|
On May 28 2016 08:50 CheddarToss wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 08:33 [PkF] Wire wrote:On May 28 2016 08:13 CheddarToss wrote:On May 28 2016 04:19 [PkF] Wire wrote:
tempest supply increase + a slight warp prism nerf and the game reaches the best state it's ever been in. And a slight buff to every gateway unit to compensate for these unneeded nerfs. you're absurdly delusional about the state of Protoss in high level play. I don't think P is hugely favored, but there is little debate they dominate the pro scene atm and that both those slight nerfs (tempest supply + warp prism range) have been advocated for for ages and would make the global balance far better. Why do you, and people that share your opinion, ignore that on the highest level of play (as in Korean tournaments) people play on different maps, which are better for Protoss, while the rest of the world plays on the shitty ladder maps? According to aligulac last week PvZ was at 50% for the first time since LotV release. We are talking about 8 months of PvZ being between 42 and 48%, but most of the time closer to 42%. And now that the MU is finally fair for both sides, it's time to give Zergs another 6-7 months of free wins?
1/ both those changes would target PvT far more than PvZ
2/ the map pool is 100% fair now
3/ I'm always cautious when dealing with aligulac numbers. I'd trust Korean balance far more, and lately it has shifted heavily towards Protoss.
|
Don't you just love it when someone says lategame macro compositions should be viable for all races and someone else says ' lol don't let them get there fam :^) '.
|
The problem with late game macro compositions is the way that Blizzard has designed. Note that in the early game, there aren't many hard counters, which is necessary because of the limited number of units accessible. The late game is all about hard countering, whether it be Ultralisk being counter by Immortals or Broodlords with Tempests because the late game units are slow and 1a.
The late game should instead mirror the early game with units that give greater opportunity for skill and micro and aren't hard countered.
|
On May 28 2016 03:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:12 MockHamill wrote:
The latest patch was a really good step in the right direction. The only huge problem remaining right now is Tempest at 4 supply. Tempest needs to be at 6 supply, this alone would make TvP late game more balanced and make mech semi-usable in TvP at least at casual level.
Separate MMR per race is a good idea as is showing worker count and army count in game.
For ladder revamp I really hope you go for lots of ranks within each league instead of just 3. The whole point is that everyone should have something to strive for on ladder, and after years of playing most people are stuck in their current league. By having 5-10 ranks per league everyone can get a goal that is actually achievable without having to quit their jobs and forsake their studies. Completely agree about the Tempest, that unit and the Cyclone being the same supply must be some kind of joke. Once a Protoss is allowed to mass 12 + of them in a defensive macro game and put some Carriers with it, it's pretty much undefeated in a 1v1 fight against almost any other composition.
Everything you just described only happens in masters league and below. Trying to balance and accommodate for that level of play is just bad for the game as a whole.
DPS/Cost for tempest is still among the lowest in the game even at 4 supply. The unit fulfills its niche role and that is about it.
|
Separate race MMR could possibly breathe some new life back into ladder, allowing people to off-race for kicks.
Even as a Protoss player I think Warp Prism range should be nerfed. Both from a design and balance perspective it makes sense, and it's one of those changes that is going to effect pro play much more so than your average joe.
I will say though that both as a spectator and player, a big reason why LotV has been so much more fun is because of the focus on harassment, strategic positioning, and multiple simultaneous engagements. These are things very map dependent, but I'm calling it right now that the more we veer toward (and as players get better skilled at) exploiting these 3 things, Protoss is going to start looking weaker and weaker as they are by far the worse race at small engagements.
Protoss historically deathballed because they NEED to deathball, and until DK actually grows some cajones and buffs gateway units, with a corresponding nerf to tech units to reduce Protoss' over-reliance on tech units, this isn't going to change.
I would love to see late game army compositions revamped completely so that the highest tier units were very complementary in nature and to maintain the focus on harassment/positioning/multiple engagements throughout the entire game. Say something like hero units, where you can only have 1 tempest, 1 ultra, etc. Would make getting them much more epic, and not where you just spawn a million of them and facesmash into the opposing army. Would also like to see colossus' role changed to more of a positional unit like siege tanks/lurkers.
