|
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.
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.
I would agree that Lurkers can be overwhelming for Protoss ground armies. On that same note, Ultralisks weren't even viable vs Protoss before the nerf so no clue why your complaining about them, have you ever seen how terrible Lurker/Ultra compositions are vs. Archon/Immortal/Chargelot/Templar? Try, "so bad it's not even funny" from a Zerg's perspective. Most Protoss players I play that lose to Lurkers are the players with 140 APM and no real mechanic who A move into burrowed Lurker lines and get flanked and then cry, "Zerg is such a joke look at this" while I'm cruising around 250 APM and multitasking my ass off.
If your losing to Ultralisks and Banelings as a Protoss player, you are doing something really really wrong.
|
On December 22 2016 02:20 _Croc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 20:21 insitelol wrote: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.
Right, you should learn from native speakers.
|
So having carriers moving from destiny to destiny and owning all ground units for zerg is truly something that is utterly boring.
So to say that a tier1,5 unit should not win against a tier3 unit is.. Confusing and misleading. Its like people that say this dont understand what gameplay is about.
|
On December 22 2016 03:31 Foxxan wrote:
So to say that a tier1,5 unit should not win against a tier3 unit is.. Confusing and misleading. Its like people that say this dont understand what gameplay is about.
It's good you cleared it up for us all
|
On December 22 2016 03:59 VHbb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 03:31 Foxxan wrote:
So to say that a tier1,5 unit should not win against a tier3 unit is.. Confusing and misleading. Its like people that say this dont understand what gameplay is about.
It's good you cleared it up for us all
So having carriers moving from destiny to destiny and owning all ground units for zerg is truly something that is utterly boring.
|
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays.
|
On December 22 2016 05:08 insitelol wrote:
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays.
This, they overbuffed tanks and overnerfed the immortal, immortals need to go back to vanilla damage reduction but maybe slightly lower damage vs armored so the relationship between the Immortal and tank lines is, "Immortals shield the fragile units so they can get up to the tanks." Where before it was, "Don't ever build tanks against immortals every ever never ever."
But of course, this game is full of ludicrous hard counters like that so no real surprise that we're here now.
|
On December 22 2016 05:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 05:08 insitelol wrote:
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays. This, they overbuffed tanks and overnerfed the immortal, immortals need to go back to vanilla damage reduction but maybe slightly lower damage vs armored so the relationship between the Immortal and tank lines is, "Immortals shield the fragile units so they can get up to the tanks." Where before it was, "Don't ever build tanks against immortals every ever never ever." But of course, this game is full of ludicrous hard counters like that so no real surprise that we're here now.
Tanks are awfull vs everything protoss (minus stalkers and I guess colossus to some degree) an A moved zealot immortal archon army can chew through any tank based mech army like it is no ones bussines,
|
Carriers are absurd right now.
I lose 85% of my games vs Protoss if they managed to get Carriers out.
The only games I have won vs Carriers are when I entered late game with a huge lead. If the game state is even it is more or less a free win for Protoss.
The only working counter is BCs but it rare that you can get out enough BCs to counter the Carriers. It gets even worse if he mixes in void rays and Tempest as well.
I think all capital ships (Carriers, Tempest and BCs) need a hit point reduction. As it its the units that is supposed to counter them like viking and corruptors are simply not effective enough.
|
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: 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.
Blizzard never listened to myself or other mech knowledgable people about making ground anti-air better than air units. The reason mech is a turtle fest is because any time any amount of air hits the map you're forced to start massing starports.
In SC1, you could crank out 5-10 goliaths with mega range to deal with air units. Look at current ASL or whatever brood war games. Every game is GROUND UNITS VS GROUND UNITS. You almost never see an air deathball in SC1 games, which means the players are CONSTANTLY TRADING UNITS VS UNITS.
Imagine if scouts in SC1 were as strong as void rays. Do you think mech would be playable or Terran at all vs Protoss? The game would be unplayable because you'd be forced into making an insane amount of goliaths every game, and every single early game would be hampered by lack of AA.
|
|
|
On December 22 2016 05:43 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 05:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:On December 22 2016 05:08 insitelol wrote:
On a serious note.
Blizzard!
Revert immortal to vanilla version. New ability is just plain bad. Its ugly and bad designed while original ability was somewhat "special" and reflected the true nature of the unit. Now when tanks are 50% stronger we definitely need it back. Its rediculous what tanks do to immortals nowadays. This, they overbuffed tanks and overnerfed the immortal, immortals need to go back to vanilla damage reduction but maybe slightly lower damage vs armored so the relationship between the Immortal and tank lines is, "Immortals shield the fragile units so they can get up to the tanks." Where before it was, "Don't ever build tanks against immortals every ever never ever." But of course, this game is full of ludicrous hard counters like that so no real surprise that we're here now. Tanks are awfull vs everything protoss (minus stalkers and I guess colossus to some degree) an A moved zealot immortal archon army can chew through any tank based mech army like it is no ones bussines,
I agree with you bro, I was only commenting on the relationship of the tank and the Immortal. You are right A move nooblots/Archons do smash on tank lines.
