|
the further people get away from the very top notch playing level the more they must accept that the game will not be perfectly balanced. Certain players refuse to accept this reality and so they yell and scream and throw headsets around the room.
i love to play terran, and yet at 125 APM i'm better with a different race with almost no practice. probably i'm losing 5% or 10% of the time to people i am "more skilled and knowledgeable" than when i play T. so what? its not that big a deal. if i reacted like some people i'd talk about it like David Kim just napalmed a primary school for disabled children.
i've simply accepted that a diverse race RTS game will never be perfectly balanced for players below the top level. with that attitude i've had fun for more than 15 years playing Brood War, RA2, CoH1, RA3, and now SC2.
|
protoss still cancer to play. blizzard refuses to even address that it is a problem
|
On December 21 2016 06:07 PtyBisKuit wrote:
Promising feedback.
I would love to see a nerf for the infestor even if I play Zerg. Don't delete the burrow casting ability because it's fun to play and really enjoyable to watch (especially when the casters are the O'Gaming crew) but a range nerf could be good. Zergs could still play this strats but it would be more risky and easier to prevent for the opponent.
Idk if I agree with this, off all the things to balance, I don't think this is op. You just need to get an observer.
Also I really liked the sentiment at the end, and the invitation for feedback on their process of updates and how quickly they implement them.
And this community after all these years, even with the attention they still give this game and some really good adjustments to the game... remains an extremely bitchy complaint oriented community.
It's like it's in your blood at this point, do something to change, it just poisons the environment. I know it's not even something people think about, it's automatic and habitual.
Try to just enjoy life with a great game.
|
Just remove armored tag from stalkers and you can have your hydra hp buff, borrowed fungal and terran in the game.
|
I'd like to see the Hydralisk use a different attack against air units. I think it'd be easier to balance it that way.
The infestor certainly needs a change. I think it should reveal itself when casting and/or have a cast delay.
|
On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic.
THIS ONE: "You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way."
Hahahaha, meanwhile, terran players whine about Ultralisks which are tier 3 unit, that they cannot kill it easy with tier1 Marines and marauders.
What are u talking about? Hydra is tier 2, Carrier is tier 3- Hydra vs Carrier one on one- hydra always will loose :-) So it's not stronger.
Hydra however gets their strentgh in numbers- as almost every Zerg unit. 25 hydras for example should kill 5 carriers. The problem is when they don't. Your arguments are just bad. I could revert this into- Stalker is tier 2 unit, Broodlord is tier 3 or 3.5 and still 20 stalkers kill 5 broodlords- is this imba? No it's not. Stop being biased.
|
I would also like to say, that Infestors burrowed casting is not the problem. The problem is that Terrans REFUSE since 2010, making Raven when going BIO. I mean, i don't understand. Every race has to make observers when there is suspicion of cloaked units in enemy's army composition. I can agree that for Zerg it's easy with morphing overseer, but for example Protoss can make observers. Why can't Terrans? It's because they are biased about same playstyle since 2010- MMM ftw. I don't understand what problem Avilo has with burrowed infestors, as he spams turrets everywhere anyway.
In current meta, Zerg needs strong midgame caster. And Infesotr is fine. Especially that it's easy counterable with simple thing- making detector. Without Infestor it would be a dead unit, i think probably the most nerfed trough years from whole game. Infestor is fine. Stop freaking bashing every good thing that Zerg has. Infestor change is basically the only buffed thing for Z in this new patch that left. Everything else was reverted or nerfed.
|
On December 21 2016 11:26 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Blizzard "tried" to make Avilo mech "viable", and look at what we have now, an even more boring game. We're talking about someone who blames every single loss on imbalance and hacks, even accusing progamers of hacking. This is exactly the kind of person we should NOT listen to. Also, SC2 community is garbage. How did people respond to SC2 being a bad game? By buying Overwatch. Why would Blizzard ever put an effort to make the game fun if they can just push their customers around? All we can expect are this "whatever" changes. So, are are people going to point out what's clearly retarded in the game right now, or give their opinions based on the weekly 10 games they play on gold league?
That was always obvious. Mech is horrible for the game. Especially the Avilo style mech. That guy hasn't proactively engaged the opponent in his entire life. A vast majority of his games consists of him sieging tanks in front of his base and building missile turrets and command centers. He unsieges his tanks when he floats a CC to the next expansion. Once he has half the map and the opponent has suicided all of his units into the tank lines, Avilo has won. Woopdiedoo, we're so glad mech is viable. If the opponent refuses to suicide units, and starts building for example a massive carrier army, Avilo rages for 30 minutes straight about balance. He's also not only a bad loser, he's a disgustingly bad winner. He flames his opponents when he wins nearly every time.