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
and buffs gateway units, with a corresponding nerf to tech units to reduce Protoss' over-reliance on tech units, this isn't going to change.
I've been pretty sad to see so many people pushing for the opposite (nerfed gateway units, buffed tech).
With Zerg and Terran being ~36% each of the diamond-gm population and protoss being 23%, there will be comparitively little feedback coming from actual protoss players. I think there is a disproportionate amount of anti-protoss comments/bias because of that as well.
|
On May 28 2016 11:48 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +and buffs gateway units, with a corresponding nerf to tech units to reduce Protoss' over-reliance on tech units, this isn't going to change. I've been pretty sad to see so many people pushing for the opposite (nerfed gateway units, buffed tech). With Zerg and Terran being ~36% each of the diamond-gm population and protoss being 23%, there will be comparitively little feedback coming from actual protoss players. I think there is a disproportionate amount of anti-protoss comments/bias because of that as well.
OK so which gateway unit could get any buff ?
- the chargelot already got a pretty strong charge that helped make charge based compositions mainstream even in PvZ.
- the adept is very tanky and strong overall, the shade is very helpful and some would say the cooldown is too low in some circumstances, not much room for buffs here.
- the only unit that could get a buff is then the stalker, but you run the risk of making blink timings too strong or to have some match-ups revolve entirely around mass stalkers. That could be cool since the unit is very microable but that could get boring quick too.
Overall I think there is not much room for gateway buffs and that anyway P is more than fine -if something has to happen to P in the next patch, that's probably some kind of nerf, a warp prism nerf being the most likely given the recent updates trend.
By the way, the fact that there is significantly less P players in the "higher" leagues -I trust you on the numbers- genuinely surprises me. I'm not a very skilled player but I didn't struggle at all to get master league while playing a very HotS like style and I don't feel the game became harder for P in any single way.
|
nice to hear Blizzard is working on the automated tournaments. i really like automated tournaments.
my only real complaint is that sometimes i get put in a tournament of players 1 league higher than me and i get totally destroyed in the first round.
|
On May 28 2016 11:32 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 28 2016 03:12 MockHamill wrote:
The latest patch was a really good step in the right direction. The only huge problem remaining right now is Tempest at 4 supply. Tempest needs to be at 6 supply, this alone would make TvP late game more balanced and make mech semi-usable in TvP at least at casual level.
Separate MMR per race is a good idea as is showing worker count and army count in game.
For ladder revamp I really hope you go for lots of ranks within each league instead of just 3. The whole point is that everyone should have something to strive for on ladder, and after years of playing most people are stuck in their current league. By having 5-10 ranks per league everyone can get a goal that is actually achievable without having to quit their jobs and forsake their studies. Completely agree about the Tempest, that unit and the Cyclone being the same supply must be some kind of joke. Once a Protoss is allowed to mass 12 + of them in a defensive macro game and put some Carriers with it, it's pretty much undefeated in a 1v1 fight against almost any other composition. Everything you just described only happens in masters league and below. Trying to balance and accommodate for that level of play is just bad for the game as a whole. DPS/Cost for tempest is still among the lowest in the game even at 4 supply. The unit fulfills its niche role and that is about it.
Then let's delete everything bellow GM and ban all these people from the game.
|
I wonder if this balance patch will bring back phoenix colossus in PvZ. Phoenix are still the safest/best opener and a buffed up colossus might be able to deal with potential lurkers
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
OK so which gateway unit could get any buff ?
I just think it's better to buff gateway rather than tech units if redesigning or if buffs are needed. For gateway units i would look at scaling rather than combat power buffs.. some unconventional stuff like reducing wasted damage (marines never waste shots so they scale excellently and can micro more), making the model size of the stalker a bit smaller etc.
