|
On April 20 2016 01:44 Shuffleblade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 00:20 Edowyth wrote:On April 19 2016 17:36 Shuffleblade wrote:
Its the builds that P goes for that is the problem, not mutas or anything else. P builds adepts and immortals and for some reason those two units are weak against mutas...
Your whole post is based upon some really backwards thinking, not the least is the above. Protoss players have the greatest incentive to play different builds that everyone else does: winning. There are obviously your Hases, Stardusts and so on playing SC2. They're just not winning. They're not winning because cheesing is a very, very bad option for Protoss vs Zerg in LotV. What's more, it's not just cheesing that's bad, but 2-base pressure in general (as I pointed out above, though you seemed to miss every single point). Protoss players aren't all doing the exact same build because it's "too good". They're doing the same build because anything else dies to scouting + muta switches. Even assuming the first were correct, there would still be players doing other things, if for no other reason than the surprise factor allowing them to win versus better opponents. That doesn't happen. The difference between LotV and HotS for Muta play is this: tech to defeat mutas still takes the same amount of time to get up whereas the resource bank needed to do a muta switch is much faster to achieve due to the new relative safety of zergs in the early-game (barring oracles / phoenix) and the starting workers change. In HotS, you had a ton of time ... you could do a 2-base pressure (with resources to back it up -- whose point wasn't to prevent mutas, but to economically harm the zerg -- yet the very act of pushing forced resources away from a potential switch, weakening the strategy, allowing more time to react to such a switch), you could go blink (and have time to get cannons up to delay to a stargate switch against mutas because your 2 bases wouldn't run out of resources amassing a defense and [barely] taking a third), you could do tons of things. In LotV, without a stargate, you have no way to pressure the zerg (allowing them to bank resources faster), you have more starting workers (allowing them to bank resources faster), and you run out of resources faster (on 2-base ... it's nearly impossible to take and defend a third versus a fast muta switch unless you've gone phoenix in LotV because you don't have the resources to do so). So, your surprise that everyone is opening up to counter mutas (phoenix) should really be leading you to wonder why ... it's because we have to. Literally all that Protoss needs to be able to open anything else is just a tiny amount of time to be able to survive the initial portion of a muta-switch. Not to be invincible. Not to force mutas to always be bad options versus Protoss ... just enough time to be able to start switching to phoenix. Again, I really dislike the change. I think it's bad overall for the game. I'd much prefer a change to mutas (why have +bio on spores and cannons instead of just nerfing muta regen, the cause for both of these changes). Mutas are absolutely the reason that everyone opens phoenix, however. I'm convinced, thanks for enlightening me. ^_^ Very well written
too bad very little of it is true. Protoss can still pressure with adepts.
& I already explained why the same build is used. Its because lurkers own stalkers so pure stalker isnt an option anymore so phoenix are a neccecity. all of this eco shit hes talkin about is not relevant.
|
On April 20 2016 01:59 RaFox17 wrote:
If you nerf muta regen that will kill them even harder in ZvT. That will give protoss more options but will kill mutas in both ZvP and ZvT. (To be fair they are quite dead in ZvP at this point)
The reason for that what you say equals the reason for why SC2 lost interest amongst many users.
If we want mutas without high regen to make sense again, we need to go down the long road and at the end of it nerf bio compositions: The removal of marauder from early & mid-game, as I have suggested it years ago.
Then terrans can't play "eat this", "again", "again" and so on. And zerg has to strategically decide where and if to use mutas and benefit or suffer from this decision making.
Of course many more things needed to be adapted. We finally find out that almost everything in SC2 is overpowered and why offence is so much better and more fun than defence. The "terrible terrible damage" problem will get into control through that. Game is getting more strategic and less macro oriented, game pace is getting a bit slower with more difficult and strategic decision making instead of the sole building of critical masses and go for it gameplay. Suddenly in this new environment mech is making sense again as well, and diversity of builds and strategy increases vastly as the frame they have to fit in widens. Come-backs after being behind or giving away advantages will more commonly happen. We would see players differentiating themselves from others alot more than now on the top end.