As far as Avilo as a games designer, I've never heard a more laughable thing in my life. Seriously the most biased and obnoxious twitch personality out there, who lives with his mum, sleeps in a bunk bed with no sheets, can't present a clear and concise argument, doesn't acknowledge any of his faults, blames all of his losses on maphacks and stream cheating, would in someone's opinion make a good part of a design team at a real games company? For SC2's sake I'm glad that person who suggested that isn't recruiting. In fact I suspect he's unemployed just like Avilo is, because anyone who works with real people in an office would know what types of people can be productive members of a team.
|
On December 21 2016 16:52 xyzz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 11:26 xTJx wrote:On December 21 2016 10:49 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 21 2016 10:04 showstealer1829 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:59 Beelzebub1 wrote:
At this point I would honestly support Avilo being on the balance team, I hate his troll bias just as much as the next person but I've also seen Avilo bust out high level games with Zerg and Protoss, thats at least one qualification where as David Kim has next to zero, his only "qualification" being that he totally fucked up Warhammer 40K multiplayer.
The day anyone listens to avilo is the day SC2 finally is a dead game Ok i will say this much: I dislike how Avilo acts on stream, i dislike how he presents his arguments, i also dislike that he seems to be fairly terran biased a lot of the time. He still has some good points though and simply dismissing anything because he posts it is ignorant. He absolutely should change his posting style to be taken seriously though, i can see that. Still sometimes i have to agree with the core argument he is makign even though the phrasing is poorly done. You really cannot defend the design of an invincible transport system which leads you teleport your whole army anywhere you want. It's a bad game mechanic and just because it doesn't affect balance negatively atm at the top lvl doesn't mean that it should be in the game. (just one example of something i have to agree with him) avilo complains about so many things that he's bound to be right once in a while. It's still more productive to engage the arguments. replying anytime he posts something with 'lololol you are biased anyway' is ridiculous. But it doesn't surprise me, the community seems to think that anything which isn't a problem at the very moment at the highest lvl of play is nothing to argue about. When in reality we should rather talk about design choices. Nathanias made a good point here: https://clips.twitch.tv/nathanias/OddMooseSSSsss Let's make the game "fun" (obviously still subjective, but if we can agree on core principles we wanna design the game around it might be possible to be somewhat objective (like defenders advantage, microable units, comeback mechanics/counterplay, etc) Blizzard "tried" to make Avilo mech "viable", and look at what we have now, an even more boring game. We're talking about someone who blames every single loss on imbalance and hacks, even accusing progamers of hacking. This is exactly the kind of person we should NOT listen to. Also, SC2 community is garbage. How did people respond to SC2 being a bad game? By buying Overwatch. Why would Blizzard ever put an effort to make the game fun if they can just push their customers around? All we can expect are this "whatever" changes. So, are are people going to point out what's clearly retarded in the game right now, or give their opinions based on the weekly 10 games they play on gold league? That was always obvious. Mech is horrible for the game. Especially the Avilo style mech. That guy hasn't proactively engaged the opponent in his entire life. A vast majority of his games consists of him sieging tanks in front of his base and building missile turrets and command centers. He unsieges his tanks when he floats a CC to the next expansion. Once he has half the map and the opponent has suicided all of his units into the tank lines, Avilo has won. Woopdiedoo, we're so glad mech is viable. If the opponent refuses to suicide units, and starts building for example a massive carrier army, Avilo rages for 30 minutes straight about balance. He's also not only a bad loser, he's a disgustingly bad winner. He flames his opponents when he wins nearly every time. As far as Avilo as a games designer, I've never heard a more laughable thing in my life. Seriously the most biased and obnoxious twitch personality out there, who lives with his mum, sleeps in a bunk bed with no sheets, can't present a clear and concise argument, doesn't acknowledge any of his faults, blames all of his losses on maphacks and stream cheating, would in someone's opinion make a good part of a design team at a real games company? For SC2's sake I'm glad that person who suggested that isn't recruiting. In fact I suspect he's unemployed just like Avilo is, because anyone who works with real people in an office would know what types of people can be productive members of a team.