A lot of people seem to want adept combat power nerfed to the ground but the combat strengh of the adept isn't unusual when compared to the other races. A lot of the percieved power comes from warp prism pickup range and shadespam rather than the combat stats; if you are to consistently nerf the combat stats in order to balance those powers, you're just making a more gimmicky race that can't stand up to a fight
|
On May 28 2016 12:07 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 11:48 Cyro wrote:and buffs gateway units, with a corresponding nerf to tech units to reduce Protoss' over-reliance on tech units, this isn't going to change. I've been pretty sad to see so many people pushing for the opposite (nerfed gateway units, buffed tech). With Zerg and Terran being ~36% each of the diamond-gm population and protoss being 23%, there will be comparitively little feedback coming from actual protoss players. I think there is a disproportionate amount of anti-protoss comments/bias because of that as well. OK so which gateway unit could get any buff ? - the chargelot already got a pretty strong charge that helped make charge based compositions mainstream even in PvZ. - the adept is very tanky and strong overall, the shade is very helpful and some would say the cooldown is too low in some circumstances, not much room for buffs here. - the only unit that could get a buff is then the stalker, but you run the risk of making blink timings too strong or to have some match-ups revolve entirely around mass stalkers. That could be cool since the unit is very microable but that could get boring quick too. Overall I think there is not much room for gateway buffs and that anyway P is more than fine -if something has to happen to P in the next patch, that's probably some kind of nerf, a warp prism nerf being the most likely given the recent updates trend. By the way, the fact that there is significantly less P players in the "higher" leagues -I trust you on the numbers- genuinely surprises me. I'm not a very skilled player but I didn't struggle at all to get master league while playing a very HotS like style and I don't feel the game became harder for P in any single way.
I want a complete revamp. Buff Zealot speed and damage so they are actually useful early game. Buff stalker damage but reduce health to change their role into more of a fragile ranged DPS unit. Move warpgate tech to twilight council to smooth out the Protoss army power curve and remove the issue of OP warp gate timing (which would also indirectly nerf warp prism).
Once you start viewing it in this light you realize if gateway units were actually useful at defending early game you could remove the horrible design of the Mothership Core, and the smoother power curve would also promote more aggression early game and not warp gate timings that has essentially dominated Protoss aggression for the entirely of SC2. But alas I know this is all a pipedream. I think at the very least the Colossus should be revamped so that it becomes more a mid-game, defensive/positional unit. Perhaps something like removing the range upgrade but adding stationary mode like siege tank which gives adds range.
|
On May 28 2016 14:28 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 12:07 [PkF] Wire wrote:On May 28 2016 11:48 Cyro wrote:and buffs gateway units, with a corresponding nerf to tech units to reduce Protoss' over-reliance on tech units, this isn't going to change. I've been pretty sad to see so many people pushing for the opposite (nerfed gateway units, buffed tech). With Zerg and Terran being ~36% each of the diamond-gm population and protoss being 23%, there will be comparitively little feedback coming from actual protoss players. I think there is a disproportionate amount of anti-protoss comments/bias because of that as well. OK so which gateway unit could get any buff ? - the chargelot already got a pretty strong charge that helped make charge based compositions mainstream even in PvZ. - the adept is very tanky and strong overall, the shade is very helpful and some would say the cooldown is too low in some circumstances, not much room for buffs here. - the only unit that could get a buff is then the stalker, but you run the risk of making blink timings too strong or to have some match-ups revolve entirely around mass stalkers. That could be cool since the unit is very microable but that could get boring quick too. Overall I think there is not much room for gateway buffs and that anyway P is more than fine -if something has to happen to P in the next patch, that's probably some kind of nerf, a warp prism nerf being the most likely given the recent updates trend. By the way, the fact that there is significantly less P players in the "higher" leagues -I trust you on the numbers- genuinely surprises me. I'm not a very skilled player but I didn't struggle at all to get master league while playing a very HotS like style and I don't feel the game became harder for P in any single way. I want a complete revamp. Buff Zealot speed and damage so they are actually useful early game. Buff stalker damage but reduce health to change their role into more of a fragile ranged DPS unit. Move warpgate tech to twilight council to smooth out the Protoss army power curve and remove the issue of OP warp gate timing (which would also indirectly nerf warp prism). Once you start viewing it in this light you realize if gateway units were actually useful at defending early game you could remove the horrible design of the Mothership Core, and the smoother power curve would also promote more aggression early game and not warp gate timings that has essentially dominated Protoss aggression for the entirely of SC2. But alas I know this is all a pipedream. I think at the very least the Colossus should be revamped so that it becomes more a mid-game, defensive/positional unit. Perhaps something like removing the range upgrade but adding stationary mode like siege tank which gives adds range.