Honestly Immortals aside I think tank based mech is never going to be viable vs protoss unless they make + shields damage but that just sounds dumb.
|
Just want to throw this out there. I'm ok with carriers not being 'viable'. I didn't mind the role it had pre 3.8. Going quickly into T3 air shouldn't be a normal thing you can do without dying. As a surprise strategy, and strong when maxed I felt it had a good place.
I mean to be honest it was kind of exciting when a pro player would go carriers specifically because everyone knows it's super risky and you need to get a huge supply up before winning. It was like WHAT? He's going carriers?? Can he DO that?
I don't mind that role for the unit and I don't think we need to make them a staple. Just my two cents
|
Norway839 Posts
|
my english is bad. i hope you understand all of it.
burrowed fungal is op vs bio. terran always need some medevacs. if you dont patch techreactor and accelerate raven-making, they cant make a raven.
cyclon is dummy because of its AA. it can't kill oracle, muta and medevac. it is only useful about all-in push.
early cyclon+hellbat push is op vs zerg. it destroys zerg's economy.
zerg is terrible considering AA. especially vs protoss. you should buff zerg AA or nerf protoss AA.
baneling is super powerful vs protoss ground army.
protoss is dominant vs terran. toss users have many options when they do all-in push, also they easily stop medevac push cuz they have inexpensive observer and void ray. they always know where their enemy comes from. you should raise the price of observer or nerf it other way.
200vs200 battle in pvt is smiling to protoss, before vikings beat Colossus, terran army is wiped out. So i concluded the only way terran can win is early cyclone push. protoss cannot be strong in both attack and defense.
the most hateful thing is warp prism. slow down its speed and dont let it take up archon/dark templar.
|
United Kingdom12026 Posts
On December 22 2016 01:45 fx9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote: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.
That sounds very much like TvP in Broodwar. Protoss have so many openings and if you don't react properly you just lose.
|
On December 22 2016 03:07 Beelzebub1 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. 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. I would agree that Lurkers can be overwhelming for Protoss ground armies. On that same note, Ultralisks weren't even viable vs Protoss before the nerf so no clue why your complaining about them, have you ever seen how terrible Lurker/Ultra compositions are vs. Archon/Immortal/Chargelot/Templar? Try, "so bad it's not even funny" from a Zerg's perspective. Most Protoss players I play that lose to Lurkers are the players with 140 APM and no real mechanic who A move into burrowed Lurker lines and get flanked and then cry, "Zerg is such a joke look at this" while I'm cruising around 250 APM and multitasking my ass off. If your losing to Ultralisks and Banelings as a Protoss player, you are doing something really really wrong.
Terribly sorry, I aplogize for not double checking who you were replying to. Not going to happen again 
|
On December 22 2016 18:38 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 01:45 fx9 wrote:On December 21 2016 12:36 ZigguratOfUr wrote: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. That sounds very much like TvP in Broodwar. Protoss have so many openings and if you don't react properly you just lose.
Actually this sounds like protoss throughout all of hots. 10-18 viable all ins/macro openings/pressure builds all which can incredibly punish Terran if they make a mistake in any way and cun punish terran for premptivly preparing for one of the many many builds only to be punished because there opponent did a different one with no major consequence if the build picked does not match up well with what terran did except that terran does not lose on the spot. I dont think the match-up currently is like this, the match up is just finally in a fairer state where both sides have adequate options and opening games.
|
I don't mind doing small changes fast.
But they are literally not moving anywhere with carrier. They has to change it more significantly with other changes, this fine tuning will still leave it useless or brokenly OP in PvZ. They just can't do better with changing interceptor cost.
Baneling HP nerf was totally unnecessary, and hydra HP buff should have been in this patch instead.
Maybe swarmhosts tweaks. I didn't actually seen enough even games with swarmhosts, so I don't know.
Honestly I'm glad I'm not playing 1v1 and don't care as much anymore about tournaments. It's shame the starcraft team isn't doing their job properly. But even if they did, the game wouldn't be in much better state. So I guess I can see why management doesn't care as much about that. As long as they keep looking like they are doing something it's fine.
|
The fun thing is:
Z players complain about P
T players complain about P
P players complain about T and Z
the game must be at least quite balanced since everybody is whining and complaining... maybe it's just the holidays  or maybe it's just the SC2 community, whose mantra is: bash Blizzard, we could do better, whine whine whine
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
