| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
jahnesta
France62 Posts
On March 05 2016 00:00 coolmiyo wrote: IEM katowice summary: 6 zergs ro8, 3 koreans ro8 in a "foreigner" tournament. gj david, gj blizzard interesting notes: ravagers, parasitic bomb. Hmmm, in GSL atm, 2 zergs qualified for ro16, 5 zergs out. Means something ? | ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1653 Posts
On March 03 2016 08:34 MaxTa wrote: So here is a list of what I think would make some nice and well needed changes for each race, of course I wouldn't expect all of this in 1 patch: TERRAN - Siege tanks: Damage buff, Unload unsieged from medivacs - Liberators: Increase supply cost to 4, reduce move speed - Cyclones: Lower cost, Increase HP - Thors: Possibly boost AA vs armored (avilo's upgrade ?) ZERG - Ravagers: Change to armored since they have +1 armor, increase morph time, possibly nerf corrosive bile - Lurkers: Reduce their range, possibly make their bonus damage vs Light instead of Armored - Nydus: Remove invincibility - Ultra: Possibly reduce their armor to +6 instead of +8 PROTOSS - Immortals: Increase their shield cooldown - Tempest: Increase their supply cost to 6, Reduce their range, Possibly make them only attack air - Adept: Increase their cost to 150/25 or 125/25 - Disruptors: Remove their damage bonus vs shield The lurkers need to do extra damage to armored and not light, it's important to oppose them do the banelings damage. But agree with a nerf, if the immortals shield bullshit is removed. I don't like how that's work. Btw, slow down disruptors speed so multitasking them with warp prism is required. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On March 05 2016 00:11 90ti wrote: so is it the range or DPS? Its been suggested to make it tech lab required as another option. I think it needs its range to be a siege unit (map design the other half) so I think DPS could be played with. Just check the liquipedia, this unit is a true wall of stats. It kinda reminds me of the warhound lol. Strong at everything. I think I would just lower the damage to ground from 85 to 75 so the interaction with hydras and stalkers is less one sided (it would take +1 shot to kill them) and see how it goes from there. Simple and easy. If Ultras prove to be a problem then they could get -1 armor as people have been suggesting for a long while. | ||
|
DonDomingo
504 Posts
On February 27 2016 03:54 GGzerG wrote: Sorry but it sounds like they are saying a lot and doing very little. So like every PR statement every made in the history of man? | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On March 05 2016 02:11 DonDomingo wrote: So like every PR statement every made in the history of man? Well, that's an important distinction. People should recognize this actually is PR and not be fooled in to thinking this is actually them giving a damn about how players feel. They have revealed it as PR so many times... but many people still defend them as if these feedback updates are in players best interest...When in reality they aren't even honest with us and just saying what they say to pacify us. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On March 05 2016 00:52 jahnesta wrote: Hmmm, in GSL atm, 2 zergs qualified for ro16, 5 zergs out. Means something ? Of course it does... | ||
|
90ti
United States100 Posts
On March 05 2016 02:02 Salteador Neo wrote: Just check the liquipedia, this unit is a true wall of stats. It kinda reminds me of the warhound lol. Strong at everything. I think I would just lower the damage to ground from 85 to 75 so the interaction with hydras and stalkers is less one sided (it would take +1 shot to kill them) and see how it goes from there. Simple and easy. If Ultras prove to be a problem then they could get -1 armor as people have been suggesting for a long while. it has mainly the same design philosophy of the WM, except that you can see the circle. Counterplay against it is significantly higher for the opponent. I think a higher rate of fire but lower damage allows for the opponent to move his units out of the circle, i.e. with queens transfuse and or alternate queens, or with stalkers you can blink and alternate. | ||
|
90ti
United States100 Posts
On March 05 2016 02:02 Salteador Neo wrote: Just check the liquipedia, this unit is a true wall of stats. It kinda reminds me of the warhound lol. Strong at everything. I think I would just lower the damage to ground from 85 to 75 so the interaction with hydras and stalkers is less one sided (it would take +1 shot to kill them) and see how it goes from there. Simple and easy. If Ultras prove to be a problem then they could get -1 armor as people have been suggesting for a long while. I still hold that ultras only became not complete garbage in LOTV (still want my charge back) and in today's games at IEM for example "won" the game because the terran was so far behind. They finally allow the zerg to maintain momentum instead of like HOTS where you practically fall behind by making them. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24232 Posts
indeed : that they met better players | ||
|
jahnesta
France62 Posts
But in SSL zergs are dominating... We can't rely on those statistics to talk about balance | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
Boost speed could stay the same though, so it would allow you to still get in/out quick, but the speed reduction would slightly nerf the ability to keep jumping from the main to 3rd to 2nd etc etc. The medivac would take a few more hits from any AA, making the terran not able to continue jumping from bases for so long. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
