|
On September 03 2016 07:49 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 07:28 -HuShang- wrote:On September 03 2016 07:16 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On September 03 2016 06:25 Charoisaur wrote:
I don't like the adept vision nerf because it makes shading quite coinflippy because you don't know if you're shading near banelings or something.
HP nerf/shade cooldown change/DPS nerf would be better.
Doesn't that mean you need skill using the shade? With a vision of 2, you don't know if the base you are shading to will have reinforcements or not. The only way you will know is if you have an observer. And that is a good thing. I personally think the vision change will make Adepts much less powerful in lesser players, but better players will still excel. I think it just makes things more gimicky tbh. For example: PvZ you usually shade with your adept into their base to see if they're all inning but now you prob won't see their tech with the lower vision. Or the zerg just hides their units so when you shade in they surround them and they all die. I'm not sure what kind of skill will be added. Just more gimicky games. Banshee speed is silly too. So you're saying the Adept can't be used to scout? But Protoss never needed another scouting tool. They have observers (arguably the best scout) and hallucinate phoenix. Not to mention the Oracle and real pheonix are great scouts. Are you also saying the Adept will be harder to use? Because if you are, than I view that as a very good thing. I really don't see it as being gimmicky (whatever that really means). I think this change is a good thing. Honestly, maybe 2 vision is a bit much, and 3 would be a good number.
you cant see that as zerg because u have only lings and a click
|
On September 03 2016 09:20 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
My sarcasm detector is tingling.
I like the Adept nerf. I think it will separate the good Toss from the bad ones. However, 2 vision might be too much. 3 is probably a better number.
maybe we should give zerg micro potention in pvz to seperate the a click players
|
with the adept nerf there would not be any commitment possible, on the other side zerg has 1000 allins and harass options. nice blizzard. u have to gamble if u let shade finish or not, because u cant see anything.
|
hahah mech has never been even viable in tvp and tvz and people already crying hahah
pathetic
|
On September 03 2016 15:50 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 14:47 ihatevideogames wrote:
Are we really overreacting?
I don't think so, not with DK's track record.
Coming out and saying 'mech might be too strong', no matter how many disclaimers he writes underneath, is provocative to Terran players, to say the least. I couldn't believe my eyes when I read that.
Even if there's evidence mech might be too strong on the test map (which I really doubt) you can't come out and say that when so little actual testing has been done, while other glaring issues have been left in the game untouched for so long. It's bound to piss people off.
For someone that was so good with words on his previous feedback updates that people were saying he sounds like a politician, this one was a complete PR disaster. It's like he's completely out of touch with the community.
So the only possible outcome of this test map is - mech is ok - buff mech ? Don't forget that they are buffing many terran mech units, but this doesn't mean that they will force players to play turtle-mech-lategame style, you have to balance the new tanks also thinking about early pushes with bio, rushes, etc.... I really really really don't see how this statement can be a PR disaster (so dramatic..) he's saying mech *might* be to strong (this is a MAYBE) and they may be changing something (which I'M SURE it doesn't mean they will revert all changes.. come on..)
So, the Blizzard balance team for SC2 came to the conclusion that mech *might* be a bit too strong with 2 weeks of a test map that a few people only played for 2 days and then everyone stopped playing.
Do I need to remind you of BL/Festor? How long was that, a year and a half or something?
Terran after mine nerf in HOTS? How long was that?
How fast they nerfed mass liberator?
So, in the case of Terran, they nerf mass liberator to non-existence in a matter of days, mech 'might be OP' with 2 weeks of a balance test map few people play, but in the case of 8 armor Ultra and Adepts their idea is 'let the meta settle', 'let's see how the community finds new ways to deal with it', etc etc.
Where was our 'let the meta settle' when Skyterran was viable a few months ago?
Alot of Terrans are just pissed off they've let the game like this for so long while completely shutting down instead of slightly tunning the only viable lategame comp that arose for terran in lotv.
Coming out and saying something like this when alot of terrans are already so alienated shows DK is either completely disconnected with the community or doing it on purpose.
|
Cyclones are certainly too strong against Zerg. I quit playing the test match because cyclone/hellion is impossible to hold early game.
|
First, leave the siege tank alone.
On September 03 2016 20:12 Pugfarmer wrote:
Cyclones are certainly too strong against Zerg. I quit playing the test match because cyclone/hellion is impossible to hold early game.