As much as I dislike Avilo sc2 persona, and i disagree with his views on the game design I feel that flaming his personal life man is too much. Not cool man, not cool.
|
Btw, nerf queens air range, remove liberator range upgrade.
|
On December 21 2016 07:51 The_Red_Viper wrote: Are carriers cool because they work well in sc2 or because bw made the unit iconic and it worked there? TLO already said it:
Compared to Tempests and VRs for sure they are more interesting. I'm not a fan of air units being so good, but i'd rather watch Carriers then 15/10 range tempests kiting from a screen away.
|
We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps.
I have only played 4v4 in LotV and I play Terran.
In 4v4 people mass Carriers all the time. But are they really OP? Why is that?
I usually go mass Battlecruiser late-game and it is very strong. I usually split up my battle cruisers into smaller groups and attack at multiple places. And when I am loosing a battle (or when enemy attacks my base) I just teleport back.
I am very glad that they buffed Battlecruiser. I think that they have potential for great games in late-game 1v1. But is nerfing Carriers really necessary? Are they used in 1v1? In my observation Battlecruisers seem to be a lot stronger than Carriers right now. But yeah, I am just the person who mass Battlecruiser and LOL in 4v4 so yeah, I should probably shut up... and leave the talking to the others...
Have some TUNE FISH ><))):>, SUKA BLAYAT!!!
User was warned for this post
|
On December 21 2016 04:58 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +Balance Process going forward into next year
The other thing we wanted to discuss is the fact that the faster turn-around for smaller balance changes (during balance testing as well as during the off season) turned out much better than we had expected. Therefore, we wanted to get your thoughts on a potential change to our balance process.
Our thought was to make a change so that if there’s a higher confidence on a smaller balance tweak that needs to be made, we can just push that change out to the live game without doing a balance test map. Keep in mind though that if there’s a big change happening or if we need to make a riskier change, we would use the balance test map to test the changes well before going live.
The reason we suggest this is so that we can be a bit more agile in fixing more balance problems that may arise in the future at a much faster rate. Please let us know your thoughts. Completely agree, no need to go through the entire process and to add to that. There isn't going to be enough people queue'ing the test map to see how a 5 hp Baneling HP decrease pans out. Zergs don't want to go in and play a nerfed race of itself. Test map should be for the really huge patches and crazy ideas. Hydralisk: Straight up buffing the Hydralisks health will make it a more well rounded unit. This is quite a different change from the +1 increase in range. A health buff is not gonna matter that much in what is now considered a healthy unit compositions. The Hydralisk is currently a glass cannon and benefits from having tanking Roaches (Ultralisks late game,) in front of it. It benefits from having Bile's + Banelings, since it will make the enemy move around it's army in an attempt to dodge big AoE, hence reducing the damage from the opposing player. A straight up health pool buff will push out some of these importances and instead be replaced by the Hydralisk. So my fear is that we see less diverse unit compositions from the Zerg in general, though it will probably still not be overpowered. I wonder if instead it would be a better idea to introduce a late game Hunter Killer Hydralisk upgrade on Hive tech, which buffs the Hydralisk health pool by an even greater amount than what is currently being suggested and that way we see Zerg compositions change more over time. Hydralisk could look really bad ass when they upgrade into the Hunter Killer Hydralisk :D Reaper: For the Reaper I think they should remove Combat Healing and buff it's Health pool accordingly, then for pure awesomeness they should add a late game upgrade, which makes the Grenade do additional devastating damage vs Structures. Qxc late game Reapers were so awesome and it should totally be a thing! Baneling: Banelings should be 35 hp from the start of the game. This does not destroy ZvZ, so there's no reason for it to be on the upgrade anymore. Cyclone: Give it range 4, but add in turret tracking. Give it an upgrade which buffs the Lock-On. My suggestion would be an upgrade to the acquiring range of Lock-On. Infestor: Burrow Fungal should not be a thing, either change it's functionality while Burrowed, so that it casts Fungal ontop of itself, or completely remove the ability to Fungal while Burrowed. You can instead buff Infested Terran Egg armour, if you want to give the Infestor more love.
