EPTI hope the others canges at least make it live soonish, and Cyclone change the posibilities in the early game for TvP.
Call to Action: May 10 Balance Test Map - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sogetsu
514 Posts
I hope the others canges at least make it live soonish, and Cyclone change the posibilities in the early game for TvP. | ||
|
Zedd
Czech Republic107 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:27 Cyro wrote: Supply is of little relevance until the point where you're going to hit 200/200 with those units on the field. There's a technical cost of like 30 minerals per supply up Is it 30? It should be even less, something like 100/8=12.5 + some lost mining times - so rather 15-20. Your point is, however, correct. | ||
|
Zedd
Czech Republic107 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:31 RavingRaver wrote: What's the point of making a unit worse in the late game when it was never used in the late game to begin with? This applies to swarm hosts and cyclones, which aren't used in any stage of the game for the most part so buffing it in the early/mid game and nerfing it in the late game makes little sense. Just buff it in the early/mid game and that is all. The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game. | ||
|
RavingRaver
Canada57 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:34 Zedd wrote: The point is promoting diversified options and gameplay during several stages of game. I think no one likes making same composition for every game during whole game. You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit. | ||
|
I wasbanned fromthis
113 Posts
| ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:41 RavingRaver wrote: You can achieve the same result by reducing the resource cost of cyclones and swarm hosts without a supply cost increase. I highly doubt that mass cyclone and mass swarm host is going to become a thing because of resource cost reductions since there aren't any changes being done to the actual stats of either unit. Resource cost reductions always make a unit more cost efficient, allowing people more opportunities to find uses for units, even ones not considered viable before. | ||
|
RavingRaver
Canada57 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:55 Fig wrote: Resource cost reductions always make a unit more cost efficient, allowing people more opportunities to find uses for units, even ones not considered viable before. Of course they will, but supply cost increases will always make a unit less supply efficient, which is not something you want to do with two units that are hardly used to begin with. Swarm hosts and cyclones need a buff, not a buff and a nerf simultaneously. | ||
|
feanaro
United States123 Posts
Just for the sake of keeping it out there, I'll throw out the reduction in base damage with addition of +light damage to give colossi a strategic dimension without making them overpowered in lategame deathballs. | ||
|
Fig
United States1324 Posts
On May 11 2016 08:58 RavingRaver wrote: Of course they will, but supply cost increases will always make a unit less supply efficient, which is not something you want to do with two units that are hardly used to begin with. Swarm hosts and cyclones need a buff, not a buff and a nerf simultaneously. Sorry maybe I misunderstood your earlier post but it seemed like you were saying that no matter the resource cost reduction, those two units were inherently flawed and nothing but changing their stats could fix their usage. | ||
|
RavingRaver
Canada57 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:02 Fig wrote: Sorry maybe I misunderstood your earlier post but it seemed like you were saying that no matter the resource cost reduction, those two units were inherently flawed and nothing but changing their stats could fix their usage. No problem. My whole argument is that a resource cost reduction is great, but adding in a supply cost increase defeats the purpose of a resource cost reduction, which is to encourage their usage. They should reduce the resource cost of both the cyclone and the swarm host to improve the viability of these units, but they shouldn't increase the supply cost in conjunction. | ||
|
Alienship
China27 Posts
I hope David Kim can publicly discuss what exactly motivates him to test this out, and why is the concern significant. For example, what specific part of which matchup does this nerf target? Is the nerf necessary–is personal skill insufficient to compensate whatever disadvantages brought by the assumed "overly powerful" immortal (this assumption has a shaky ground). Every time the team releases a balance statement regarding some issues, they affirm that (at least to some extend) those test/change are based on the voice of the community. This seems dubious, for what is actually certain is the variety of the voice. Of course, we should always welcome the responsive and concerning attitude of the team. However, is it also a balance issue that they take one specific part of the voice into account? How do they balance? | ||
|
sparklyresidue
United States5523 Posts
| ||
|
epi
Canada115 Posts
| ||
|
Athenau
570 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:07 RavingRaver wrote: No problem. My whole argument is that a resource cost reduction is great, but adding in a supply cost increase defeats the purpose of a resource cost reduction, which is to encourage their usage. They should reduce the resource cost of both the cyclone and the swarm host to improve the viability of these units, but they shouldn't increase the supply cost in conjunction. While I agree that the supply cost increase is unnecessary, it's important to note that it only really matters in max supply engagements. If you maintain 5 or 6 swarm hosts or cyclones in your army, and get value from them by continually taking favorable trades, then the supply cost increase matters much less than the cost reduction. Both units don't scale well to larger numbers (the cyclone because lock-on means your cyclones have to hang around in the danger zone taking hits waiting for all of them to lock-on, and the swarm host because it's dead supply when on cooldown), so you naturally don't want more than a handful. So, IMO, the change is a net buff for the (niche) cases where you want them anyway. The cyclone in particular has some use in TvZ as an anti hive-tech option (it's very efficient against ultralisks, kills corruptors extremely quickly, and can do well against broodlords with hellbat support). If the initial cost investment to get them was lower, they'd definitely see some use. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On May 11 2016 09:15 Alienship wrote: Among all of these changes, my biggest concern is about the nerf to immortal's Barrier ability. If this nerf is implemented, it probably won't do any good to improving the effectiveness of mech in TvP matchup; also it will significantly weaken the Protoss when they face the Zerg combination of zergling, baneling, hydralisk and lurker (this combo is a highly effective to deal with most combination of Protoss ground units). I hope David Kim can publicly discuss what exactly motivates him to test this out, and why is the concern significant. For example, what specific part of which matchup does this nerf target? Is the nerf necessary–is personal skill insufficient to compensate whatever disadvantages brought by the assumed "overly powerful" immortal (this assumption has a shaky ground). Every time the team releases a balance statement regarding some issues, they affirm that (at least to some extend) those test/change are based on the voice of the community. This seems dubious, for what is actually certain is the variety of the voice. Of course, we should always welcome the responsive and concerning attitude of the team. However, is it also a balance issue that they take one specific part of the voice into account? How do they balance? I really have to ask, where is it "assumed" that the Immortal is OP? The Korean community has been targeting complaints at the Immortal over performing for a long time now, just because the race itself isn't OP doesn't mean that the unit is not. If Protoss win rates suffer drastically I'm 100% positive that buffs will come there way now that the meta is settling down ever so slightly, but for now, you have the highest level of players all pointing their fingers at the same thing, it's OP and OP units get nerfed, the Liberator is getting nerfed because it isn't OP. On this note, nerfing things like Ultralisk armor would also be appropriate and I'm Zerg, it's OP as hell vs. bio and it's completely a move, I'm honestly surprised is hasn't been nerfed already. Would way rather the Immortal nerf stays and if Protoss suffers in the balance then buff Stalkers vs. light or redesign the Disruptor to not be so unwieldy. 50% balance is hard to achieve though and historically in Starcraft usually a race suffers at least a bit vs. one race at any given moment, in BW Protoss was always hovering around "slightly less then balanced" against Zerg while Zerg was slightly less then balanced against Terran, metagame shifts are real. | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On May 11 2016 05:28 Loccstana wrote: Cyclone: A 4 supply unit with 120hp and 0 armor Tempest: A 4 supply unit with 450hp and 2 armor Is this Blizzard's idea of a joke? All of the changes are a joke =/ I'll try to stay constructive...but...to be real... Liberator change = end of this game competitively. T will basically end up not being playable, especially versus Zerg past 8-10 minutes. It's already difficult enough vs 8 armor ultras (which are absurd and have been since the game launched). Cyclone change = terrible. The unit's stats itself are way off. It does less dps than an auto turret, has less health than an auto-turret...something is wrong there. Also 4 supply makes it more expensive mineral-wise because you'll need more depots for cyclones. Meaning it will be worse if it is patched to be 4 supply...like what dev is coming up with this change? I really don't understand =/ I hate to just repeat the same stuff over again... Adept shades, invincible nydus, 8 armor hard counter ultra, mass ravager, para bomb...there's a lot of stuff like this that can be changed that affects nothing else in the game and can't screw up the game at all...and it's not changed. How would reverting invincible nydus worm mess with anything at all in SC2? Sighs. If anything, the liberator nerf should be 4 supply. There's a gif image of the liberator nerf b4 patch and after patch - if this patch goes through Terran won't have any unit to fight mass air and it'll be pointless to play T vs people that know to turtle to late game. | ||
|
Mojzii1
30 Posts
On May 11 2016 10:41 avilo wrote: All of the changes are a joke =/ I'll try to stay constructive...but...to be real... Liberator change = end of this game competitively. T will basically end up not being playable, especially versus Zerg past 8-10 minutes. It's already difficult enough vs 8 armor ultras (which are absurd and have been since the game launched). Cyclone change = terrible. The unit's stats itself are way off. It does less dps than an auto turret, has less health than an auto-turret...something is wrong there. Also 4 supply makes it more expensive mineral-wise because you'll need more depots for cyclones. Meaning it will be worse if it is patched to be 4 supply...like what dev is coming up with this change? I really don't understand =/ I hate to just repeat the same stuff over again... Adept shades, invincible nydus, 8 armor hard counter ultra, mass ravager, para bomb...there's a lot of stuff like this that can be changed that affects nothing else in the game and can't screw up the game at all...and it's not changed. How would reverting invincible nydus worm mess with anything at all in SC2? Sighs. If anything, the liberator nerf should be 4 supply. There's a gif image of the liberator nerf b4 patch and after patch - if this patch goes through Terran won't have any unit to fight mass air and it'll be pointless to play T vs people that know to turtle to late game. Same story with ghost nerf in wol. i think in blizzard opinion Terran should auto lose in late game. It fells like balance designers play protoss | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
He's also dead on about the supply cost, I don't understand why they are buffing yet nerfing units that needed just straight up buffs, the Cyclone sucks and the Swarm Host is just so badly designed it's hopeless nor does it really bring anything to the table for the Zerg arsenal that Lurkers and Brood Lords don't do infinitely better. Since Zerg hardly needs yet another siege type unit but Zerg anti-air is still relatively lack luster until Hive they should have made it strong against anti air so maybe late game Zerg can have a change against Skytoss deathballs, maybe if it was strong vs. air the Liberator nerf wouldn't be justified. I don't know, they are trying so hard to make it viable through number tweaks but it's the design that's screwing this unit. | ||
|
Kiwan
Australia36 Posts
| ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
Lategame TvP was already toss favored, now it's gonna be the same for TvZ. As someone who likes long macro games, Blizz is telling me I should not play Terran. Alright, someone point me to some good zerg guides/streamers. Terran will once again become the ' Don't let them get there :^) ' race. | ||
| ||