I would complement your argument about basic unit balance, rather than frank buffs to Gateway, I'd say Zerglings are too fast and Roaches are too cost effective and supply inefficient. Gateway is actually pretty good against Terran pre-Stim. So I agree that upgrades should scale better to make the Stim dynamic less uneven. Terran lacks midtier units to complement their Stim Bio, aside from WMs. That's a gap I feel Terran could use that could buffer an AtG Liberator nerf. I think Zerglings are too all or nothing as a dynamic. This leads to a lot of frustration on Zerg's part, expecting nice cost efficiency in an open area, and complete annihilation otherwise.
I also think Queens are too tanky. For being mostly a macro/creep mechanic, PO can be nerfed commensurate with Queens. Both shut down too many options and end up being a no brainer in many games. Why Protoss needs PO in the first place is because their macro doesn't ramp up as quickly as other two races, you see incredible army supply differences during that PO window. Why is that? Why is Chrono so mild? We scape goated macro mechanics as being a damning aspect of Starcraft, but perhaps we could unnerf or untilt the MMs with benefit to action uptime. Perhaps these are major changes that will never be considered, but those are my design considerations.
|
On May 28 2016 08:46 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 07:47 avilo wrote:
I've been playing a lot of off-race Z (almost as strong as my main race tbh).
I played a game within the last two days on frost, ZvT, my opponent had a 30-50 army supply lead, and i won the game because i managed to get out 8 armor ultras and a-moved into 3 liberators + his 30-50 army supply lead.
Something is very, very wrong with 8 armor ultras. I mean it's been obvious - the unit is absurdly broken.
I shouldn't be able to a-move with a 30 army supply deficit, zero micro, and beat someone that was beating me the entire game simply because i got out a tier3 unit =/ As zerg eco gets larvas nerf + mutas ball no longer cost effective, if zerg had invested 600/700 to get infest pit/hive ultras + armor tech while T had invest nothing on tech if he only had bio +3 only liberators, it just normal T had a supply lead. Don't mean "he had outplayed you" like you're trying to suggest but more : T tried to all-in with high number of low tech units while he sacrified his tech but didn't managed to win so got crushed by superior tech. It's just basic game knowledge. Else zergs can just make 200/200 roachs and say they should beat any 150-170 supply army because they have 30-50 supply lead ! T just wants better early mid game than on HOTS with liberator/tankyvac and larvas nerf AND when they reach 3/3 bio become godelike ? Hots TvZ bio vs LBM was far better to play but "community" ask for macro change/mutas hard counter, so ultras +8 is just here to compensate those changes, else zerg can't beat terran.
Exactly this! It's so absurd that Terran players whine about how their tier1 units can't beat tier3 units. Terran with upgraded Marines/Marauders/Medivacs is sooooooo strong and reks everything but Ultras. Every other race has to tech up but not terran. So unfair uh?
|
I would quite like to have the observer interface functions available as a player (i.e. production, army, workers, income rate, etc). Obviously you would only be able to see your own stuff and not your opponents. I'm not expecting it to happen, but yeah...
|
On May 28 2016 11:32 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 03:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On May 28 2016 03:12 MockHamill wrote:
The latest patch was a really good step in the right direction. The only huge problem remaining right now is Tempest at 4 supply. Tempest needs to be at 6 supply, this alone would make TvP late game more balanced and make mech semi-usable in TvP at least at casual level.
