushes if they change the Siege Tank pickup. There has to be another reliable way to stop Ravager rushes if they arent going to change how much damage Ravagers do to buildings (bunkers).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