I am convinced this is what can make SC2 great again and bring back loads of users who turned their back towards the game. Blizzard! Make an alternate reality SC2 version where you develop back all these things step by step and see if you can get good results with it. This key was always laying there, you just have to go grab n' use it! You have to realize that balancing out one op thing with creating more op things was the very wrong way to go. The game is not getting more more exciting but more stale through that. You will finally realize I am sure, the question just is when.
|
I don't like this change. Mainly because Mutalisks are already pretty much dead in ZvT and with this change they're gonna be dead in ZvP as well. It might give Protoss one more option to play the game - while taking away an option from the Zerg players.
Giving the Protoss players an option to deal with mass mutalisk switches is a good idea - but not at the cost of killing any possible Spire openings for the Zerg, imo.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On April 20 2016 01:59 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 01:44 Shuffleblade wrote:On April 20 2016 00:20 Edowyth wrote:On April 19 2016 17:36 Shuffleblade wrote:
Its the builds that P goes for that is the problem, not mutas or anything else. P builds adepts and immortals and for some reason those two units are weak against mutas...
Your whole post is based upon some really backwards thinking, not the least is the above. Protoss players have the greatest incentive to play different builds that everyone else does: winning. There are obviously your Hases, Stardusts and so on playing SC2. They're just not winning. They're not winning because cheesing is a very, very bad option for Protoss vs Zerg in LotV. What's more, it's not just cheesing that's bad, but 2-base pressure in general (as I pointed out above, though you seemed to miss every single point). Protoss players aren't all doing the exact same build because it's "too good". They're doing the same build because anything else dies to scouting + muta switches. Even assuming the first were correct, there would still be players doing other things, if for no other reason than the surprise factor allowing them to win versus better opponents. That doesn't happen. The difference between LotV and HotS for Muta play is this: tech to defeat mutas still takes the same amount of time to get up whereas the resource bank needed to do a muta switch is much faster to achieve due to the new relative safety of zergs in the early-game (barring oracles / phoenix) and the starting workers change. In HotS, you had a ton of time ... you could do a 2-base pressure (with resources to back it up -- whose point wasn't to prevent mutas, but to economically harm the zerg -- yet the very act of pushing forced resources away from a potential switch, weakening the strategy, allowing more time to react to such a switch), you could go blink (and have time to get cannons up to delay to a stargate switch against mutas because your 2 bases wouldn't run out of resources amassing a defense and [barely] taking a third), you could do tons of things. In LotV, without a stargate, you have no way to pressure the zerg (allowing them to bank resources faster), you have more starting workers (allowing them to bank resources faster), and you run out of resources faster (on 2-base ... it's nearly impossible to take and defend a third versus a fast muta switch unless you've gone phoenix in LotV because you don't have the resources to do so). So, your surprise that everyone is opening up to counter mutas (phoenix) should really be leading you to wonder why ... it's because we have to. Literally all that Protoss needs to be able to open anything else is just a tiny amount of time to be able to survive the initial portion of a muta-switch. Not to be invincible. Not to force mutas to always be bad options versus Protoss ... just enough time to be able to start switching to phoenix. Again, I really dislike the change. I think it's bad overall for the game. I'd much prefer a change to mutas (why have +bio on spores and cannons instead of just nerfing muta regen, the cause for both of these changes). Mutas are absolutely the reason that everyone opens phoenix, however. I'm convinced, thanks for enlightening me. ^_^ Very well written If you nerf muta regen that will kill them even harder in ZvT. That will give protoss more options but will kill mutas in both ZvP and ZvT. (To be fair they are quite dead in ZvP at this point)
Mainly because Mutalisks are already pretty much dead in ZvT
Biggest reason for that is liberator AA shutting down muta play hard - in low or high numbers
|
This would be such a miniscule change that I don't even think it would be logical to mass cannon vs mass mutalisk, but this makes Skytoss even more strong lol
|
On April 20 2016 02:35 Comedy wrote:
too bad very little of it is true. Protoss can still pressure with adepts.
