|
Hey everyone, we hope you’ve all had a good week and want to thank everyone who helped participate in constructive discussions. After hearing your thoughts we’d like to provide an update to discuss a few topics such as team colors and maps. Let’s dive in.
Specifying Team Colors
This is something that we’ve been exploring internally per our community’s request. The initial solution we were considering was to implement a full-featured UI that allowed each player to set his or her color preference, so that whenever possible we can give the customized color. However, we soon recognized that it would be very difficult to guarantee all color preferences in team games and would feel very random in the cases where color preferences are not met.
The solution we’re currently thinking of instead is to allow customization on the option that has preset colors. Currently, the defaults are: Green for a player, Yellow for the player’s allies, and Red for all enemies. By customizing these 3 categories of colors, players would have a clean and simple solution compared to the more complex options.
So the main discussion we should be having on this front is: is the above proposal the best overall solution we can have in this area? If so, we can start working on this task. If not, let’s get discussions going on the best solution, so that we can work towards implementing it in the future.
Zerg Attack Reticle
We saw a post yesterday by aeJupiter about the Zerg attack reticle being incorrect. This post was exceptionally well-presented, and was also very helpful as the reticle’s appearance is indeed a bug! We’ll be looking to fix the reticle in an upcoming patch, thanks so much for pointing this out.
Map Diversity
We noticed the posts regarding having to only use standard maps due to everyone only liking standard maps. We had two points of discussion after reading through these conclusions. First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing. Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches.
We’ve been at that spot in the past before and have clearly seen how stale the game can become if every tournament game plays identically with the same strategy and same timings available on every map. We’re not saying every single tournament out there should have a diverse map pool, and having a couple tournaments here and there that use more standard maps could be a fun difference.
We’re also very excited to see how the old maps turn out in Proleague season 2, and this is something we have been discussing with Kespa. While the HotS maps may have been “standard” in HotS, they have a big potential to create completely different types of games in LotV due to how much the game has changed. We’re very excited to see what types of games they create in LotV. Obviously, if an older map archetype does turn out to be super exciting, we can include maps like these as well on the ladder.
We really wanted to make this point super clear. Our stance is not that standard maps are bad and every map has to be new and different. We’re more than happy to use map archetypes that have been used in the past as long as each of the 7 maps on the ladder is of a different type. The main reason we explore new map types is to locate potentially cool maps that we haven’t encountered before. For example, Dusk Towers seems to be one of the more favorites out there right now, and this type of not-completely-standard macro map would not have been possible if we just stuck to the same, one formula when making new maps.
With that said though, we clearly hear your feedback on maybe we’re pushing the new map types harder than we should right now. Therefore, we’d like to get discussions going on two fronts here: First is to determine on a case by case basis what balance changes are needed on the new maps. Second is regarding Korhal Carnage Knockout and strategies feeling a bit one sided here. If this turns out to be the case, we would like to rotate this out asap. The main goal here would be to look at the 6 maps currently in the map pool, and choose a map that plays very differently from the 6. We would want to go with a map that is already fully arted and QA tested, so one of the HotS maps that proleague is using could be an option here as well.
Taking a step back from everything - we believe it has been incredibly valuable to integrate the most dedicated, smart, and passionate community members into this game’s design process over the past year or so, and we want to continue doing this. There’s no need to become dejected by a decision and discuss how “every map is so bad + and the game is ruined”. Please remember that even if the SC2 community is discussing a massive change like “removing a map”, the SC2 design team is open to listening. Let’s all work as one team and think constructively so we can continue making calls that are best for the game.
Thanks everyone.
Call to Action: March 31 Balance Testing
We’ve published a new Balance Test Map titled “(4)RuinsofSeras (3.1.4 Balance v1.1)” which contains the following changes that we’d like your feedback on:
- Thor’s anti-air attack has been reworked:
- Now deals single-target damage.
- Deals 50 damage every 2 seconds.
- 1 attack per hit.
- The Thor’s model has been changed to reflect its new attack.
- Banshee’s Hyperflight Rotors has changed:
- Requirement changed from Fusion Core to Armory
- Cost reduced from 200/200 to 100/100
- Liberator’s Defender Mode radius decreased from 5 to 4.
- Ravager Corrosive Bile cooldown increased from 7 to 10 seconds.
We encourage you to head on into the Balance Test Map to test these changes out! To do so, simply click this link if you have StarCraft II installed. To find it manually instead, enter Multiplayer and navigate to Custom. The Balance Test Map will be at the top of the list under ‘Top Played.’
We’ve also updated the Extension Mod for balance testing, so that you can play around with these changes on a variety of maps. Those of you who are interested in trying out the Extension Mod can do the following to get started:
- Navigate to Browse Maps on the Custom Games menu
- Select a map and click the Create with Mod button in the lower right corner
- Choose to sort by Blizzard Mods from the dropdown list at the top of the screen
- Select the “Balance Test Mod” Extension from the list and then hit Create Game
|
wtf is this, patch the game bastard!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
If Blizzard does in fact rotate out maps that prove to be extremely problematic asap that's pretty good, but they haven't ever done so in the past, so I'm not terribly hopeful.
Realistically no matter how good your map selection process is, if you select experimental maps there will be failures, so replacing bad maps mid-season is an absolute necessity.
|
Please do the colors thing :O
On April 01 2016 03:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
If Blizzard does in fact rotate out maps that prove to be extremely problematic asap that's pretty good, but they haven't ever done so in the past, so I'm not terribly hopeful.
Realistically no matter how good your map selection process is, if you select experimental maps there will be failures, so replacing bad maps mid-season is an absolute necessity.
Exactly how I see it.
|
If all three races like a map, and the stats show all three races have close to 50:50 win ratio, then this map is good and well balanced.
If one race likes a map but another race do not like it, and stats show one race has much higher win ratio then another in this map, then this map may not be balanced.
If all three races do not like a map and think it is hard to play, but the stats show all three races have 50:50 win ratio in this map, is this map balanced?
|
I hope they add more maps instead of taking rotating current ones out on ladder and give more map vetos. Sometimes I like a little insanity.
|
On April 01 2016 03:41 pzlama333 wrote:
If all three races do not like a map and think it is hard to play, is this map balanced?
I think this would depend on the different reasons each race dislikes the map for.
No word on Invader cross spawns is driving me crazy.
|
|
|
Austria24417 Posts
Let players figure out the game first. How are you supposed to evaluate balance correctly if the maps are an even bigger factor? And balance should be the main concern right now, the game is still being figured out and refined.
Who knows if Ravager/Queen (for example) is actually broken or if it's just these maps making it ridiculous? You need to actually have a solid idea of how the game works before putting twists on it through maps or balance changes. But players having to figure out everything at once will leave you with very little reliable data to make good changes.
And, in my personal experience, it really isn't fun to play either. I'd much rather take some time and figure things out on 'standard' maps first, to get a grip on everything, and THEN I'll dive into different maps and see how things play out there. But that takes time and there hasn't been enough of it yet. We've only had 2-3 reasonable maps on ladder since release.
|
Yay colours.
I hope they'll add Overgrowth or KSS to ladder.
|
On April 01 2016 03:45 SlammerSC2 wrote:
No balance changes????? Thanks everyone. Part two of this weekly update will be coming tomorrow to discuss a few extra topics some of which are personally very important to me.
I'd assume that's when those come in.
|
Where is this reticle article?
|
On April 01 2016 03:46 Ansibled wrote:
Yay colours.
Indeed. Finally I'll be able to play in good colors on ladder.
|
On April 01 2016 03:48 Hier wrote:
Where is this reticle article?
"Article"
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8zJdn2q.jpg)
|
i really hope this isnt just talk from blizzard & they are serious about rotating out a map or 2. A compromise would be if we had perhaps 3 somewhat standard maps & then the rest can be "CreativeTM" if they want.
|
Wait, what about the team colours? Wasn't that option there since... WOL? I mean, you see yourself green, then yellow your allies and finally all the enemies in red. I almost never play team but I remember looking at that with the option near the minimap and saying "Damn, I see the 3 enemies as red so I don't know who is who"
The only change is to make some presets for the optiont that has always been there... it changes nothing, dafuq with this?
|
On April 01 2016 03:55 Sogetsu wrote:
it changes nothing, dafuq with this?
It will mean you can, after 5 years, play 1v1 ladder in different colors than red, blue and green. And it won't even affect your opponent.
|
The maps are terrible in my opinion, I really hope they get a good map design team, Fighting Spirit please.... T_T
|
They didn't address the posts that basically said something along the lines of
standard maps allow for play diversity, because players can explore styles and be creative; in contrast, current "creative" maps (current map pool) force players to play one strategy for every matchup, and thus creating a stagnant meta
I don't play ladder but this seems to have much sense. Do you guys agree with that statement or is it complete bs?? (This situation reminds me to tankivacs in TvT btw)
|
Norway839 Posts
Glad to see this update, maps imba per matchup constantly vetoed out of tournaments until the very grand finals is a bad thing. (obviously)
Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing
Agree with the above. But it's important to emphasize that when people want more 'standard' maps, at least personally (I think examples are best to explain this):
We're not talking about close to no variety such as 4x Overgrowth or 4x Daybreak, it's more like ... King Sejong, Coda, Polar Night and Whirlwind - instead of Korhal Carnage/Secret Spring/Inferno Pools/Deadalus Point. Standard-ish maps can be very different and still have unique quirks and midfields, Polar Night and King Sejong are great examples of this.
While the HotS maps may have been “standard” in HotS, they have a big potential to create completely different types of games in LotV due to how much the game has changed. We’re very excited to see what types of games they create in LotV. Obviously, if an older map archetype does turn out to be super exciting, we can include maps like these as well on the ladder.
^ This is the best part of this community feedback update to me and I think this sets a very positive tone for the future
|
Bring back Metalopolis for a season!
|
On April 01 2016 03:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
If Blizzard does in fact rotate out maps that prove to be extremely problematic asap that's pretty good, but they haven't ever done so in the past, so I'm not terribly hopeful.
Realistically no matter how good your map selection process is, if you select experimental maps there will be failures, so replacing bad maps mid-season is an absolute necessity.
Replacing maps mid-season is not the solution imo. What we need, what we badly need, is that tournaments not held by WCS rules about map-pool (though we don't know if these exist anymore, since we don't have a 2016 Handbook) start using non-ladder maps (and I mean no ladder maps AT ALL). That way good maps can be differenciated from bad maps, and all maps can be perfected and fixed. Remember that Habitation Station became the top-tier map that it is now considered to be because it got played in tournament, and Sidian fixed the map according to the feedback he got (sadly the feedback didn't make him change the name, eh).
-> It creates a healthy, competitive map-making scene
-> It allows for maps to be selected through widely seen experiences and not through judgement of select individuals
-> It allows pro-players to play an active part in the way the game is going through map lobbying [can you imagine that stuff? "Map endorsed by Liquid.Snute". That's what the scene needs, that's a way to connect the community and the pro scene more]
-> It allows tournaments organizers to differenciate their foreigner-only online tournament and generate additional interest in them
-> With such a system Blizzard has no excuse to pick bad maps/make their own maps
-> It encourages players to do intelligent training (map-dependent), instead of brainless ladder spam 24/24
-> It allows players and viewers to get involved and debate about the game in a way that is something else than balance/design whine
The notion that a top-down map-picking system, what we actually have, can be anything else than a mess seems absurd to me. Maps come from the people, and I wish the guys making ladder maps at Blizzard would be payed to do something else, something productive and positive for the game. For fuck's sake, the community is giving away tons of workhours for FREE with mapmaking. Why bother paying people to do what people are willing to do for free?
|
So please keep in mind Part 2 of this update is coming tomorrow... on April Fool's day....