Just wanna say that I love the idea of a hive tech Hunter Killer upgrade! That sounds so cool.
|
On December 21 2016 16:31 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic. THIS ONE: "You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way." Hahahaha, meanwhile, terran players whine about Ultralisks which are tier 3 unit, that they cannot kill it easy with tier1 Marines and marauders. What are u talking about? Hydra is tier 2, Carrier is tier 3- Hydra vs Carrier one on one- hydra always will loose :-) So it's not stronger. Hydra however gets their strentgh in numbers- as almost every Zerg unit. 25 hydras for example should kill 5 carriers. The problem is when they don't. Your arguments are just bad. I could revert this into- Stalker is tier 2 unit, Broodlord is tier 3 or 3.5 and still 20 stalkers kill 5 broodlords- is this imba? No it's not. Stop being biased.
Don't know what stalker you've been playing against... Stalkers kill brood lords? Since when? Broodlords outrange stalkers, have a meat shield in front of them and by the time the stalker gets into range to fire at the brood lord it's already dead.
25 hydras should beat 5 carriers? They do beat 5 carriers, with a bit of focus fire 5 carriers die to 25 hydras. Is it a close fight? Yes, but the cost of 5 carriers and 25 hydras is also pretty close, so it makes sense, don't know what the point is.
And here there are peoole whining about the fact that 200/200 hydras don't beat a full 200/200 protoss fleet by amoving into the protoss.
What you said about the ultralisk is true: terran players whined that their dinky little marines couldn't beat ultras and sure enough they got their nerf, it is the same story for the colossus though 
|
On December 21 2016 19:18 _Croc wrote:Show nested quote +We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps. I have only played 4v4 in LotV and I play Terran. In 4v4 people mass Carriers all the time. But are they really OP? Why is that? I usually go mass Battlecruiser late-game and it is very strong. I usually split up my battle cruisers into smaller groups and attack at multiple places. And when I am loosing a battle (or when enemy attacks my base) I just teleport back. I am very glad that they buffed Battlecruiser. I think that they have potential for great games in late-game 1v1. But is nerfing Carriers really necessary? Are they used in 1v1? In my observation Battlecruisers seem to be a lot stronger than Carriers right now. But yeah, I am just the person who mass Battlecruiser and LOL in 4v4 so yeah, I should probably shut up... and leave the talking to the others... Have some TUNE FISH ><))):>, SUKA BLAYAT!!!
What the hell was that.
Btw. The proper spelling is: Suka Blyat'!
|
|
|
On December 21 2016 04:24 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Source if Hydralisks need a small HP increase, if Infestor burrow casting needs to be changed a bit, and if cyclones are in a good spot for Mech play !! [/center]
I like the idea of an hydralisk upgrade after Hive tech too, their midgame is actually strong enougth (old buff range +1 has broken the mid game imo)
Infestors burrow cast change a bit OK. It looks irritating to lose every bio units in a mass fungal
Cyclones are in a good spot foor mech play ??? A factory can produce more than three times a barrack do.. Roach build have no chance against Terran and Mech will be the most often answer now it s easy to play..........
If you will to balance things, balance the BIO against the MECH power, nobody will take risk to play bio if there s MECH is a lot safer
|
On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:17 icesergio wrote:On December 21 2016 11:57 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 21 2016 11:48 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 08:06 Elentos wrote:On December 21 2016 07:48 VHbb wrote:
- carriers were NEVER used before the patch
I'm fairly confident I can find you more professional games of carriers being used throughout the year with 25 mineral interceptors than for example games with battlecruisers or intentionally produced swarm hosts. Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff. And if they weren't one of the most iconic Protoss units they would have probably been removed long ago because Protoss doesn't need a 2nd capital ship beside the Tempest anyway. "Just because it was the least used Protoss unit that doesn't mean it needed a buff." Err can we agree that's the same argument used by mech-lovers for mech? Lol Not really. Protoss already had a lot more latitude composition-wise than terran did. Could you please cite these latitude compositions that you are talking about? There are macro builds and compositions that open with robo, twilight, or stargate tech, and archon/immortal armies, colossus armies, disruptor armies, high templar armies are all viable in at least one match-up. Whereas terran's options are a lot more limited overall.
Sorry, I don't really get your point.
Terran has a lot of viable opening & techs trees too, if not more.
reaper rush, the good ol' MMMM, mines drop, mines fast burrow, speed/cloak banshees, libs, cyclones, hellions, hellbat, blue flame rush, siege tanks, vikings, the OP ravens etc.