I have to agree. I beat an master zerg with this (note I'm platinum)
I think cyclones either need a armory requirement,
> so that this can not hit too early and is scoutable
An alternative could be decreasing the initial attack speed and introduce an upgrade that brings it back to the current lvl.
|
Blizzard, why always nerf that hard? I mean, its not the first time. In hots, u made timewarp nerf, reducing from 60 secs to 10, now u reduce the vision from 9 to 2 (shade adept). Why dont start trying 4,5,6 vision, instead of hammering the unit down, u just kill units making that, while u are not even trying to fix the antiground dmg of the liberator.. what's next, no warpgate? protoss is like 20% of our community and its going down.. dont kill the race, give back timewarp, and collossus if u are gonna buff hidras that hard.
|
On September 03 2016 17:45 Elentos wrote:Yeah photos suck. Also remember at Dreamhack when Dayvie said "If the tank buff turns out too strong, we won't lower the damage but change something else like the rate of fire", and now lowering damage is literally the first thing he proposes?
This. We can't trust DK, and that's REALLY bad.
|
nerf warpprism even more? LMAo
|
It'd take a little work, but a "balance change test" 1v1 matchmaking mode with the current proposed changes listed in bullet form would be killer. Even if there was only like one or two maps and no displayed ranking.
|
On August 24 2016 09:44 Jaedrik wrote:
Prediction: Mech becomes OP, but not because things can't beat it head on, but rather because powerful harassment at the same time as powerful defense and space control breaks so many backs. In such a case, they should nerf harassment (remove afterburners, and more, hopefully nerf all harassment options by all races across the board. Game ending harassment is not fun) and not mech.
I think my prediction is correct.
That being said, I haven't played the test map or seen any matches of it, so... :3
[T]he natural / organic counter to mech / heavy positional space control play is out-expanding an opponent. If harassment is too powerful, it becomes non-viable and mech will rule over all.
|
i dont think chaneging tanks is good we shall keep them as they are now i mean with damage buff, i dont like that much adept shade nerf ,i f we have to change its vision lets do so but not nerf it to the ground for example vision to 6 or 5, alsi as i replied times before i think we should focus more on buffing toss zerg than heavy nerfing terran ( pls dont kill the tempest ,its skill is kina useless againt anything else han tanks, it cant kill running through ling... also lets lets dont nerf its range to crap 6 its awful maby we should stick to something like 9 or 10?).
|
On September 03 2016 12:35 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2016 12:12 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:I feel like when people read something they disagree with, they immediately stop reading everything else. 2. Mech is too strong right now.
a. We’ve been hearing your feedback on this.
b. We can approach this from many different angles, such as: the Siege Tank buff may have been slightly too much, or maybe we’ve touched too many units overall.
c. While we’re still not certain that this is a big issue and we’d like to have more games played before making a call, it would be great to discuss this further. I've just bolded, italicized, AND underlined something that everyone jumping down DK's throat should probably read. I won't go into a lot of discussion, and I think this should speak for itself. People including myself are probably reacting the way we are because we've heard "mech will be viable" since early 2010 or what not. And then every change after that point has systematically made mech worse and worse over the last few years @_@ So then finally when blizzard seems to be waking up and making it so tanks can hold a position on the map...they are almost instantly and immediately backtracking or preparing to. It's natural a lot of people are going to be reacting the way they are. When you factor in on top of this, just as i described, there are even more mech counters added onto the test map which will make mech worse/easier to play vs (burrow infestor, extra range hydra, etc) yet they suddenly again say mech is strong and ignore literally every other variable and don't acknowledge that they also added a ton of mech counters on the test mod. The main problem is - a sample size of games of 2 weeks on a test mod that very few people play, and on top of that very few of those players are actually good versus mech or playing mech. Players like myself have had 5+ years practicing mech play on a game that has done everything to try to make it impossible to play. A huge portion of the people that play SC2 right now are 100% used to playing against ONLY bio play. Playing versus mech requires an entirely different unit comp in most of the match-ups. But is "mech too strong?" HELL NO. I mean if you want the best in-game example i can give of the difference of playing against bio versus mech take this example: A Zerg player plays a bio Terran. Almost 99% of games the Zerg is building ZERO vipers and almost forgets entirely about the units existence. A Zerg player plays a mech