GET READY FOR SOME HI-LARIOUS JOKES GUYS!
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36990 Posts
Can someone explain this to me?
|
On April 01 2016 04:03 Liquid`Snute wrote:Glad to see this update, maps imba per matchup constantly vetoed out of tournaments until the very grand finals is a bad thing. (obviously) Show nested quote +Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing Agree with the above. But it's important to emphasize that when people want more 'standard' maps, at least personally (I think examples are best to explain this): We're not talking about close to no variety such as 4x Overgrowth or 4x Daybreak, it's more like ... King Sejong, Coda, Polar Night and Whirlwind - instead of Korhal Carnage/Secret Spring/Inferno Pools/Deadalus Point. Standard-ish maps can be very different and still have unique quirks and midfields, Polar Night and King Sejong are great examples of this. Show nested quote +While the HotS maps may have been “standard” in HotS, they have a big potential to create completely different types of games in LotV due to how much the game has changed. We’re very excited to see what types of games they create in LotV. Obviously, if an older map archetype does turn out to be super exciting, we can include maps like these as well on the ladder. ^ This is the best part of this community feedback update to me and I think this sets a very positive tone for the future
It all comes down to how you define a standard map which is very subjective. Daybreak is standard, Korhal Floating Island is non-standard, but there's a lot of ambiguity for every map in between. For example I'd consider Inferno Pool a standard map (just a very bad one). I don't think Blizzard and the community's definition of what a standard map is are quite in line.
|
On April 01 2016 04:16 Seeker wrote:Can someone explain this to me?
Zerg rally point should be White, Move command Green, and Attack command Red, instead of the Green/Yellow/Orange it currently is
|
Thank you for this update Blizzard.
Looking forward to the Apr - eh... next balance update.
|
On April 01 2016 04:13 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 03:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
If Blizzard does in fact rotate out maps that prove to be extremely problematic asap that's pretty good, but they haven't ever done so in the past, so I'm not terribly hopeful.
Realistically no matter how good your map selection process is, if you select experimental maps there will be failures, so replacing bad maps mid-season is an absolute necessity. Replacing maps mid-season is not the solution imo. What we need, what we badly need, is that tournaments not held by WCS rules about map-pool (though we don't know if these exist anymore, since we don't have a 2016 Handbook) start using non-ladder maps (and I mean no ladder maps AT ALL). That way good maps can be differenciated from bad maps, and all maps can be perfected and fixed. Remember that Habitation Station became the top-tier map that it is now considered to be because it got played in tournament, and Sidian fixed the map according to the feedback he got (sadly the feedback didn't make him change the name, eh). -> It creates a healthy, competitive map-making scene -> It allows for maps to be selected through widely seen experiences and not through judgement of select individuals -> It allows pro-players to play an active part in the way the game is going through map lobbying [can you imagine that stuff? "Map endorsed by Liquid.Snute". That's what the scene needs, that's a way to connect the community and the pro scene more] -> It allows tournaments organizers to differenciate their foreigner-only online tournament and generate additional interest in them -> With such a system Blizzard has no excuse to pick bad maps/make their own maps -> It encourages players to do intelligent training (map-dependent), instead of brainless ladder spam 24/24 -> It allows players and viewers to get involved and debate about the game in a way that is something else than balance/design whine The notion that a top-down map-picking system, what we actually have, can be anything else than a mess seems absurd to me. Maps come from the people, and I wish the guys making ladder maps at Blizzard would be payed to do something else, something productive and positive for the game. For fuck's sake, the community is giving away tons of workhours for FREE with mapmaking. Why bother paying people to do what people are willing to do for free?
Except the WCS rules about map-pools only say that the maps need to be ladder maps OR maps that Blizzard okays. I don't think a single tournament organizer (apart from the GSL) has even tried to have a non-ladder map in their map pool simply because so many players get the bulk of their practice from ladder and want to play on maps they are familiar with.
So the fact that tournaments use exclusively ladder map pools isn't really on Blizzard, it's on the map organizers and the players that reasonably enough like ladder maps in the tournaments they play in.
|
I think Blizzard is looking at the standard maps vs creative maps issue incorrectly. I believe that a stale meta generated by standard maps is not an issue with the map, but an issue with the balance. If more units and strategies become properly balanced, standard maps should be a breeding ground for creativity and variety of play because the maps suit all styles possible in the game. Creative maps actually kill options because they blatantly support one style per map, so while you are getting more playstyles overall, you are only getting one playstyle per map as well.
|
If they really take out Korhal, that would be great news!
Edit: And I can't wait for part two  .
|
On April 01 2016 04:16 Seeker wrote:Can someone explain this to me?
Well the colors for the zerg reticle aren't correct Attack move shoule be red, move command green etc.
|
On April 01 2016 04:27 Musicus wrote:If they really take out Korhal, that would be great news! Edit: And I can't wait for part two .
Honestly, I'd be somewhat disappointed if they take it out just after I learned the sickest TvP strat for that map from TY 
|
On April 01 2016 04:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:13 OtherWorld wrote:On April 01 2016 03:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
If Blizzard does in fact rotate out maps that prove to be extremely problematic asap that's pretty good, but they haven't ever done so in the past, so I'm not terribly hopeful.
Realistically no matter how good your map selection process is, if you select experimental maps there will be failures, so replacing bad maps mid-season is an absolute necessity. Replacing maps mid-season is not the solution imo. What we need, what we badly need, is that tournaments not held by WCS rules about map-pool (though we don't know if these exist anymore, since we don't have a 2016 Handbook) start using non-ladder maps (and I mean no ladder maps AT ALL). That way good maps can be differenciated from bad maps, and all maps can be perfected and fixed. Remember that Habitation Station became the top-tier map that it is now considered to be because it got played in tournament, and Sidian fixed the map according to the feedback he got (sadly the feedback didn't make him change the name, eh). -> It creates a healthy, competitive map-making scene -> It allows for maps to be selected through widely seen experiences and not through judgement of select individuals -> It allows pro-players to play an active part in the way the game is going through map lobbying [can you imagine that stuff? "Map endorsed by Liquid.Snute". That's what the scene needs, that's a way to connect the community and the pro scene more] -> It allows tournaments organizers to differenciate their foreigner-only online tournament and generate additional interest in them -> With such a system Blizzard has no excuse to pick bad maps/make their own maps -> It encourages players to do intelligent training (map-dependent), instead of brainless ladder spam 24/24 -> It allows players and viewers to get involved and debate about the game in a way that is something else than balance/design whine The notion that a top-down map-picking system, what we actually have, can be anything else than a mess seems absurd to me. Maps come from the people, and I wish the guys making ladder maps at Blizzard would be payed to do something else, something productive and positive for the game. For fuck's sake, the community is giving away tons of workhours for FREE with mapmaking. Why bother paying people to do what people are willing to do for free? Except the WCS rules about map-pools only say that the maps need to be ladder maps OR maps that Blizzard okays. I don't think a single tournament organizer (apart from the GSL) has even tried to have a non-ladder map pool simply because so many players get the bulk of their practice from ladder and want to play on maps they are familiar with. So the fact that tournaments use exclusively ladder map pools isn't really on Blizzard.
Don't get me wrong ; I'm not accusing Blizzard here of anything else than being rather bad at choosing and making maps. I agree that the issue here is way more with tournament organizers (especially since WCS rules never said anything about tournaments not giving any WCS points) and pro players (who apparently are more interested in pointlessly complaining instead of acting about the map issue) than with Blizzard.
I think anyone should be conscious that SC2 getting better on the map issue will not be achieved through forum complaining and waiting for Blizzard to act intelligently, but through actively seeking to make maps better. The way to do that is what I described.
|
On April 01 2016 04:28 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:16 Seeker wrote:On April 01 2016 03:51 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On April 01 2016 03:48 Hier wrote:
Where is this reticle article? "Article" + Show Spoiler + Can someone explain this to me? Well the colors for the zerg reticle aren't correct Attack move shoule be red, move command green etc.
How long has this been going on for? As a Zerg player I've never once noticed this
|
On April 01 2016 04:33 chipmonklord17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:28 Musicus wrote:On April 01 2016 04:16 Seeker wrote:On April 01 2016 03:51 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On April 01 2016 03:48 Hier wrote:
Where is this reticle article? "Article" + Show Spoiler + Can someone explain this to me? Well the colors for the zerg reticle aren't correct Attack move shoule be red, move command green etc. How long has this been going on for? As a Zerg player I've never once noticed this
As far as I remember the colors were correct in HotS, so I'd assume since the beginning of LotV
|
Norway839 Posts
One could also allow players to choose the hue/colors/design of their reticles similarily to the idea of team colors  reticle rewards similar to decals :D
|
On April 01 2016 03:46 Ansibled wrote:
Yay colours.
I hope they'll add Overgrowth or KSS to ladder.
Overgrowth? really? I think close to 2 years was enough
|
Tbh lets not remove Korhal, lets change it like we've done in the past. People could tell the map wouldn't work, before it was live and Blizzard should've known as well. Now we're here, so lets try and salvage the situation instead. Lets make changes to the map, it actually offers a really cool mid-late game dynamic. The rocks on the map is also different from what we've seen and adds to the map a whole lot more than I initially thought, though we gotta end the Zerg madness in the early game and let the other races expand to their natural.
|
Are they ever actually going to patch a balance change? 
|
Fix the liberator radius change. Can't see the circle.
|
Imagine if the whole map pool was a joke and tomorow we got an update! how crazy that would be
|
I understand why people want a few standard maps to play on. That makes perfect sense. What I don't understand is why people expect a whole new set of standard maps every month. The differences are only cosmetic otherwise they wouldn't be "standard." Personally I find it annoying to learn new maps every month when the gameplay is basically the same.
|
Korhal is so "creative" that it makes the other new maps look worse than they actually are.
|
I am so glad they finally adressed the reticle. That is incredibly important. This is no feedback, this is a farce.
|
|
|
i guess that is the April 1 joke.
|
Map Diversity We noticed the posts regarding having to only use standard maps due to everyone only liking standard maps. We had two points of discussion after reading through these conclusions. First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing. Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches.
This paragraph is so contradictory and makes absolutely no sense...
A lengthy explanation of questionable "evidence" where they explain why people are "wrong" that people don't prefer to play on standard maps... (with claims about 1st-4th place maps that were "voted" on but provides no data about those maps or votes)
Then he says in official and automated tournaments, the maps may be vetoed out every game???
If people like the maps so much, why the hell would they be vetoing all of them out every game???
We’ve been at that spot in the past before and have clearly seen how stale the game can become if every tournament game plays identically with the same strategy and same timings available on every map. We’re not saying every single tournament out there should have a diverse map pool, and having a couple tournaments here and there that use more standard maps could be a fun difference.
If the games playing out the same strat same timings every game, doesn't that suggest a lack of depth in design/balance issues??
But instead of addressing the issues... they prefer to throw in maps with silly mechanics that are inherently imbalanced towards a certain race... 'Let's keep it new with crazy mechanics, rather than actually adding enough depth to keep it new'...
I don't know how they don't understand, the reason "standard" maps exist in basically all competitive games, is because you need a standard to base the games mechanics around in order to achieve balance!
I guess it benefits Blizzard if they don't have to actually spend real development time on the game, and can simply keep a couple of map designers playing around in SC2 editor playing with maps rather than addressing the real issues with the game...
|
The solution we’re currently thinking of instead is to allow customization on the option that has preset colors. Currently, the defaults are: Green for a player, Yellow for the player’s allies, and Red for all enemies. By customizing these 3 categories of colors, players would have a clean and simple solution compared to the more complex options.