If you're "pressuring" with adepts off of 2-base and the zerg opponent doesn't stop it with pure lings ... then you've invested a ton of resources into the "pressure" and the zerg is building speedlings and ravagers to stop you which immediately counter-attack for a huge advantage (since you've not invested at all into tech to actually defend ravagers).
On April 20 2016 02:35 Comedy wrote:
& I already explained why the same build is used. Its because lurkers own stalkers so pure stalker isnt an option anymore so phoenix are a neccecity. all of this eco shit hes talkin about is not relevant.
Zerg can't go both lurkers and a fast spire for a significant number of mutalisks. This is not a problem.
Lurkers also aren't the main reason that Protoss aren't building mass stalkers ... it's the combination of much-faster speedlings (and much-cheaper, again, due to faster income from quicker worker numbers compared to the tech needed to get to blink) and hydras (which, with the effectively cheaper speedlings, do too much damage for stalkers to begin to snow-ball like they did in HotS).
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
Another thing to note for stalkers being bad is that Ravagers are not armored
|
On April 20 2016 05:13 Swisslink wrote:
I don't like this change. Mainly because Mutalisks are already pretty much dead in ZvT and with this change they're gonna be dead in ZvP as well. It might give Protoss one more option to play the game - while taking away an option from the Zerg players.
Giving the Protoss players an option to deal with mass mutalisk switches is a good idea - but not at the cost of killing any possible Spire openings for the Zerg, imo.
I like the idea of opening up the mu but it can't be achieved like that : the only end result is indeed killing mutas for good while P will still get mass immortals every game vs lurkers and slightly less immortals with storm vs baneling centric compositions. The buff should go to stalker AA as many suggested and then you can test nerfs to the immortal and the lurker. Problem is you can't nerf either of them too much, otherwise other things (ultras, disruptors...) could become problematic. The mu is a tricky beast to balance atm and I honestly have no clue what the wisest move would be -but it's most certainly not that one, that even takes away some diversity off the mu.
To give my opinion : given how interesting baneling styles have looked recently I would just give the mu some time. And if I were to take some action that would probably be more something along the lines of an immortal nerf and if needed a very slight lurker nerf.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
At the moment there is talk of substantial swarmhost buffs for midgame play within weeks, so Z options will be expanding even further. I think that to be a good thing but P needs at least as much attention, probably more.
|
On April 20 2016 07:29 Cyro wrote:
At the moment there is talk of substantial swarmhost buffs for midgame play within weeks, so Z options will be expanding even further. I think that to be a good thing but P needs at least as much attention, probably more.
I wonder how any swarm host buff could be useful in PvZ if P keep on opening with phoenix
|
I still have yet to see LotV Chrono demonstrate its superiority over HotS Chrono. It seems unintuitive, so that scares new players off. It kills build order diversity. It's made PvZ worse for both being nerfed in the early game and failure to adequately respond to Mutas. I'm going to be a broken record but ideas don't really change if the situation has not.
|
On April 20 2016 07:40 Cloak wrote:
I still have yet to see LotV Chrono demonstrate its superiority over HotS Chrono. It seems unintuitive, so that scares new players off. It kills build order diversity. It's made PvZ worse for both being nerfed in the early game and failure to adequately respond to Mutas. I'm going to be a broken record but ideas don't really change if the situation has not.
Funnily enough I played a HotS game today out of nostalgia and the old chrono was indeed an infinitely superior concept. There are many things to like about LotV though, I admit the pace feels a lot better for instance.
|
By the way I feel worth mentioning someone brought out that a photon buff vs bio would indeed make air + storm lategame even harder to deal with, since tempests require corruptors. It would also take away some of the harassment potential bane styles possess -and they're probably what will make this mu evolve and hopefully progress.