Mines, liberators & banshees rushes usually resulting in automatic loss to Protoss if the protoss fails to anticipate & react pre-emptively with appropriate tech.
|
On December 21 2016 20:21 insitelol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 19:18 _Croc wrote:We hear your feedback on potential additional changes to the Carrier that may be needed, but let’s do this cost increase first since there is good consensus on it so that we can move in smaller steps. I have only played 4v4 in LotV and I play Terran. In 4v4 people mass Carriers all the time. But are they really OP? Why is that? I usually go mass Battlecruiser late-game and it is very strong. I usually split up my battle cruisers into smaller groups and attack at multiple places. And when I am loosing a battle (or when enemy attacks my base) I just teleport back. I am very glad that they buffed Battlecruiser. I think that they have potential for great games in late-game 1v1. But is nerfing Carriers really necessary? Are they used in 1v1? In my observation Battlecruisers seem to be a lot stronger than Carriers right now. But yeah, I am just the person who mass Battlecruiser and LOL in 4v4 so yeah, I should probably shut up... and leave the talking to the others... Have some TUNE FISH ><))):>, SUKA BLAYAT!!! What the hell was that. Btw. The proper spelling is: Suka Blyat'!
Wow, you are correct. Learned something today.
|
On December 21 2016 12:10 icesergio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:05 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 21 2016 06:31 Freeborn wrote:
Ah come on. Sure Making faster live changes is great. But no Carriers are not too strong, 10-15 interceptor cost is fine, anymore and they just become money drains because hydras and marines are just too effective in killing interceptors.
But the real Problem... Where is the protoss love? And What the hell is the point of the swarmhost?
Zerg feels like a really cool race right now, but the swarmhost really doesnt fit the concept or flow, not does it feel necessary, I would instead vote for bringing back the infested terran upgrades.
But more importantly.... Can we please get stalker 14 Flat damage while in off season??? We had the crazy hydra change, which raped protoss.. I doubt that stalkers will be worse.
Go for it: stalkers 14 damage flat, then see how to continue balancing gateway units and keep on trying to remove reliance on MSC, forcefield and colossus. Thats the only way to make protoss feel well rounded and not gimicky and either weak or OP, depending on the point in game. I totally disagree about Carriers, they are overpowered right now and they force out cancer style mass air vs mass air games. Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated. I totally agree about Stalkers 14 flat damage, with better Hydralisks and Stalkers already useless vs bio the unit has really never been shittier then it is now. Why EVER build them over Adepts at any point other then emergency Mutalisk defense and you gotta be really desperate to fight Mutas with Stalkers haha Uh sorry to say but your kind of slow or didnt understand that I was responding to the nested quote where the guys said, "I dont know why they are rebuffing Hydralisks they are already great at taking down interceptors" to which my response was, "have you ever fielded Hydralisks vs carriers?" because yes Carriers atm are cancer style a move tier 3 doom units which Protoss seems to always have one of (old school colossus?) and that's not good for the race or the game. At least try to read the nested quote next time man, no I don't think Hydralisks should own Carriers, that sounds about as dumb as the Terran whiners who think tier 1 marine/maruader should counter 3/5 tier 3 units from Zerg. Your post is just one big oxymore, let me break it down for you: You say that "Have you ever once tried to use Hydralisks vs Carriers? They get absolutely obliterated." Yeah... because a tier 2 unit obtained with lair tech should be able to beat a tier 3.5 unit that costs 3-4 times as much, takes forever to build and requires 3 bases to maintain a healthy production of said unit. That was sarcasm by the way. Hydras are tier 2 units, and they already excel at what they do: If assisted by banelings/roach ravager they steamroll protoss gateway units (Hydras can kite adepts all day, stalkers are a joke, chargelots must kill the roach/baneling barrier before they can reach the hydras) You cannot expect to carry a tier 2 unit into the lategame against a composition of 350/250 units that take 2 and a half years to build and require a decent economy to keep the interceptor production going. Do I think that 5 mineral interceptors are too cost efficient? Yes, I completely agree with you and as you can see their cost has been increased to 10 minerals. Personally I would have raised the cost to 15 but lowered build time because you can just stall the interceptors and engage the carriers, which are nothing more than big hot air balloons You say that PvZ is made of cancerous Air vs Air games, try playing protoss, max out at 200/200 supply and try engaging a zerg on the ground. Lurkers, banelings, ultralisks (which have finally been nerfed a little bit) will shred anything a protoss can throw at them. If Protoss can't fight on the ground we switch to air, it's not starcraft, it's basic logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