So the main discussion we should be having on this front is: is the above proposal the best overall solution we can have in this area? If so, we can start working on this task. If not, let’s get discussions going on the best solution, so that we can work towards implementing it in the future.
The perfect solution I've been advocating for for ages. Thank God.
And thank God they're realizing KCK sucks.
|
On April 01 2016 04:59 wjat wrote:Imagine if the whole map pool was a joke and tomorow we got an update! how crazy that would be
the dream
|
Yes customizable colors! Selecting the standard preset colours is a great way of solving it, that way everyone has there own preference without the other player being involved.
Also that reticle fix might be the fastest one ever :D
ALSO April 1st balance changes coming up XD
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
What happened to the Z earlygame changes?
|
On April 01 2016 06:38 [PkF] Wire wrote:
And thank God they're realizing KCK sucks.
No pls, I need to experiment more with CC first builds on the map.
|
On April 01 2016 06:38 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 04:59 wjat wrote:Imagine if the whole map pool was a joke and tomorow we got an update! how crazy that would be the dream
The new map pool turns out to be Scrap Station, Desert Oasis, Steppes of War, Debris Field, a 1v1 version of Kimeran Refuge, a melee-ported version of a campaign map, and the best map of the community map submissions: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaOzFNyWIAAxIcG.jpg:large) .
|
|
|
Ah hell no with that banshee upgrade change. That will be way too hard to deal with for zerg unless you always go mutas.
|
What about Has match-fixing? I mean like he didn't get into the ro8 in wcs. Then he was bumped there with a disqualification. This puts him up 150 points.
The disqualification came from pinning it on the mongolian breaking a rule that none of the players knew existed.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/506573-the-real-reason-sioras-was-dqd how come this wasn't addressed?
|
don't like those changes suggestions at all... Dunno about the thor, but the idea of compensating a lib nerf with a banshee buff is really bad (exactly like it made no sense to buff mine to compensate a tank nerf) and will wreck Z while making TvP horribly broken in favor of P. I hope none of this gets through.
|
OMG that was fast :OOOOOOOOO
|
Get rid of Korhal, the sooner the better. Any of the hots proleague maps would be better.
|
I rest my case that the proposed banshee change will lead to more stupid shit than good things.
Also, why the fuck is the balance test map a map that's not on ladder? xD
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
I don't think the banshee change is gonna sit well with ZvT unless perhaps liberator AA splash was nerfed a lot
This may put TvZ into a pretty bad position for zerg and i still don't think corrosive bile is the right thing to change for PvZ
|
Wait what?
Zerg Attack Reticle
We saw a post yesterday by aeJupiter about the Zerg attack reticle being incorrect. This post was exceptionally well-presented, and was also very helpful as the reticle’s appearance is indeed a bug! We’ll be looking to fix the reticle in an upcoming patch, thanks so much for pointing this out.
The standards these days.
|
about color changes:
it would be nice to have 4 configurable colors instead of current plans for 3:
- my color (green)
- teammates color (yellow)
- first, third, fifth (every odd) opponents color (red)
- second, fourth (every even) opponents color (red by default, i would change it to purple)
all this fuss because of 2v2, so it would be green+yellow against red+purple.
oh and one more thing for 2v2 (or any team):
it would be nice to if the game would remember the 'control' setting while I'm in a party (who did I gave control to).
|
On April 01 2016 07:27 Hier wrote:Wait what? Show nested quote +Zerg Attack Reticle
We saw a post yesterday by aeJupiter about the Zerg attack reticle being incorrect. This post was exceptionally well-presented, and was also very helpful as the reticle’s appearance is indeed a bug! We’ll be looking to fix the reticle in an upcoming patch, thanks so much for pointing this out. The standards these days.
I thought the same, i had to double check if he really meant that reddit post, but apparently he did
|
On April 01 2016 07:27 Hier wrote:Wait what? Show nested quote +Zerg Attack Reticle
We saw a post yesterday by aeJupiter about the Zerg attack reticle being incorrect. This post was exceptionally well-presented, and was also very helpful as the reticle’s appearance is indeed a bug! We’ll be looking to fix the reticle in an upcoming patch, thanks so much for pointing this out. The standards these days.
It's simple yet intricate in its design; it is easy to understand yet conveys all the information needed. Short and concise, not a single word was wasted. Unbelievable presentation, 10/10, would look at angry smiley again.
|
I have no clue how the Thor change will affect the game as this is a 180 degree change to the unit's role, so I will nold back my opinion on this until I tested it some.
Not so happy about the liberator nerf, everything else that is being tested sounds valid.
Having played the new maps some I have no idea why the community is in such an uproar about them. Korhal Carnage sadly seems to be really bad, the others are quite playable and feel very fresh to me. I also agree with David Kim's view on general map diversity. But I want to add that I'm missing gameplay changes to make that possible. Certain races - cough, cough Protoss - should be less reliant on gimmicks - mothershipcore - and more mobile instead of having suicidal high damage potential - adepts more run run, less blink blink; oracles more pew pew, less boom boom. Again, fully agree on diverse strategical challenges through maps, but Protoss is not robust enough in the early game for that and fails to keep up when they don't get to play on a map that doesn't cater to each and every of their special needs.
|
On April 01 2016 03:32 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate.
What voting was this, what maps are they referring to?
|
On April 01 2016 07:40 Xenotolerance wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 03:32 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. What voting was this, what maps are they referring to?
There was a reddit thread. 1-3 were: Dusk, Orbital, Ulrena.
|
Meanwhile avilo is whining about he can't beat skytoss with only thor.......
|
Maps :
Wtf are they talking about. People are constantly refering to ultra standard maps when they blame the current ridiculous mappool. Daybreak for instance. And Dusk towers is overwhelmingly liked not because it's a macro map, but because it's the only one that doesn't favors stupid allins/abusive positionning/gimmicky plays. But if you want to balance your game, first make a standard mappool, and then encourage different plays by incorporating wackier maps. Dev team is doing this the wrong way : LOTV still having major flaws, people are just gonna get frustrated playing against gimmicks on wacky maps. So balance/redesign first, then encourage diversity.
Balance map :
- thor : why not. Will still be somewhat of a bad viking, but why not.
- banshee : bullshit. Playing TvZ mech on ladder is already going straight into air. This will make this already gimmicky strat even stronger.
- ravager : assured good thing
====> STILL NOTHING ABOUT MECH, THE SIEGE TANK/TANKIVAC, AND THE PvP DISRUPTOR VOLLEYBALL. WTF.
|
On April 01 2016 08:06 JackONeill wrote:
Maps :
Wtf are they talking about. People are constantly refering to ultra standard maps when they blame the current ridiculous mappool. Daybreak for instance. And Dusk towers is overwhelmingly liked not because it's a macro map, but because it's the only one that doesn't favors stupid allins/abusive positionning/gimmicky plays. But if you want to balance your game, first make a standard mappool, and then encourage different plays by incorporating wackier maps. Dev team is doing this the wrong way : LOTV still having major flaws, people are just gonna get frustrated playing against gimmicks on wacky maps. So balance/redesign first, then encourage diversity.
Balance map :
- thor : why not. Will still be somewhat of a bad viking, but why not.
- banshee : bullshit. Playing TvZ mech on ladder is already going straight into air. This will make this already gimmicky strat even stronger.
- ravager : assured good thing
====> STILL NOTHING ABOUT MECH, THE SIEGE TANK/TANKIVAC, AND THE PvP DISRUPTOR VOLLEYBALL. WTF.
Everyone knows the problems are much more than the maps. Even they are aware...
They tried to hide it, their just trying to use the maps as an excuse to make up for it... Look again at this statement...
Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing. Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches.
That shows they know the truth. They know people simply don't like the maps to a point that they would veto all of the non-standard maps if they only had a handful. Their just trying to spin it...
If they truly believed what they claimed - that it's "inaccurate that people like only the standard maps"... why would everyone veto ONLY the maps that are "different"??? That wouldn't even be an issue if people actually enjoyed playing on those maps!
Yet again, they expose their obvious PR bull in their community updates...
Months of community updates with endless discussion about maps, to get people distracted by that. So people don't notice that they haven't actually done a damn thing to improve the state of competitive multiplayer in 2 months, and have only done minor changes to 3 different units in 5 months. So much time spent talking and very little time spent doing...
|
I do agree. However I don't see the logic behind it. I mean, the aim of managing players expectations with pointless PR would be to ... stall for time. But why? What's gonna come next? If the game stays the way it is, the playerbase and viewership is only gonna go downhill. Blizzard, as a company, doesn't benefit from that : if they're paying people to update the game, and they still want to get money out of it, they're on a timer, and stalling is an idiotic move.
Furthermore, they pretend that they "don't understand" something as simple as "the game isn't in a good state : we want standard maps for the design issues to be exposed", with bullshit arguments. Take the TvT tankivac issue. If, on standard maps, every TvT revolves around tankivac, are they gonna put a map in the mappoll that's ultra mech favored to make TvT mech viable? That's really a fucked up way to solve this kind of issues, because it creates more issues than it solves.
I try my best not to fall into the "their pride is making them throw the game out of the window" and "they're a bunch of incompetents" pits, but this level of PR bullshit is incredible, and hurting the game/community.
|
some of us don't want standard maps, we just want experimental maps that don't suck.
for the record i think it's still too early to write off all the new maps as bad or unplayable, it's very likely, but people should experiment with new builds to the fullest extent.
|
Maps are huge now (Zerg favoured) I like big maps but then they should redesign Terran/Protoss and maybe the limit cap.
|
Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches.
I'm pretty sure that's a sign that people don't want "creative" maps.
|
Seems there hasnt been a balance patch in a while. Feels like blizzard puts out these community updates to buy themselves time. Like what happened to tank/medivate thing? Or looking at the state of pvz (like ovi drops)? Have they decided it was fine and move on to other things?
On April 01 2016 07:27 Hier wrote:Wait what? Show nested quote +Zerg Attack Reticle
We saw a post yesterday by aeJupiter about the Zerg attack reticle being incorrect. This post was exceptionally well-presented, and was also very helpful as the reticle’s appearance is indeed a bug! We’ll be looking to fix the reticle in an upcoming patch, thanks so much for pointing this out. The standards these days.
Maybe Blizzard really loved the sad face, made it easy for them to understand
|
Proposed thor change is currently a nerf to the unit.
Thors need to be tested with the change but keeping their splash damage. Then tune them back if it's too good. Single target thors i tested already, and the outcome vs mass tempests/carriers is the same as it is on the live version of the game:
The thors lose versus carriers/tempest pretty easily when the Protoss "gets there." It honestly may be an issue with the tempest only costing 4 supply and being OP itself.
The thor without splash will get destroyed by mutas extremely hard...single target...and the situation versus mass air does not change much at all.
Overall, this is a backwards change for mech. Test it with the splash damage and damage increases and see how it does, so it can kill interceptors/carrier/tempest better.
It's a bit absurd Protoss can just make 100% tempest/carrier and ground anti-air from mech does not compare whatsoever.
|
On April 01 2016 08:55 avilo wrote:
Proposed thor change is currently a nerf to the unit.
Thors need to be tested with the change but keeping their splash damage. Then tune them back if it's too good. Single target thors i tested already, and the outcome vs mass tempests/carriers is the same as it is on the live version of the game:
The thors lose versus carriers/tempest pretty easily when the Protoss "gets there." It honestly may be an issue with the tempest only costing 4 supply and being OP itself.
The thor without splash will get destroyed by mutas extremely hard...single target...and the situation versus mass air does not change much at all.
Overall, this is a backwards change for mech. Test it with the splash damage and damage increases and see how it does, so it can kill interceptors/carrier/tempest better.
It's a bit absurd Protoss can just make 100% tempest/carrier and ground anti-air from mech does not compare whatsoever.