I think those considerations would more or less force the buff to be vs light ; which would be kinda interesting, for instance it would probably help a lot in PvP to avoid mass phoenix wars. It would destroy DK's dream of banshees in TvP but who cares.
|
United Kingdom20326 Posts
On April 20 2016 07:40 Cloak wrote:
I still have yet to see LotV Chrono demonstrate its superiority over HotS Chrono. It seems unintuitive, so that scares new players off. It kills build order diversity. It's made PvZ worse for both being nerfed in the early game and failure to adequately respond to Mutas. I'm going to be a broken record but ideas don't really change if the situation has not.
LOTV chrono used to be objectively worse than HOTS chrono but mathematically slightly superior or on par in some situations. Then they nerfed it by like 1.5x so it's not even remotely competitive.
The "superiority" is the easier use when you're playing from 1, 2 and maybe 3 bases.
|
On April 20 2016 07:47 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2016 07:40 Cloak wrote:
I still have yet to see LotV Chrono demonstrate its superiority over HotS Chrono. It seems unintuitive, so that scares new players off. It kills build order diversity. It's made PvZ worse for both being nerfed in the early game and failure to adequately respond to Mutas. I'm going to be a broken record but ideas don't really change if the situation has not. Funnily enough I played a HotS game today out of nostalgia and the old chrono was indeed an infinitely superior concept. There are many things to like about LotV though, I admit the pace feels a lot better for instance.
Yea, I like LotV better for a number of global reasons and the new units, just I think they took a step backward with Chrono.
|
On April 19 2016 19:36 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 04:16 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 19 2016 04:13 Couguar wrote:
not cannons, stalkers pls. but this is right direction - less mutalisk switch power but what would the buff to stalkers be ? They already have +armored air damage which is pretty essential in fending off drops vT. Though if their anti air was changed to be +light while still doing its current damage to armored it would be an interesting move -diminishing the strenght of stargate in PvP and allowing to play blink vs mutas. It's simple, Stalkers shouldn't have bonus damage vs Air. They should have 14 dmg vs light and armored air. This change is soooooo long overdue. Blizzard refusing to patch Stalker AA damage has made stupid bandaid solutions (Anion Pulse-Crystals...) necessary.
I have an idea for a change that would not cause any potential nasty side effects on any other aspect of the game: Let stalkers continue to do their 10 damage a shot vs light and 14 damage a shot vs air, BUT
vs "light bio air" only they will get a separate damage value (could be 12,14? numbers can be tested and tweaked ...).
With the muta being the only light bio unit in the game (protoss and terran won't probably even ever feature a bio air unit at all due to racial design) and the corruptor/overlord/overseer/broodlord very unlikely to ever become light air units I can not see any real restrictions put onto the game. It can be tested to find a reasonable value while not changing any other unit interaction in the game. Stalker warpins are literally easily available for any potential protoss pvz style that would be available without committing or already having phoenix out, no matter how the metagame would change ever. With the exception of mass air styles (which have only air already ... :-)) every protoss play style that makes will have a good amount of gateways. They are mobile enough to establish bases etc which is super vital in LOTV. Turtling on 3 bases for a while like in pre-lotv times just does not work any more. Your main and natural will be mined out way too quickly.
How do canons help you at securing a new expansion in the open (especially those shitty maps out there in the current map pool)? How to you defend your tech infrastructure from getting unpowered in no-time? Do you even mass up canons there? Do I make 20 canons in total (3-4 for each mineral line on 3-4 bases and some canons around my tech infrastructure??? Archons do great in straight up combat with support, but they are clunky and get blocked by your own buildings and with their speed and range3 never catch or stop mutas from harassing anyways. Without enough support they are a free magic box kill by a group of mutas anyways. Same for templar with storm or sentries. All those units are great and cost efficient but they only ever work in bigger groups in head-on engagements. The problem is getting too far behind until you actually get a group of phoenix out if you need to make stargates + phoenix reactionary (especially with the lotv chronoboost) which leaves stalkers as the only ready-available option. You can literally never know which units are going to hatch from the zerg's eggs until those mutas pop out and head to your base. In the later stages of the game every decent zerg will have a spire up, even if it's just for a later broodlord transition and once the must-have group of phoenix dies they simply make a full round of mutas, that's what they have been waiting for all the time.