On March 05 2016 13:18 NyxNax wrote: I'm just spit-ballin here but what if the medivac were to move slower when carrying a sieged tank? Not like overlord speed slow, but maybe around a 10% reduction in speed. Boost speed could stay the same though, so it would allow you to still get in/out quick, but the speed reduction would slightly nerf the ability to keep jumping from the main to 3rd to 2nd etc etc. The medivac would take a few more hits from any AA, making the terran not able to continue jumping from bases for so long. Or we could just increase the delay before firing. Somewhat simpler and it has the effect of making it less efficient to move mass siege tanks around. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On March 05 2016 03:06 jahnesta wrote: But in SSL zergs are dominating... We can't rely on those statistics to talk about balance The two zergs that are "dominating" in SSL are still in play in GSL, and we're likely to have at least 4 (or exactly 4 to be honest) at the end of the Ro16. However this GSL shows clearly that if you aren't a top zerg you don't have much of an advantage in Korea, and I'm not sure why we would want to pretend it doesn't just so we can say other results don't matter. Of course they do. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20319 Posts
But agree with a nerf, if the immortals shield bullshit is removed. I don't like how that's work. Having a flat damage shield makes immortals worse against the units that hit hard like tanks, thors, liberators, lurkers etc. It makes them substantially better against units like Hydralisks which didn't trigger the old shield but lose a lot of damage against the new one | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20319 Posts
On March 05 2016 00:52 jahnesta wrote: Hmmm, in GSL atm, 2 zergs qualified for ro16 Fewer zerg have played so far - the first groups had more P/Z and the last few groups which have not played yet are more zerg heavy. Some stuff that seems pretty obvious ATM: ZvT pretty fine. Depends on who is playing ZvP zerg favored Zerg representation pretty broken. Ladder has some insane stats and ZvZ is 2-5x more popular than the other mirrors at pro play. ---- No blizzard post this week? | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 07 2016 01:14 Cyro wrote: Fewer zerg have played so far - the first groups had more P/Z and the last few groups which have not played yet are more zerg heavy. Some stuff that seems pretty obvious ATM: ZvT pretty fine. Depends on who is playing ZvP zerg favored Zerg representation pretty broken. Ladder has some insane stats and ZvZ is 2-5x more popular than the other mirrors at pro play. ---- No blizzard post this week? They said they will post after WCS concluded, after the weekend. Which - including all qualifiers etc - looks like this: http://aligulac.com/results/events/52566-WCS-2016-Circuit-Championship-Winter/ GSL stats so far: http://aligulac.com/results/events/51442-GSL-2016/ SSL so far http://aligulac.com/results/events/51644-SSL-2016/ Proleague so far http://aligulac.com/results/events/53159-Proleague-2016/ Everything looks like slgihtly Z>P, though not quite as strongly as the aligulac balance report stats. | ||
|
PressureSC2
122 Posts
Blizz cannot make Terran playable competitively for you and I or GSL code S would be all TvT. That is, unless they make other units better than Terran tier 1 and 1.5 bio. I think that helps to explain lack of Terran representation at IEM but abundance at GSL (now and historically). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 07 2016 03:20 PressureSC2 wrote: So long as Terran "Gateway tech" remains the strongest tier of Terran (beyond any factory or starport units that shoot) for the 5 best sc2 players on the planet, the game might very well remain messed up for the other Terran players on this planet. Blizz cannot make Terran playable competitively for you and I or GSL code S would be all TvT. That is, unless they make other units better than Terran tier 1 and 1.5 bio. I think that helps to explain lack of Terran representation at IEM but abundance at GSL (now and historically). Can we please ban people that talk like this for once? At the moment Terran representation is #1 or #2 all across the board in Master and GM Leagues. Diamond the same. Overall Terran is leading in all of those stats. It's hilarious, even at these times when Terran is obviously doing very well across the board we have retards that try to uphold the myth - a myth that origined from a time when Terran was plainly too weak, i.e. BL/Infestor time - that somehow Terran is too hard to play if you are not a Code S championship contender. At this point it's like creationism I guess, stupidity has won and is spreading itself further. User was warned for this post | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On March 01 2016 19:57 deacon.frost wrote: Robo in general is the big problem. The Blizzard idea is/was that you need from robo in LotV this: - observers - warp prisms - disruptors Ideally at the same time. Robo now reminds me harder version of Zerg's dilemma "when to build drones and when units"  Perhaps a good buff for Protoss would be to move the Observer to the Nexus and allow it to be built only when you have a Robo Facility. Similar to the MSC and the Cybercore. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:35 BronzeKnee wrote: Perhaps a good buff for Protoss would be to move the Observer to the Nexus and allow it to be built only when you have a Robo Facility. Similar to the MSC and the Cybercore. Quite an interesting thought. That might help quite a bit in PvZ, as I think robo production with the nerfed chronoboost is one of the main problems for P. The other ones being the ravager and lurker  | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
OSC
LAN Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
LAN Event
IPSL
dxtr13 vs OldBoy
Napoleon vs Doodle
BSL 21
Gosudark vs Kyrie
Gypsy vs Sterling
UltrA vs Radley
Dandy vs Ptak
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