Yes it should be
You should try to play a normal game and find out does thor's buff is enough to creat a strong timing which can prevent straight air strategy rather this nonsense....
Problem with mech player's feedback is they only suggest one -side solution.
If A player's army stronger than B player's army and you buff or nerf to the point B player can beat A player's army.So how can A player win ? See ? Design this game is not simple as you thought avilo.
|
If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?;
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate.
T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps.
|
On April 01 2016 09:16 Ape_Island wrote:
If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?;
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate.
T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps.
So buffing Bio even more (while it actually needs to be toned down tbh) and nerfing other playstyles (read: Mech) even more?
*buzzer sound*
NO thanks!
|
The whole Thor thing seems a bit weird, would be interesting if instead the Liberator loses the Anti Air attack, but Liberation Zone also shoots Air units. Then Thor could keep the splash and possibly get increased in effectiveness.
|
On April 01 2016 09:16 Ape_Island wrote:
If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?;
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate.
T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps.
Oh god please no, we've had enough of those games in HotS.
|
What's the justification for ANY buff to Terran? TvZ is balanced and T is even a tiny bit stronger than P. So, why buff anything?
|
^ Playing Bio for 6 years and Ultras getting tickled by anything other than Liberators/Ghosts is the justification.
|
On April 01 2016 09:33 CheddarToss wrote:
What's the justification for ANY buff to Terran? TvZ is balanced and T is even a tiny bit stronger than P. So, why buff anything?
To not have a stale metagame? different compositions and playstyles? make the game more varied?
I mean theres more than just balance to the game. Not to mention that I don't see how a buff to the weakest and less used terran unit (sans the BC) is going to break any MU.
|
On April 01 2016 09:21 Tresher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 09:16 Ape_Island wrote:
If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?;
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate.
T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps.
So buffing Bio even more (while it actually needs to be toned down tbh) and nerfing other playstyles (read: Mech) even more? *buzzer sound* NO thanks!
Yes, and tank too, returning Terran's main power back to core units.
However, then nerfing the recent additions.
|
On April 01 2016 09:33 CheddarToss wrote:
What's the justification for ANY buff to Terran? TvZ is balanced and T is even a tiny bit stronger than P. So, why buff anything?
Because you didn't think how those buff work.That why.
|
On April 01 2016 09:42 Ape_Island wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 09:21 Tresher wrote:On April 01 2016 09:16 Ape_Island wrote:
If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?;
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate.
T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps.
So buffing Bio even more (while it actually needs to be toned down tbh) and nerfing other playstyles (read: Mech) even more? *buzzer sound* NO thanks! Yes, and tank too, returning Terran's main power back to core units. However, then nerfing the recent additions.
Siege Tanks should be a core Unit in the first place. For Mech that is.
Wtf at nerfing Tanks even more...must be a player that runs head on with A move into Tank lines,then complains that this is not a viable strategy. No words for this.
|
On April 01 2016 09:35 Tresher wrote:
^ Playing Bio for 6 years and Ultras getting tickled by anything other than Liberators/Ghosts is the justification.
Then reduce Ultra armor. Buffing Terran is not the way to go.
|
On April 01 2016 09:50 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 09:35 Tresher wrote:
^ Playing Bio for 6 years and Ultras getting tickled by anything other than Liberators/Ghosts is the justification. Then reduce Ultra armor. Buffing Terran is not the way to go.
Can you stop ? Do you know which unit is buffed or nerfed and how it work in bio army ?
I repeat :BIO ARMY
|
^
^
Yes it is.
The whole design/balance process is beyond logic anyway:
forcing Terran to only play bio, and at the same time, giving zerg +8 armor ultras, that cannot be beat without stuff like liberators, which they then nerf, without nerfing the ultra.
It is so stupid.
Whats with the Tank buff anyway. They act like they never talked about this. It would be EXACTLY what Tanks would have needed. But no Koreans disagreed and now we have useless buffs for the Banshee nobody asked for.
Seriously they need to stop balancing this game for 4% Pro players it is bad for the game and has been discussed before.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On April 01 2016 09:33 CheddarToss wrote:
What's the justification for ANY buff to Terran? TvZ is balanced and T is even a tiny bit stronger than P. So, why buff anything?
I'm quite confused as to how this turned from buffing PvZ early game to nerfing ZvT & buffing TvZ in the last month or so
|
I'm also confused. But one thing is for certain: Terrans whine the loudest and get what they want, regardless of whether it's good or bad for the game. They whined non stop until Adepts got nerfed. And now Terran supposedly needs a buff or two. It's just to hard currently with a TvZ and TvP winrate of 50% and 52% respectively...
|
On April 01 2016 10:29 CheddarToss wrote:
I'm also confused. But one thing is for certain: Terrans whine the loudest and get what they want, regardless of whether it's good or bad for the game. They whined non stop until Adepts got nerfed. And now Terran supposedly needs a buff or two. It's just to hard currently with a TvZ and TvP winrate of 50% and 52% respectively...
Humh..... i guess because probe is OP...
|
On April 01 2016 10:29 CheddarToss wrote:
I'm also confused. But one thing is for certain: Terrans whine the loudest and get what they want, regardless of whether it's good or bad for the game. They whined non stop until Adepts got nerfed. And now Terran supposedly needs a buff or two. It's just to hard currently with a TvZ and TvP winrate of 50% and 52% respectively...
What? seriously for someone that complains about whining you really like to whine.
So nerfing libs (a main army units and probably the most important in current bio play) and buffing thors (which are almost not used at all) and banshees (used but like 1 or 2 every few games) is going to break a MU. Those 2 units don't even do the liberators main use, since banshees are for harass and thors now would only work against some air units.
If anything, this is a nerf to current bio play.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Libs have -1 range without their upgrade which is a big deal but corrosive bile cooldown was nerfed by 1.43x. That drastically changes ravager interactions which were most important against units like the liberator.
Banshee’s Hyperflight Rotors has changed:
Requirement changed from Fusion Core to Armory
Cost reduced from 200/200 to 100/100
w/ ravager 1.43x nerf to corrosive bile and liberator being a pretty hard counter to mutas, i'm a little worried for Z playing into that.
|
On April 01 2016 11:03 Cyro wrote:Libs have -1 range without their upgrade which is a big deal but corrosive bile cooldown was nerfed by 1.43x. That drastically changes ravager interactions which were most important against units like the liberator. Show nested quote +Banshee’s Hyperflight Rotors has changed:
Requirement changed from Fusion Core to Armory
Cost reduced from 200/200 to 100/100 w/ ravager 1.43x nerf to corrosive bile and liberator being a pretty hard counter to mutas, i'm a little worried for Z playing into that.
I think the nerf is big enough
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On April 01 2016 11:18 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 11:03 Cyro wrote:Libs have -1 range without their upgrade which is a big deal but corrosive bile cooldown was nerfed by 1.43x. That drastically changes ravager interactions which were most important against units like the liberator. Banshee’s Hyperflight Rotors has changed:
Requirement changed from Fusion Core to Armory
Cost reduced from 200/200 to 100/100 w/ ravager 1.43x nerf to corrosive bile and liberator being a pretty hard counter to mutas, i'm a little worried for Z playing into that. I think the nerf is big enough
Ouch! I must have misread - thought they were going ahead with the -1 range (but 1 extra range from the upgrade).
-1 Radius is a much bigger nerf than -1 Range.
-1 radius means -1 range because the radius contributes to the range, but 4 radius is 1.56x less area than 5 radius as well.
|
On April 01 2016 11:03 Cyro wrote:Libs have -1 range without their upgrade which is a big deal but corrosive bile cooldown was nerfed by 1.43x. That drastically changes ravager interactions which were most important against units like the liberator. Show nested quote +Banshee’s Hyperflight Rotors has changed:
Requirement changed from Fusion Core to Armory
Cost reduced from 200/200 to 100/100 w/ ravager 1.43x nerf to corrosive bile and liberator being a pretty hard counter to mutas, i'm a little worried for Z playing into that.
This only help sky terran more viable.Meh.......
Also 2 vikings will out DPS 1 thor so i don't think blizzard really want to solve air vs air situation.
They just help mech players have easier time to trasition into air.
|
On April 01 2016 10:29 CheddarToss wrote:
I'm also confused. But one thing is for certain: Terrans whine the loudest and get what they want, regardless of whether it's good or bad for the game. They whined non stop until Adepts got nerfed. And now Terran supposedly needs a buff or two. It's just to hard currently with a TvZ and TvP winrate of 50% and 52% respectively...
And the unit that enabled terran to get their winrate that high was massively nerfed.
Calling people "whiner" while literally constantly whining about how terran presumably "got buffed" while also constantly neglecting the fact that one of their core units got a big nerf. That's the definition of whining.
Man that's obnoxious.
|
1. Team Colors
Just fucking do it already. I want my yellow marines and yellow siege tanks. I am not a Drone or a Strategist. I am the Eternal.
2. Zerg Reticule
I don't play Zerg much, ever since I switched from Random to Terran, but that's good to know.
3. Map Pool
Thank you. It pleases me so much to hear you actually take a stand instead of bowing down to ESPORTS! pressure. This is exactly my opinion on the standard vs. non-standard map debate. I am of the opinion that each map should be unique, or at least encourage unique playstyles, i.e. standard maps should not exist. Standard maps are good for ESPORTS! but are not necessarily fun or good for the rest of us.
4. Game Balance Changes
I approve of all of these.
|
i don't know if it's a good idea or not, but
why not have only one attack upgrade for terran ground units (on ebay), which would upgrade all T ground unit attacks (bio and mech), and keep the mech shield, air attack, air shield (separated again) on armory.
this would help with mixing mech with bio, and slow down a later switch to air.
to me it's a bit boring to watch latestalegame tvz with mass liberators so i think some kind of nerf was a good idea.
probably they should consider changing the damage instead of range, so for example libs would 2->3 shot roaches.
maybe with some +armored damage on the thor to help against ultras.
with the changes to thor AA, zergs might try to have more muta, with corruptors trying to hunt down liberators, thors hunting corruptors, and muta killing thors -.-
|
I can't believe they're going through with the banshee change and changing ravagers without changing tankivacs. Honestly the only change that makes sense to me is the liberator nerf. The bile cooldown would make sense in a world where tankivacs also get nerfed/removed, but now Zergs now have to wait longer to bile and medivacs can still quickly and effectively grab a tank and move it.
Also please keep AA splash on the thor and take it off the fucking liberator, the unit doesn't need more things it can do well. Its already an amazing AtG defensive tool, reactorable, and isn't too bad AtA. It having splash is just an unnecessary ability that should just stay on the thor
|
I guess the tank buff disappeared into oblivion?? That was the one big change that I was really looking forward to, but I hope they mention it again in a future update soon.
|
On April 01 2016 09:46 Tresher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 09:42 Ape_Island wrote:On April 01 2016 09:21 Tresher wrote:On April 01 2016 09:16 Ape_Island wrote:
If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?;
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate.
T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps.
So buffing Bio even more (while it actually needs to be toned down tbh) and nerfing other playstyles (read: Mech) even more? *buzzer sound* NO thanks! Yes, and tank too, returning Terran's main power back to core units. However, then nerfing the recent additions. Siege Tanks should be a core Unit in the first place. For Mech that is. Wtf at nerfing Tanks even more...must be a player that runs head on with A move into Tank lines,then complains that this is not a viable strategy. No words for this.