Separate MMR per race is a good idea as is showing worker count and army count in game.
For ladder revamp I really hope you go for lots of ranks within each league instead of just 3. The whole point is that everyone should have something to strive for on ladder, and after years of playing most people are stuck in their current league. By having 5-10 ranks per league everyone can get a goal that is actually achievable without having to quit their jobs and forsake their studies. Completely agree about the Tempest, that unit and the Cyclone being the same supply must be some kind of joke. Once a Protoss is allowed to mass 12 + of them in a defensive macro game and put some Carriers with it, it's pretty much undefeated in a 1v1 fight against almost any other composition. Everything you just described only happens in masters league and below. Trying to balance and accommodate for that level of play is just bad for the game as a whole. DPS/Cost for tempest is still among the lowest in the game even at 4 supply. The unit fulfills its niche role and that is about it.
no it definitely happens in GM league as well. I play GM players quite often and there is a significant amount of them that just sits in their base and spams tempests. At pro level it happens more rarely because pro players know they have to allin because protoss gets there but players like sOs and stats have played skytoss turtle multiple times successfully.
regardless of level of play, balance or whatever I just think a unit composition that is impossible to beat and an autowin once you get there is horrible design.
|
On May 28 2016 14:51 Legobiten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2016 08:46 Tyrhanius wrote:On May 28 2016 07:47 avilo wrote:
I've been playing a lot of off-race Z (almost as strong as my main race tbh).
I played a game within the last two days on frost, ZvT, my opponent had a 30-50 army supply lead, and i won the game because i managed to get out 8 armor ultras and a-moved into 3 liberators + his 30-50 army supply lead.
Something is very, very wrong with 8 armor ultras. I mean it's been obvious - the unit is absurdly broken.
I shouldn't be able to a-move with a 30 army supply deficit, zero micro, and beat someone that was beating me the entire game simply because i got out a tier3 unit =/ As zerg eco gets larvas nerf + mutas ball no longer cost effective, if zerg had invested 600/700 to get infest pit/hive ultras + armor tech while T had invest nothing on tech if he only had bio +3 only liberators, it just normal T had a supply lead. Don't mean "he had outplayed you" like you're trying to suggest but more : T tried to all-in with high number of low tech units while he sacrified his tech but didn't managed to win so got crushed by superior tech. It's just basic game knowledge. Else zergs can just make 200/200 roachs and say they should beat any 150-170 supply army because they have 30-50 supply lead ! T just wants better early mid game than on HOTS with liberator/tankyvac and larvas nerf AND when they reach 3/3 bio become godelike ? Hots TvZ bio vs LBM was far better to play but "community" ask for macro change/mutas hard counter, so ultras +8 is just here to compensate those changes, else zerg can't beat terran. Exactly this! It's so absurd that Terran players whine about how their tier1 units can't beat tier3 units. Terran with upgraded Marines/Marauders/Medivacs is sooooooo strong and reks everything but Ultras. Every other race has to tech up but not terran. So unfair uh?
we both know that terran doesn't have any good units to tech to so don't say absurd things.
and no terran asked for larva nerf + muta hardcounter.
|
The most important thing for ladder revamp is REMOVING BARCODES.
|
Community request to add army supply/worker supply to the UI
We were seeing a lot of request to add these to the default, player UI. We just wanted to confirm the desire for this add. Let’s get discussions going on this so that we can make a call on if we should add this to the game or not.
Will this be implemented in the gameplay or replay function? I think it might be good for replays but if you're playing the game I feel this will be too much extra information you could do just fine without...
|
On May 28 2016 17:30 KonanTenshi wrote:Show nested quote +Community request to add army supply/worker supply to the UI
We were seeing a lot of request to add these to the default, player UI. We just wanted to confirm the desire for this add. Let’s get discussions going on this so that we can make a call on if we should add this to the game or not.
Will this be implemented in the gameplay or replay function? I think it might be good for replays but if you're playing the game I feel this will be too much extra information you could do just fine without...
Indeed, its part of sc2 to balance that part by the player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