When I play zerg 1vs1 ladder (worse than my protoss, some mid master level, so nothing good but at least basics are there), most of the time you feel like you can not make mutas because they would be next to useless since every protoss blindly makes their hardcounter (phoenix). But whenever they actually do not open like that or they lost their phoenix in an engagement (like had to use them vs a huge hydra-speedbane-ling push at their front) investing into a huge group of mutas feels way too strong. It's too binary. I could even see a muta buff in addition with a stalker buff or making phoenix weaker against them (still being good but less of a hardcounter) so that it could be viable for a zerg to add some mutas as a mobile raiding group (options!) even if a group of phoenix is out (maybe they should have the exact same unit movement speed?) but making it actually possible/viable to deflect mutas without them by protoss.
|
Mutalisks were always my favorite unit 
Now they suck. Ok, I'll just get into a catatonic state and dream of Julyzerg microing against Best's Dragoons...
|
On April 19 2016 03:46 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 03:43 Jonsoload wrote:We saw the feedback/suggestion last weekend that Protoss having to commit to Phoenix due to the Mutalisk switch threat. There were many well reasoned out discussions around this, so we thought it would be good to start testing a change here in the next balance test map.
Of the couple suggestions that we saw most of, we believe that increasing the Photon Cannon AA damage vs. bio would be the best change. This would be such a small change that only affects the PvZ matchup. Source: us.battle.net Horrible bandaid suggestion. Do what is long overdue and get rid of muta regen and all the stupidities it forced (spore +bio damage, anion pulse crystals, liberators aoe etc).
Sure. But in that case, we'll need a nerf on that Pheonix range upgrade and liberator will need an overall damage nerf if we'd like to avoid making mutas non-existent in all match ups. Was the muta regeneration a bad buff to give them? Yeah. But unfortunately, I feel the current units that counter mutas counter them so hard already that they need the regeneration to avoid being completely and utterly useless as soon as a handful of pheonix arrive or 1 or 2 liberators pop out.
|
On April 20 2016 07:13 [PkF] Wire wrote:
To give my opinion : given how interesting baneling styles have looked recently I would just give the mu some time. And if I were to take some action that would probably be more something along the lines of an immortal nerf and if needed a very slight lurker nerf.
That is not enough. not even by a long shot. On Zest's level and in GSL, where less "creative" maps are being used, PvZ may seem kinda balanced. But on super creative ladder maps, which all the other tournaments are using, and below the godly Zest level of play, Zerg is downright imbalanced.
Zerg players on TL tend to downplay aligulac, but PvZ has been at or below 45% since release of LotV. This kind of imbalance and for this long is without precedent. Something needs to be done and it ain't an Immortal nerf.
|
On April 19 2016 03:50 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2016 03:46 [PkF] Wire wrote:On April 19 2016 03:43 Jonsoload wrote:We saw the feedback/suggestion last weekend that Protoss having to commit to Phoenix due to the Mutalisk switch threat. There were many well reasoned out discussions around this, so we thought it would be good to start testing a change here in the next balance test map.
Of the couple suggestions that we saw most of, we believe that increasing the Photon Cannon AA damage vs. bio would be the best change. This would be such a small change that only affects the PvZ matchup. Source: us.battle.net Horrible bandaid suggestion. Do what is long overdue and get rid of muta regen and all the stupidities it forced (spore +bio damage, anion pulse crystals, liberators aoe etc). Curious, do you also think spore +bio damage is a horrible bandaid? That said, if you're going to give everything +bio vs air, may as well just nerf muta health
Its not the same. Mutas can't engage armies. They are only worth if you can keep opponents attention. You have to use mutalisks constantly, but mutas are not tanky and die very fast. Thats why they have regen.
The buff to defense helps defending important regions without denying mutalisks harass. That means the opponent will at least have a safe mineral line until he arrives wih army.
If you just revert regen, mutalisks will be worthless. Zergs will only attack, once they have upgrades and/or a big number. Thats not the role/purpose of mutalisks. They are not cheap for a unit that can't engage an army.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