Buff tank and Marauder I was trying to say: returning the power of Terran
to its core units. Then, if that's strong enough (with mines it probably is),
Liberator nerf wouldn't be unreasonable.
|
We do not want every map to be standard, we want couple of playable ones. Right now almost all of these maps are fucking shit (temp incoming?).
|
Some suggestions:
TERRAN
- Tankivac: remove tankivac + damage buff to sieged tank
- Liberator: 4 supply cost, radius nerf
- Thor: new upgrade that requires fusion core and give 15 range in AA (similar to Bw goliath range upgrade)
- Cyclone: Lower cost to 150/75/2, Increase Hp to 150
ZERG
- Ravager: Increase corrosive bile cooldown, change to armored, Increase morph time to 20 sec(instead of 9 sec Hots time)
- Lurker: Reduce range to 8
- Nydus: Remove invulnerability, decrease cost to 150/100
- Ultra: 6 armor in total (instead of 8)
- Brood lord: 6 supply cost
PROTOSS
- Warp Prism: Increase cost to 200/100
- Phenix: Reduce move speed to 5.4 (instead of 5.95)
- Voidray: Increase Charge cooldown to 75 sec (instead of 60 sec Hots time)
- Tempest: 6 supply cost
|
That liberator nerf is going to be rough in TvP but overall fine, but that banshee change is huge, its very likely that terran will get speed over cloak now and there is a real choice of upgrades for the unit. In the right situation the cloak will be better (low tech zerg)
I hope going forward terran is given a viable option against ultralisks or just have their armor get nerfed as TvZ always seems to be a race to beat them or gain a large advantage before ultras or lose.
I like the Thor change as it really has become quite an obsolete unit, its air splash was always pathetic and mainly just used to keep zergs muta play honest, but the liberator was just better at the job and actually a counter to mutas. I just hope they change the targeting priority to ground over air, if they still prioritize mutas for example they are going to be too much of a micro check to use over a more fluid and equally cost effective unit like the liberator or siege tank.
Bile nerf is good for ZvP, but it will hurt a lot in breaking bunker contains ZvT or in the early all in which is just terrible 90% of the time anyway.
I'm really surprised nothing from protoss was looked at in this patch as I kind of felt they needed some changes. I would really like to see build times from gateways (not warpgates) reduced slightly, I feel like terran all ins vs. protoss are a little strong and they hit before warpgate and tend to auto win as is currently vs. any fast nexus build. Last season I finished with a near 90% win rate in TvP just proxying protoss every game at high GM and it really feels broken to me... at least in NA. Just my thoughts.
|
[B]On April 01 2016 13:28 GoSuNamhciR wrote:
I just hope they change the targeting priority to ground over air, ...
Allowing user to select priority seems fitting on Thor unit.
|
On April 01 2016 07:51 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 07:40 Xenotolerance wrote:On April 01 2016 03:32 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. What voting was this, what maps are they referring to? There was a reddit thread. 1-3 were: Dusk, Orbital, Ulrena.
I can't find the thread - was it a while ago? Was it just ... vote for your favorite ladder maps?
what the fuuuuck
this is so dumb
|
United States572 Posts
Forcing too many 'creative' maps in order to prevent the meta from being 'stale' is putting the cart before the horse.
|
On April 01 2016 14:01 TheWinks wrote:
Forcing too many 'creative' maps in order to prevent the meta from being 'stale' is putting the cart before the horse.
If you're talking about maps based on balancing Units, I beg to differ.
I think some 'imbalance' in the maps, is of course, adjustable to by the players.
Nothing too extreme, it could add a lot of fun.
If there were, for example, some high ground along a mainstreet, one which
terran players too often would sabotage with siege tanks; knowing that, opposing
players would anticipate and counter the expected itself with the right units
or positioning: i.e., one movement can be countered by another movement by
the other player.
On Shakura's Terran were always tempted to turret up or land siege tanks on one of those
4 rock towers; they got sniped a lot but it was fun.
Don't maps seem kind of, well, bland?? lol
|
On April 01 2016 13:20 MaxTa wrote:
Some suggestions:
TERRAN
- Tankivac: remove tankivac + damage buff to sieged tank
- Liberator: 4 supply cost, radius nerf
- Thor: new upgrade that requires fusion core and give 15 range in AA (similar to Bw goliath range upgrade)
- Cyclone: Lower cost to 150/75/2, Increase Hp to 150
ZERG
- Ravager: Increase corrosive bile cooldown, change to armored, Increase morph time to 20 sec(instead of 9 sec Hots time)
- Lurker: Reduce range to 8
- Nydus: Remove invulnerability, decrease cost to 150/100
- Ultra: 6 armor in total (instead of 8)
- Brood lord: 6 supply cost
PROTOSS
- Warp Prism: Increase cost to 200/100
- Phenix: Reduce move speed to 5.4 (instead of 5.95)
- Voidray: Increase Charge cooldown to 75 sec (instead of 60 sec Hots time)
- Tempest: 6 supply cost
Some suggestions:
Learn to play.
User was warned for this post
|
On April 01 2016 04:00 Silvana wrote:They didn't address the posts that basically said something along the lines of Show nested quote +standard maps allow for play diversity, because players can explore styles and be creative; in contrast, current "creative" maps (current map pool) force players to play one strategy for every matchup, and thus creating a stagnant meta I don't play ladder but this seems to have much sense. Do you guys agree with that statement or is it complete bs?? (This situation reminds me to tankivacs in TvT btw)
Exactly.
|
Banshee change is just way too strong, putting the upgrades on armory is already huge, but reducing the cost to 100/100 is just troll.
They want TvZ winrates 70% or what ? TvZ is already very T favor.
You will need very fast mutas, + overseer with speed to counter this... To be countered 1min latter by some marines/liberators while you have sacrified so much economy.
|
On April 01 2016 13:55 Xenotolerance wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 07:51 Big J wrote:On April 01 2016 07:40 Xenotolerance wrote:On April 01 2016 03:32 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. What voting was this, what maps are they referring to? There was a reddit thread. 1-3 were: Dusk, Orbital, Ulrena. I can't find the thread - was it a while ago? Was it just ... vote for your favorite ladder maps? what the fuuuuck this is so dumb
I think they are referring to this one by TLO. (click the title to get to the straw poll)
Not sure though why David Kim says that Ruins of Serras doesn't seem standard to him. It was probably the most standard map in the last mappool.
|
On April 01 2016 03:32 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Specifying Team Colors This is something that we’ve been exploring internally per our community’s request. The initial solution we were considering was to implement a full-featured UI that allowed each player to set his or her color preference, so that whenever possible we can give the customized color. However, we soon recognized that it would be very difficult to guarantee all color preferences in team games and would feel very random in the cases where color preferences are not met. The solution we’re currently thinking of instead is to allow customization on the option that has preset colors. Currently, the defaults are: Green for a player, Yellow for the player’s allies, and Red for all enemies. By customizing these 3 categories of colors, players would have a clean and simple solution compared to the more complex options. So the main discussion we should be having on this front is: is the above proposal the best overall solution we can have in this area? If so, we can start working on this task. If not, let’s get discussions going on the best solution, so that we can work towards implementing it in the future.
ME: green.
allies: similar colours in cyan-blue.
opponents: simialr colours in orange-red.
This allows me to immediately spot if I am looking at an ally or an opponent (blueish vs redish), and it allows me to see that the 12 zerglings coming in are actually 6 lings from two different opponents (half red, half orange).
|
Nerfing the liberator means nerfing the terran crutch unit that allows them to have decent winrates. Of course it makes sense, of course it's necessary since the unit is bullshitly strong. However, nerfing the radius instead of the damage is completly idiotic. Also, of course terran needs corroborating buffs to support the nerf of the crutch unit : but buffing banshee speed is a very dumb way to compensate.
|
Specifying Team Colors
This is something that we’ve been exploring internally per our community’s request. The initial solution we were considering was to implement a full-featured UI that allowed each player to set his or her color preference, so that whenever possible we can give the customized color. However, we soon recognized that it would be very difficult to guarantee all color preferences in team games and would feel very random in the cases where color preferences are not met.
The solution we’re currently thinking of instead is to allow customization on the option that has preset colors. Currently, the defaults are: Green for a player, Yellow for the player’s allies, and Red for all enemies. By customizing these 3 categories of colors, players would have a clean and simple solution compared to the more complex options.
So the main discussion we should be having on this front is: is the above proposal the best overall solution we can have in this area? If so, we can start working on this task. If not, let’s get discussions going on the best solution, so that we can work towards implementing it in the future.
As someone who is strongly colourblind, this option is very important. I would like to be able to pick my own colour and pick the colour of my opponent's units (and also allies units if it's a team game, but that is not the biggest deal). Having simply an option to toggle whatever colours have been picked and turn them into just red and green is not great - being able to pick the colours which work best for me is very important. Personally I like red, blue and yellow as the three colours, not red and green (and sometimes I avoid blue because the contrast against the colour of the creep on the minimap is quite hard for me to see).
I would also like to see please an option where you can ramp up the amount of colour on units - a colourblind mode. A specific example here, which causes me a lot of trouble - when the disrupter fires the colour of its centre changes colour (I think green to red?) but for me it is really hard to notice the difference at a glance and I have to look very closely which takes time and is quite an important detail to spot. If we could either change the colour of that (less likely) or have a mode where visual cues like that are more clearly emphasised, that would be very good for me and other colourblind people. If you are in the business of making colour changes Blizzard, please please give this a look! Lots more people are colourblind than people realise, and as someone who is quite badly colourblind just a simple option to specify which colours you personally prefer to tell differences between is very important or a second-rate solution is just to over-emphasise colour in a colourblind mode because often colouration is more subtle when targeted at normal-vision people which is hard to spot quickly, if ever. Thanks!
|
I think the cost for speed upg should not be lower than a banshee. Id need an explanation to why we would need to push both tech and cost so low? As for corrosive bile i wonder if it would be better to give the ability a number of charges starting with 1 and having recharge timer higher than cooldown making the first timing weaker and the player would need to think a little more later in game and not just have it spammable.
|
Having a wide diversity of maps, including one or two standard maps will be the best way to go. I'm glad blizzard realizes that. The majority of people whining about this issue are merely the trolly tip of the iceberg.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 01 2016 17:40 SpiritOfChicago wrote:
Having a wide diversity of maps, including one or two standard maps will be the best way to go. I'm glad blizzard realizes that. The majority of people whining about this issue are merely the trolly tip of the iceberg.
Growing numbers of players are supporting this!
|
On April 01 2016 06:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i guess that is the April 1 joke.
Really? Like the Pandarians that were an April's Fool joke too and years later even got their own expansion, screwing around some more with WarCraft lore? "so funny"
|
On April 01 2016 17:51 boxerfred wrote:Really? Like the Pandarians that were an April's Fool joke too and years later even got their own expansion, screwing around some more with WarCraft lore? "so funny"
The Warcraft Lore has never been very consistent though. They just change it whenever they want to. The original game was called Orcs & Humans. Other races were only rallied as allies in WC2. In WC3 they introduced a thousand and one races (2 extra playable ones). I wouldn't even be surprised if through some collision of stars we would see WoW: Hunt for Diablo or something like that at some point...
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
anybody got the picture of the new thor? will be interesting to look at
|
|
|
As always I am not a progamer but maybe you need some input that you can ASK progamers about... it would be great to have a discussion show back like the one desrow and huk hosted during beta! Maybe get a blizzard employee to participate to make the game and the viewer experience more awesome!
I dream of a bright future where blizzard has realized that they need to make every unit viable for the game which leads to every game playing out differently every time. There is a much higher chance progamers use units that are rarely used if they can throw their oppoents ofguard. Right now Thors,Cyclones Carriers, Collosei and Swarmhosts are just to difficult to put to good use. Which is a sad thing because they are all are needed to have a complete game with a great viewers experience. Just buff the units to give them a unique role:
Carriers - i personally think a slight lower build time between the one in beta and the one now is an improvement for the game
Collosei - while they are used more often in the last month i feel their cost doesnt reflect their strength just lower it slightly the tech cost is still a strong commitment
Swarmhosts - feel to expensive for their ultralong cooldown maybe just improve the flightspeed of locust a bit and see if that changes something?