Terran. Almost 99% of the games the Zerg is building 10+ vipers and spamming abduct+blinding cloud to play versus mech. That is a tiny unit compositional example of how Zergs play differently vs bio and vs mech. It's obvious after you've played countless games against mech but 2 weeks of games a lot of players will be clueless and simply say "tanks too stronk plz nerf." Or "mech is too strong." It's also mind boggling to me how after 2 weeks with virtually no sample size blizzard can come out and say "mech is too strong" when it's blatantly incorrect and an overreaction. But at the same time leave 8 armor ultras, invincible nydus worm, mass adepts in the game for almost a year now @_@ p.s. tanks are so bad on the live version of the game that for example against protoss it's actually better to mass banshees/vikings/ravens and mines than it is to make any siege tanks at all past the 5 min mark
They said they wanted to give T "options" for tech - but it was obvious even before the test map came out this would happen. You won't see any bio terrans with this patch - it makes no sense to even try to play bio with mech like this. I play T at mid master level and bio in all 3 m.u. - mech sometimes tvt if I'm feeling slow. All I can say is that code S has shown absolutely incredible games from a viewers perspective - every round has had epic games - imo we've seen players play the best they have ever played in their careers. SSL has been awesome as well - Dark vs Classic was incredible to watch even from someone who has no knowledge of the match-up. I'm all for creating diverse play-style - but killing off bio to make mech "viable" in my opinion is a horrible move. Taking away the Tankivac alone is enough to make bio super difficult - forget the bane buffs - do we really want to kill ling/bling vs bio off for good?
For me personally - the premise of watching the top korean terrans mech vs eachother as a standard and also vs P and Z is horrid. It's just my opinion - but I honestly don't see it helping viewership at all - you are talking about such a long period of time in the game where almost no fighting is happening - map will split and then it's just whoever takes the better max engage. End of HOTS etc. If they make mech this strong - they will have to buff P and Z to the point where bio won't be viable - unless they also buff bio? I don't know - like I said I think having diversity in tech for T would be a cool thing for the game - but this patch is not getting us there - not even close. Hypothetical - take a guy like Maru or Byun who have god like multi/micro and overall mechanics and put them in control of mech - throw in a reality and a foreign T - have them play a couple TvT series and then some games vs P and Z - I would struggle to tell you without having the names visible who was playing the games - the higher the skill ceiling the better imo - please don't take away the players ability to literally brain brute force wins with harder better faster apm.
I'm not saying scrap everything and leave the game alone - it has it's problems imo (Z too strong late-game - forces both the Z and T to basically play cookie-cutter - which gets stale - but I'll take stale action over stale turtle games all day).
I would love to hear someone from Blizz address this concern - even if they do find a way to balance the game with all these changes - I hope they really won't be satisfied if they kill off bio in the process.
|
I think the vision nerf is a bit too much. protoss at least should be able to see if they can commit or not. Also i would love to see a shade cooldown increase as well, so it would balance out and not make the adept gambling with shading in or not.
|
If they're gonna nerf the siege tank it would be better to just put tankivacs back in.
|
So like most people and streamars said.
Mech is to strong because you buffed mech while also nerfing its counters.... you really whent full retard as usual.
Balance needs baby steps.
Im still in favor of buffing Zerg and Protoss instead of nerfing Terran.
Revert the nerf to Ravager and BroodLord
Lower cost for Hydra and a give a bit more HP
Lower cost and supply for Vipers
Revert nerf for Tempest but back to 6 supply
Adepts Shade nerfed , longer cooldown
Immortals Barrier nerfed
Buff to Zealot vs armored
How about we start from that ?
|
Mech needs a serious nerf. Glad Blizzard is recognizing this.
|
@Shaman
That would affect balance of ZvP. Why not nerf Terran when Terran is the real problem here? Because 'don't nerf my race bro'?
|
On September 04 2016 03:17 parkufarku wrote:
@Shaman
That would affect balance of ZvP. Why not nerf Terran when Terran is the real problem here? Because 'don't nerf my race bro'?
I think it wont affect ZvP that much... if anything the Ravager being armored now makes 2 base immortals, mass stalkers very powerful....
It would make the Protoss more honest, and i like that...
Because nerfing Terran is not the answer, dont get me wrong i hate the race and its players but the current changes are good for Terran.
The only retarded change is the Bashee upgrade who is way to early.
Its Z and P who are missing some tools. Mostly Zerg who have obivous problems in the early to mid game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