Cyclones - still feel underused in ZvT but i guess its just a meta thing and not because they are useless
Thors - i like blizzards idea of making it the single target antiair that counters broodlords
|
Carriers : making mech viable in TvP would make carriers a good option in PvT. But buff them and they'll be imba in PvZ.
Colossi : they're used a lot. I don't see any reason to change them.
Swarmhosts : their design sucks balls. Locusts need to deal less damage, but be tankier and move slightly faster.
Cyclones : ARE useless. There's no reason whatsoever to build cyclones, except one for defense in TvP or TvT. Devs need to see that the cyclone has no purpose, and needs to be a mech footman. Lower the cost, lower the build time, remove the lock, and increase range/ROF a little.
Thors : the change might give them a support role when playing mech, but not when playing bio. So making mech viable would give them purpose with the redesign proposed in the balance map.
Oh and also :
- ravens : bringing back the old PDD while not touching the 125 energy and burst turret may give them a support role when playing mech (IF MECH WAS VIABLE)
- disruptors : need a redesign, every single PvP is gonna stay blink disru vs blink disru forever
- viper : parasitic bomb still needs a redesign
|
On April 01 2016 12:08 Ape_Island wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 09:46 Tresher wrote:On April 01 2016 09:42 Ape_Island wrote:On April 01 2016 09:21 Tresher wrote:On April 01 2016 09:16 Ape_Island wrote:
If Marauder were more powerful, wouldn't it solve much of these problems?;
and nerfing Terran in other areas if appropriate.
T and Z wouldn't so easily advance to higher tiers perhaps.
So buffing Bio even more (while it actually needs to be toned down tbh) and nerfing other playstyles (read: Mech) even more? *buzzer sound* NO thanks! Yes, and tank too, returning Terran's main power back to core units. However, then nerfing the recent additions. Siege Tanks should be a core Unit in the first place. For Mech that is. Wtf at nerfing Tanks even more...must be a player that runs head on with A move into Tank lines,then complains that this is not a viable strategy. No words for this. Buff tank and Marauder I was trying to say: returning the power of Terran to its core units. Then, if that's strong enough (with mines it probably is), Liberator nerf wouldn't be unreasonable.
Oh Ok I misunderstood then, your post was not clear. Sorry .
But I don´t think Marauders need a buff. Im kind of glad they were nerfed a bit, they were a bit too strong against armored.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
thx
so the "new" model is just the hots version of thor shooting from its 250mm cannons?
that's lame
who uses 250mm caliber for air defense?
(I know it's a video game, but it's still lame even for a video game)
I think they are just lazy and want to find some application for the obsolete cannons
|
On April 01 2016 21:21 Ganseng wrote:thx so the "new" model is just the hots version of thor shooting from its 250mm cannons? that's lame who uses 250mm caliber for air defense? (I know it's a video game, but it's still lame even for a video game) I think they are just lazy and want to find some application for the obsolete cannons
It's punisher cannon.Can shoot depleted uranium round :OOO
|
On April 01 2016 13:20 MaxTa wrote:
Some suggestions:
TERRAN
- Tankivac: remove tankivac + damage buff to sieged tank
- Liberator: 4 supply cost, radius nerf
- Thor: new upgrade that requires fusion core and give 15 range in AA (similar to Bw goliath range upgrade)
- Cyclone: Lower cost to 150/75/2, Increase Hp to 150
ZERG
- Ravager: Increase corrosive bile cooldown, change to armored, Increase morph time to 20 sec(instead of 9 sec Hots time)
- Lurker: Reduce range to 8
- Nydus: Remove invulnerability, decrease cost to 150/100
- Ultra: 6 armor in total (instead of 8)
- Brood lord: 6 supply cost
PROTOSS
- Warp Prism: Increase cost to 200/100
- Phenix: Reduce move speed to 5.4 (instead of 5.95)
- Voidray: Increase Charge cooldown to 75 sec (instead of 60 sec Hots time)
- Tempest: 6 supply cost
pretty good. but you forgot the A-Move-ShieldsOn-Immortal. =)
|
|
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
On April 01 2016 21:26 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 21:21 Ganseng wrote:thx so the "new" model is just the hots version of thor shooting from its 250mm cannons? that's lame who uses 250mm caliber for air defense? (I know it's a video game, but it's still lame even for a video game) I think they are just lazy and want to find some application for the obsolete cannons It's punisher cannon.Can shoot depleted uranium round :OOO
oh yeah
m1 abrams also can shoot depleted uranium rounds
however, it doesn't shoot air =)
and that's a 120 mm gun
250mm is kinda slower to aim and reload, muzzle velocity is lower, and ballistics is worse
I mean Japanese did shoot at airplanes with the main caliber batteries of their battleships in WWII
but that was an act of desperation and they didn't really hit anything
whatever, just bad design. shouldn't worry me that much after helicopters in open space =)
|
I agree with the idea behind the balance changes but some numbers needs to be adjusted.
Banshee’s Hyperflight Rotors should be 150/150, 100/100 is just to cheap given the power of this upgrade.
Thors air damage changed to single target is a very good idea since it would help mech against capital ships. Liberators are already more useful against mutas.
Thors anti-air damage needs to be higher though or the range should be longer given that Tempest and Carriers outrange Thors.
|
We noticed the posts regarding having to only use standard maps due to everyone only liking standard maps. We had two points of discussion after reading through these conclusions. First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing. Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches.
I think there are some misconception about the term "standard map".
Maps like dusk towers and ruins of seras are maybe not 100% standard but they are standard enough that they are relatively balanced and don't force you into a certain playstyle.
NOBODY has a problem with those types of maps.
On the other hand we have ulrena, central protocol and prion terraces which are either heavily imbalanced and/or force you into the same playstyle every game. THIS is the type of maps we don't like. of course there is nothing wrong with having 1-2 of those maps in the pool (if they turn out to be hugely imbalanced they should of course be replaced asap) but 3 of those is way to much.
|
On April 02 2016 01:30 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +We noticed the posts regarding having to only use standard maps due to everyone only liking standard maps. We had two points of discussion after reading through these conclusions. First, out of top maps, the ones voted as the 1st place map, the 3rd place map, and the 4th place map don’t seem like standard maps to us, so the conclusions some people have drawn to say that everyone only likes standard maps seems to be inaccurate. Second, we don’t understand how having 4+ similar maps in the ladder or tournaments can be a good thing. Due to the veto system in both official and automated tournaments, we’ve seen that if we go with only a few maps that are different, in some cases they might be vetoed out in every game except for the BO7 finals matches. I think there are some misconception about the term "standard map". Maps like dusk towers and ruins of seras are maybe not 100% standard but they are standard enough that they are relatively balanced and don't force you into a certain playstyle. NOBODY has a problem with those types of maps. On the other hand we have ulrena, central protocol and prion terraces which are either heavily imbalanced and/or force you into the same playstyle every game. THIS is the type of maps we don't like. of course there is nothing wrong with having 1-2 of those maps in the pool (if they turn out to be hugely imbalanced they should of course be replaced asap) but 3 of those is way to much.
Except Dusk Towers is heavily terran favoured, so your balance argument isn't great.
|
Is anyone else worried that the Thor will be nullified later in the game when Broodlords/Tempest/Carriers hit the field and both the Terrain and longer range are used against the slow moving Thor? Will there be a difference between having 1 Thor and 8 Thors if none of them really get any dps going on capital ships?
You see your opponent on 3+ factories you just need to attack with cheap units/drops from all angles till you get 4-5 capital ships out?
I would rather see dps that just trades with the capital ships (no better), but a range that makes up for the fact that we can't ignore ledges and terrain we can position on. That way, if your Thors are in your base you can actually have more than one firing while the full Tempest army returns fire.
|
On April 01 2016 21:41 Ganseng wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 21:26 seemsgood wrote:On April 01 2016 21:21 Ganseng wrote:thx so the "new" model is just the hots version of thor shooting from its 250mm cannons? that's lame who uses 250mm caliber for air defense? (I know it's a video game, but it's still lame even for a video game) I think they are just lazy and want to find some application for the obsolete cannons It's punisher cannon.Can shoot depleted uranium round :OOO oh yeah m1 abrams also can shoot depleted uranium rounds however, it doesn't shoot air =) and that's a 120 mm gun 250mm is kinda slower to aim and reload, muzzle velocity is lower, and ballistics is worse I mean Japanese did shoot at airplanes with the main caliber batteries of their battleships in WWII but that was an act of desperation and they didn't really hit anything whatever, just bad design. shouldn't worry me that much after helicopters in open space =)
Taking into consideration the fact that capital ships are so big in SC that they can carry entire factions and armies inside, I'd say 250 mm is not enough.
|
United Kingdom476 Posts
On April 01 2016 10:29 CheddarToss wrote:
I'm also confused. But one thing is for certain: Terrans whine the loudest and get what they want, regardless of whether it's good or bad for the game. They whined non stop until Adepts got nerfed. And now Terran supposedly needs a buff or two. It's just to hard currently with a TvZ and TvP winrate of 50% and 52% respectively...
Stuff your bias where the sun doesn't shine buddy, right in there next to your head apparently. Terran whines did not prevent a year of GGLords and Winfestor, or 8 months of Blink massacre. So no, Blizzard does not jump to Terran wishes.
For the record Bio is in a good place at the moment but mech definitely needs help. It needs to be in a place where it is a viable alternative to bio allowing the player to choose one or the other. I would prefer to be able to choose either bio as main, with factory or Starport support, or mech as main with bio support. With the upgrades that is difficult.
|
3 seconds extra cooldown on the ravager will make a big difference?.....
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On April 02 2016 03:33 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
3 seconds extra cooldown on the ravager will make a big difference?.....
1.43x longer cooldown on anything will make a big difference.
|
On April 01 2016 04:27 Musicus wrote:If they really take out Korhal, that would be great news! Edit: And I can't wait for part two .
Zerg traitor
and yes please jsut bring in normal maps and rotate out all those Secret Spring-esque abominations before you change any race properties
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
On April 02 2016 03:25 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2016 21:41 Ganseng wrote:On April 01 2016 21:26 seemsgood wrote:On April 01 2016 21:21 Ganseng wrote:thx so the "new" model is just the hots version of thor shooting from its 250mm cannons? that's lame who uses 250mm caliber for air defense? (I know it's a video game, but it's still lame even for a video game) I think they are just lazy and want to find some application for the obsolete cannons It's punisher cannon.Can shoot depleted uranium round :OOO oh yeah m1 abrams also can shoot depleted uranium rounds however, it doesn't shoot air =) and that's a 120 mm gun 250mm is kinda slower to aim and reload, muzzle velocity is lower, and ballistics is worse I mean Japanese did shoot at airplanes with the main caliber batteries of their battleships in WWII but that was an act of desperation and they didn't really hit anything whatever, just bad design. shouldn't worry me that much after helicopters in open space =) Taking into consideration the fact that capital ships are so big in SC that they can carry entire factions and armies inside, I'd say 250 mm is not enough.
Of course not
But a marine rifle is enough :D
|
I like the map where there is rocks everywhere so on a tvz the zerg can harass on 3 different side xD
Lets say it, map makers are not very smart.
|
Does anyone else feel that simply having more room and space in which to construct buildings
would make the game much more enjoyable? Especially for Terran and probably Protoss, too?
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
On April 02 2016 05:51 Ape_Island wrote:
Does anyone else feel that simply having more room and space in which to construct buildings
would make the game much more enjoyable? Especially for Terran and probably Protoss, too?
I think with the econ changes it might be better to just make buildings better, maybe with an upgrade. Earlygame is normal but midgame you have so many buildings
|
On April 02 2016 05:55 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 05:51 Ape_Island wrote:
Does anyone else feel that simply having more room and space in which to construct buildings
would make the game much more enjoyable? Especially for Terran and probably Protoss, too?
I think with the econ changes it might be better to just make buildings better, maybe with an upgrade. Earlygame is normal but midgame you have so many buildings
You mean maybe smaller buildings?? Or whole new design?
That could be a good idea.
|
I just noticed that the part about a "part two" article has been removed from the original thread on battlenet forum. Will this mean that no part two is coming? Disappointing thing, and let me say, kind of unprofessional..
|
On April 02 2016 06:25 Temporary Happiness wrote:
I just noticed that the part about a "part two" article has been removed from the original thread on battlenet forum. Will this mean that no part two is coming? Disappointing thing, and let me say, kind of unprofessional..
Part 2 came
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20742985906
|
Nice! thank you, didnt noticed that..
(to be honest i was hoping for a serious feedback update, but 1st april, i was asking too much i guess^^)
|
On April 02 2016 06:26 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 06:25 Temporary Happiness wrote:
I just noticed that the part about a "part two" article has been removed from the original thread on battlenet forum. Will this mean that no part two is coming? Disappointing thing, and let me say, kind of unprofessional.. Part 2 came http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20742985906
Not sure if funny or salty. perfect sc2 thread!
|
On April 02 2016 06:26 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 06:25 Temporary Happiness wrote:
I just noticed that the part about a "part two" article has been removed from the original thread on battlenet forum. Will this mean that no part two is coming? Disappointing thing, and let me say, kind of unprofessional.. Part 2 came http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20742985906
Funny that they put more effort in to that than the real community updates, lol.
I particularly like the comment on there where someone says "Every day is like April fools day with DK".
|
On April 02 2016 06:46 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 06:26 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:On April 02 2016 06:25 Temporary Happiness wrote:
I just noticed that the part about a "part two" article has been removed from the original thread on battlenet forum. Will this mean that no part two is coming? Disappointing thing, and let me say, kind of unprofessional.. Part 2 came http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/20742985906 Funny that they put more effort in to that than the real community updates, lol. I particularly like the comment on there where someone says "Every day is like April fools day with DK".
I hope to see that one on a cheerful one day.
|
The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game.
I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now.
So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must.
I have noticed that as well, but dont forget that the auto chrono and stackable injects (+ many many many other things) helps a lot. F.e. back in HOTS there were countless protoss players (top masters) who forgot the use chrono. Dont expect anything much to change in the upcoming months, better to put the game aside and try it in a year again or keep training.
|
On April 02 2016 03:36 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2016 03:33 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
3 seconds extra cooldown on the ravager will make a big difference?..... 1.43x longer cooldown on anything will make a big difference.
Especially for situations which are more controlled, like firing corrosive biles into a building at a set frequency.
I guess corrosive bile can function like turn-based combat? You fire a set of projectiles, the opponent responds and might continue pressing for a brief moment until the second round comes crashing down from above. Then in deciding on certain parameters you can create situations that are oppressive because the player might never find the time to do anything other than running away from this ability. It can not really be countered in the sense that you can do something meaningful while scattering your forces, instead you have to weather the storm and prepare to seize the moments coming in the future. In that sense it lets the zerg player dictate the pacing of the combat and eliminate agency for the opponent. This as a hypothetical scenario with a ravager of unbounded power.
|
On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must.
the difference between HotS and LotV is very big so you'd need to invest more time to get back to your former rank.
I was in the same situation as you at the start of LotV but after 1000+ games I was back in high masters.
|
On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must.
Take it like a man
|
Like it, zerg roaches ravagers play really need nerf
Banshee change look promising !!!
|
On April 04 2016 01:04 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. Take it like a man
I've played now 27,700+ games since 2011.
I always check my opponents deal after I play them.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but erratic and inconsistent is how I would describe many peoples' league history.
From Masters to platinum then to silver, then up to Gold, then...... anything, lower to higher.
Firstly though, this probably describes the time a person has for a video game, of course. Given
people more likely have other things happening in their lives. Secondly, I'd look at the history in light of
what Patch era it was, and what was happening in the meta, maps.
Maybe the more accurately descriptive group to look at is those players who consistently hover at least at Diamond.
Those who maintain a certain skill level through practice.
|
On April 04 2016 04:09 Ape_Island wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 01:04 insitelol wrote:On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. Take it like a man I've played now 27,700+ games since 2011. I always check my opponents deal after I play them. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but erratic and inconsistent is how I would describe many peoples' league history. From Masters to platinum then to silver, then up to Gold, then...... anything, lower to higher. Firstly though, this probably describes the time a person has for a video game, of course. Given people more likely have other things happening in their lives. Secondly, I'd look at the history in light of what Patch era it was, and what was happening in the meta, maps. Maybe the more accurately descriptive group to look at is those players who consistently hover at least at Diamond. Those who maintain a certain skill level through practice.
for me, i've been consistently in plat (well, pretty low plat, i still lost to golds lol) for like most of 2015, then LotV comes and then i skyrocket to diamond by doing mass reaper every single game
|
huge nerf on the liberator , not sure how that would turn out to be, also don't see the thor changes makes much difference in terms of making the thor useful against non light armored air units.
|
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
|
I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what
Terran has never been more represented in master league since 2010. So your personal story is not something that has statistically support.
Personally I hadn't played Sc2 for 1½ years and was like mid-high master before I quit, and got back to masters in LOTV after 60 games in LOTV so I can't relate to your problems.
|
Who here thinks DK put more effort into the April 1 update than this one?
|
I do.
"The reason why we are unsure about Mech is because we can’t quite locate the exact reason Mech struggles." - Very good joke Dayvie.
On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
It's not everything zerg has. It's everything terran has too.
When protoss plays the cancer style fast 3 bases with adepts and prisms, and builds a adept/immo/stalker/sentries army with a huge eco lead (because he takes his third when you're barely finishing your factory), and has enough money to jamm double upgrades... Stalkers aggro the liberator fire (and can fight them pretty decently too), while adept/immo with guardian shield absolutely MAULS terran bio.
I'm all for a liberator nerf, really, but without counterpart, it'll just make TvP a big fat stincking gateball/immo fest.
|
On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
The immortals were problematic since day 1 in WoL. Zerg has never had a good answer on the ground against them besides old Swarm Hosts. They are one of the main reasons why Broodlord/Infestor, mass muta and Swarm Host turtle styles had/have to be as powerful as they were/are.
PvZ has always had shitty designed balance with Protoss having way to powerful ground vs ground armies and their opponent taking to the skies - and it's not that different in TvP. Every lategame Z/TvP has always revolved around avoiding Protoss armies or excessive use of air units, be it medivacs, broodlords, vipers, vikings or liberators.
It's not really a balance question though to be honest. Protoss needs to be overpowered on the ground by design, because none of their powerful stuff can shoot up - and as equalizer their anti-air techs are specialized and expensive. You'd have to work with Protoss design from the bottom to change that and that's not going to happen.
|
I see some people complain that adept+stalkers+immo+sentry(GS) beats MMM cost per cost. Why shouldn't it? This protoss army is slower (sentry and immortal are, thus slowing down the whole thing), has worse anti-air than marines and cannot be lifted and fly away on turbovacs to ignore terrain.
Maybe terrans are too used to have the better mobility AND better units cost per cost, while in the past protoss had to rely on pure AOE (Collo+Storm) to make it a close fight against MMM.
There's these good support units like the liberator, ghost and widow mine to help the terran cause.
Edit: BigJ makes some good points on this front too ^
|
It'd be perfectly fine for immo/gateball to shit on MMM if terran didn't have to invest so much for bio infrastructure/upgrade wise. Also, the new PO and prism aren't making gateball that immobile.
But anyway, in the current state of the game, liberators are so blatantly OP that they are the terran crutch. Take away the lib from terran and TvP will be a nightmare.
I'm all for a weaker liberator. But that would only be possible with intelligent tweaking. Which blizzard really don't appear to be capable of ATM.
|
On April 04 2016 17:50 Salteador Neo wrote:
I see some people complain that adept+stalkers+immo+sentry(GS) beats MMM cost per cost. Why shouldn't it? This protoss army is slower (sentry and immortal are, thus slowing down the whole thing), has worse anti-air than marines and cannot be lifted and fly away on turbovacs to ignore terrain.
Maybe terrans are too used to have the better mobility AND better units cost per cost, while in the past protoss had to rely on pure AOE (Collo+Storm) to make it a close fight against MMM.
There's these good support units like the liberator, ghost and widow mine to help the terran cause.
Edit: BigJ makes some good points on this front too ^
I like the Gateway army stands a fighting chance against Terran.
However when considering that Protoss mostly can take fast safe third (giving them stronger eco)
- Warp Prism harass is more effective than Bio Drops (due to Warp Ins / Pylon Cannons)
- Protoss has the much stronger late game with PsyStorm / Tempest
If the Liberator gets hammered with a huge nerf - I dont see any parts in the game where Terran actually has an advantage over a Protoss who plays a safe 3-base style with Warp Prism, takes a fourth when feeling safe and then goes into late game á Rain Style.
Terran no longer has any ways to punish a camping protoss (making liberators) since Protoss dont have to feel threatned by anything in the Terran arsenal anymore. Many of the old timings terran used to have when Protoss did not have storm / enough Colossus / was transitioning between storm and colossus are also totally gone in LoTV since as you said, a pure Gateway army stands its ground against Terran Bio. You can almost just mass Gateway units + upgrades + Immortals into 200 supply and have a great army. So was not the case in either WoL or HoTS. Given that Protoss is commonly ahead in upgrades, economy and also now have, if not the better so an as strong army as Terran on gateways - I do not see the strenght in Terrans arsenal in TvP anymore.
Terrans relies so heavily on having the Liberators to actually keep Protoss in check. Without them, I fear the match up is going to be heavily turned in favour of Protoss.
|
On April 01 2016 03:41 pzlama333 wrote:
If all three races like a map, and the stats show all three races have close to 50:50 win ratio, then this map is good and well balanced.
If one race likes a map but another race do not like it, and stats show one race has much higher win ratio then another in this map, then this map may not be balanced.
If all three races do not like a map and think it is hard to play, but the stats show all three races have 50:50 win ratio in this map, is this map balanced?
What is standard? A map which favors no race, is a map which removes the advantages of every race. Standard maps have restrictions such as easy to take third, small entrances, small/no place to blink into main, long rush distance, long air distance, multiple ways to the opponent (because of tanks), routes cant be too wide or too small (because of force fields) and more. Restrictions reduce the number of possible strategies. If ulrena had these restrictions, we would not see tricks like depots which trap adepts (depots on both sides) and give you enough time to build an army or to get a specific tech.
Its natural that a deviation from the norm will favor one race or the other. But that doesnt mean that the map is unplayable for other races. It only means that different races have different advantages on the map.
Every map is like a puzzle that the player has to solve. The game is not about playing the same build orders/strategies on and on. Its about adapting and creating new strategies.
But the contrary exists too. Too much map freedom can force the player into a specific strategy, e.g. lower mineral patches forces early rushes, higher rock hp forces turtle matches, the player who controls the strong canon in the center wins. Also things like lava or moving elements introduce only luck to the game and are gimmicky (means allow only one strategy).
The maps today give you enough strategical freedom. These maps deviate only in 1 or 2 points from standard maps and allow different strategies to pop up, e.g. ulrena where we have seen strategies such as queen, ling, roach drop on the natural, trapping units with depots or early tempest play (all new stuff which happened never before).
|
What's all this hypothetical blabla? Isn't the test map live, so you can try and confirm your hypotheses and make them public if you succeeded? Don't blame Blizzard for being slow, if you can't even go with the steps they take. They also ask you to concentrate on discussing the issues they are currently working on - driving the discussion to other issues is not helpful at that moment.
If you want to have updates at a faster pace, help with the progress by testing recent changes.
Maybe splitting weekly feedback into two threads would be a good idea. One to discuss only the subjects blizzard chose to address in that week and one to suggest future updates, that blizzard can give priority to. Currently the first thread wouldnt have more than 1 page of replies I think.
|
On April 04 2016 19:01 CyanApple wrote:
What's all this hypothetical blabla? Isn't the test map live, so you can try and confirm your hypotheses and make them public if you succeeded? Don't blame Blizzard for being slow, if you can't even go with the steps they take. They also ask you to concentrate on discussing the issues they are currently working on - driving the discussion to other issues is not helpful at that moment.
If you want to have updates at a faster pace, help with the progress by testing recent changes.
Maybe splitting weekly feedback into two threads would be a good idea. One to discuss only the subjects blizzard chose to address in that week and one to suggest future updates, that blizzard can give priority to. Currently the first thread wouldnt have more than 1 page of replies I think.
Go ahead, play the testmap. Oh wait, all you can do is play against the same 3 gold leaguers over and over again because there is no matchmaking. I played the testmap with the tankdrop removal+tank buff a lot like that, it's completely nonsensical to do so.
If you want opinions on the changes you just have to open your eyes while going through the thread. But there is only so much you can discuss about whether the corrosive bile has a 7 or 10 second cooldown, don't know what you expect.
The last immortal discussion was sparked by the notion of a liberator nerf and a ravager nerf making it unfair to play against Protoss, so dunno how you can say you read the thread and there is no discussion on topic, yet miss the crucial motivation behind a discussion heavily connected to the original topic.
|
interesting changes like the maps ideas
|
On April 04 2016 19:26 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 19:01 CyanApple wrote:
What's all this hypothetical blabla? Isn't the test map live, so you can try and confirm your hypotheses and make them public if you succeeded? Don't blame Blizzard for being slow, if you can't even go with the steps they take. They also ask you to concentrate on discussing the issues they are currently working on - driving the discussion to other issues is not helpful at that moment.
If you want to have updates at a faster pace, help with the progress by testing recent changes.
Maybe splitting weekly feedback into two threads would be a good idea. One to discuss only the subjects blizzard chose to address in that week and one to suggest future updates, that blizzard can give priority to. Currently the first thread wouldnt have more than 1 page of replies I think. Go ahead, play the testmap. Oh wait, all you can do is play against the same 3 gold leaguers over and over again because there is no matchmaking. I played the testmap with the tankdrop removal+tank buff a lot like that, it's completely nonsensical to do so. If you want opinions on the changes you just have to open your eyes while going through the thread. But there is only so much you can discuss about whether the corrosive bile has a 7 or 10 second cooldown, don't know what you expect. The last immortal discussion was sparked by the notion of a liberator nerf and a ravager nerf making it unfair to play against Protoss, so dunno how you can say you read the thread and there is no discussion on topic, yet miss the crucial motivation behind a discussion heavily connected to the original topic.
Regarding your first paragraph, that's what I was trying to say. We need more ppl playing the testmap. As I am myself currently only gold/plat, I don't consider myself capable to judge balancing issues properly. Sure I could test whether the early ravager push is still strong, but I couldn't say whether they are then still good enough for mid-late game. I am just shocked, that I don't even see a reply hinting in that direction, as this was pretty much the only reason it was introduced. Also I just now checked the last 4 pages of this thread again and only found 3-4 replies discussing the current gameplay changes.
Edit: The timing of my post was probably a bit off, as the discussion around the immortal was of course meaningful. However, I don't see anyone actually testing whether the changed liberator deals far worse with the "protoss gateball" or whether the thor is actually useful against e.g. the "specialized and expensive anti-air" of protoss in the lategame.
Also, I don't even see any reply hinting at the reduced harass-potential of the liberator and how ravagers deal with them after the introduced tweaks, which again is probably the most obvious issue that should be discussed with the current update.
|
On April 04 2016 17:45 Big J wrote:The immortals were problematic since day 1 in WoL. Zerg has never had a good answer on the ground against them besides old Swarm Hosts.
I am only diamond in WOL, but don't find immortals that OP. They are expensive, slow, and weak vs lings/hydra and useless vs air (broods/mutas). I find I really need forcefields with them (more gas).... While as a zerg player so far I find they also die fast vs lings, and so far the colossus scare me much, much more.
I do really like them vs tanks tho.
|
On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals.
Immortals have always been pretty ridiculous per cost, lol. It tells you a lot that Protoss beeline for double robo after taking a quick third off a stargate and start pumping them out asap...
The opposite side of the coin is also true...lurkers really limit Protoss composition diversity. You nerf the immortal, and Protoss will just start going mass air every game (which would really, really suck as it would reveal just how ridiculously OP the carrier is ahaha).
Been laddering as random for awhile, it's pretty interesting to see all these issues from different perspectives.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 05 2016 14:10 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2016 13:05 RaFox17 wrote:
Is there anyone else who thinks that immortals should also get a small nerf? They are at the moment counter to anything zerg on the ground expect zerg. (if they have zealots thats not a problem) If you nerf ravager i think you need to nerf immortals. Immortals have always been pretty ridiculous per cost, lol. It tells you a lot that Protoss beeline for double robo after taking a quick third off a stargate and start pumping them out asap... The opposite side of the coin is also true...lurkers really limit Protoss composition diversity. You nerf the immortal, and Protoss will just start going mass air every game (which would really, really suck as it would reveal just how ridiculously OP the carrier is ahaha). Been laddering as random for awhile, it's pretty interesting to see all these issues from different perspectives.
The opposite side of the coin is the problem, immortals are so good because the rest of the ground army is, in some situation, useless piece of shit. Protoss design overall is the worst of all 3 races, they have designated units because they have to have these. Without immortals and phoenixes(GtG destroyer, AtA destroyer) you will see that somehow Protoss lacks units. This was always the problem since WoL 
|
The problem is the same as it has been for ages, protoss msc and crazy defenders advantage. Protoss is the new zerg with Heavy focus on macro and eco, the difference is that protoss still has a ridiculous amount of options for harass/all-in.
Zerg gets stripped of their macro edge, gain a few gimmicky options (ling/bling drops and nydus) and also gain two op units ravager/lurker, this balance it out somewhat compared to protoss.
Terran gets one op unit that eclipses all other units in OPness, its basically the only real buff terran gets in void.
Compared to what the other two races gained terran were underbuffed.
All three races need to be nerfed, lib needs this ner for sure, ravager needs the nerf but you also have to either nerf the new WP into the ground or make protoss susceptible to early timings (big ner fto msc or similar). Protoss is the old zerg eco wise but with stronger defence, the more time passes by the better protoss will get at perfecting their greed and defence and in the end protoss will reign supreme. Nerf all three please.
|
On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. User was temp banned for this post. I dont se Why this guy got temp banned for this post? he just stated som data he collected by himself.. is that also not acceptable atm? are you not allowed to have personal opinions about the state of the game?
|
On April 05 2016 17:34 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. User was temp banned for this post. I dont se Why this guy got temp banned for this post? he just stated som data he collected by himself.. is that also not acceptable atm? are you not allowed to have personal opinions about the state of the game?
Martyring is instaban according to this site rules (I bolded the problematic line).
|
On April 05 2016 17:37 Salteador Neo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 17:34 MiCroLiFe wrote:On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. User was temp banned for this post. I dont se Why this guy got temp banned for this post? he just stated som data he collected by himself.. is that also not acceptable atm? are you not allowed to have personal opinions about the state of the game? Martyring is instaban according to this site rules (I bolded the problematic line). Thats not a fair rule in my opinion
|
On April 05 2016 17:42 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 17:37 Salteador Neo wrote:On April 05 2016 17:34 MiCroLiFe wrote:On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. User was temp banned for this post. I dont se Why this guy got temp banned for this post? he just stated som data he collected by himself.. is that also not acceptable atm? are you not allowed to have personal opinions about the state of the game? Martyring is instaban according to this site rules (I bolded the problematic line). Thats not a fair rule in my opinion
It is actually fair. To write stuff like that you make the banner out to be the bad guy no matter how much you deserve that ban. It's a cheap way to try and victimize yourself even though you are the one that are in the wrong. Cheap psychological tricks are not O.K.
|
On April 05 2016 17:34 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. User was temp banned for this post. I dont se Why this guy got temp banned for this post? he just stated som data he collected by himself.. is that also not acceptable atm? are you not allowed to have personal opinions about the state of the game?
He said "ban me", and he got banned. The end.
|
Sooooo now that the meta TvZ meta seems to be changing towards speed banshees as the go to mech harass, this proposed changed to cheap army requirement sounds terrifying
|
Anecdotal: I've tried to give all the new maps a fair shake. As a Toss, I'm 3-17 on Endion and 5-15 on Frozen. Low Master/High Diamond, ended last season with around a 60% winrate. Currently sitting at 40%, lol. KCK is a fun map if there is no early aggression/all in from the other side, rather impossible to be able to have Pylon coverage for ALL the rocks while having some to overcharge while having units to cover against drops and such. Invader has been okay. Very strange games if close by ground to opponent, but, close by air has been rather fun.
|
cant wait to see what david kim has to say us today.
|
Trash update, since the new patch i get 10 ish fps on dusk and prion, fine on the other maps. fan-tastic. Every patch there is something...
|
With David Kim's team, everyday is like April Fools!
|
On April 07 2016 19:36 coolmiyo wrote:
cant wait to see what david kim has to say us today.
Is he expected to post today?
|
On April 08 2016 04:41 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 19:36 coolmiyo wrote:
cant wait to see what david kim has to say us today. Is he expected to post today?
yeah, today or tomorrow.
|
On April 05 2016 17:42 MiCroLiFe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2016 17:37 Salteador Neo wrote:On April 05 2016 17:34 MiCroLiFe wrote:On April 03 2016 22:38 terrantosaur wrote:The state of the game is a fucking joke at the moment. Maps/units/structure of the game. I play Terran. Last season of HOTS I was top 4 Masters. Always been able to get to Masters when I dedicated a bit of time to see what the current meta was doing etc. I've beaten the occasional GM and it even took Jaedong himself 20 minutes to beat me once . Since the start of LotV I've struggled to stay in the top 8 of Diamond. So I decided to collect some data. I looked at the league history of the zerg/protoss players I am playing over the last month just for an indication of what was going on. Over 50% of the zerg/protoss I'm playing nowadays were gold/platinum in HOTS (all now at the top level of diamond. Even those who used to be diamond at some stage, were gold/plat for most of their careers). I see ZERO zerg/protoss who were EVER Masters level in HOTS/WOL. Now of course one could try to explain this away by reference to sample size but I'd encourage other Terrans to take a look and see if you're seeing the same thing. Either Terran was op in HOTS or it's underpowered now. So I'm afraid I have to agree with the first comment on this thread and ban me for it if you must. User was temp banned for this post. I dont se Why this guy got temp banned for this post? he just stated som data he collected by himself.. is that also not acceptable atm? are you not allowed to have personal opinions about the state of the game? Martyring is instaban according to this site rules (I bolded the problematic line). Thats not a fair rule in my opinion
If you asked to be banned, you get banned. Seems fair
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
