|
On February 24 2017 22:49 Gwavajuice wrote:
Half the people think widow mine nerf is too big, the other half thinks it's not enough.
Excellent patch I'd say...
As far as design goes, I'd say it's a very sound idea. But I'm quite certain it will trigger some months of Protoss total dominance of the match-up. I'm talking 60-70% dominance ; libs were nerfed, mines will be nerfed, the only thing T has now that helps compared to what they had last year is a kinda stronger tank. Meanwhile most P tools were untouched and buffed chargelots should now have a place again in the mu.
Would be lying if I said I was entirely unhappy about the mu shifting so heavily in favor of P. I'll be the one getting easier wins.
I'm pretty sure P will get some nerfs (probably on adepts and/or prisms) after the mu shifts too hard towards P though, and then the mu should hopefully be alright again.
|
On February 24 2017 22:37 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +
Interesting approach but also quite complex imo. I prefer solutions which are more intuitive to understand.
Blizzard wont change this. Either way, it might sound complex but it really isnt if you would design spells which you see with your eyes that something happens when you spam them next to each other. Would most likely become inutive that way.
Well i guess that could work. I still personally prefer it if the spell always has the same range, the same dmg, etc.
Like if i kinda mess up the first storm i don't wanna be penalized additionally through my second storm being way worse.
And if it is not substantially worse then you can still spam it. Not that i think that solution doesn't have any potential, but it still seems too complex to me for a game like starcraft. But yeah without a concrete implementation to look at it's hard to argue one way or another imo.
|
On February 24 2017 22:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 22:03 Foxxan wrote:On February 24 2017 21:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 24 2017 21:33 Foxxan wrote:
There are other ways than removing smartcast for spells to not be as spammable. Do you want every cd to be extremely high? That sounds awful to me tbh (because as i said, the number of spellcasters you build is oftentimes more relevant than if the cd is a few seconds higher) Other approaches? Pls elaborate Nah cooldowns are pure shit initself. Iam talking more about if a spell hits next to one other spell of the same type, it could lose value Lets take storm: Cast storm on location a first, then b immedaitely after. The storm on location b now loses value since they are close to each other. What value? Many numbers to play with i guess. Aoe range, damage. Eh cant think of more but there must be more than that. Interesting approach but also quite complex imo. I prefer solutions which are more intuitive to understand. Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 22:17 StarscreamG1 wrote:On February 24 2017 20:41 ejozl wrote:On February 24 2017 20:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Again: can anybody tell me why reapers have grenades to begin with? IIRC blizzard wanted to make the reaper have impact in the midgame, well all the grenades did was creating the cheese/allin possibility (and most of the time you can transition perfectly fine)
Spamable aoe on an early game unit which can jump cliffs and heals itself out of combat. Just think about that for a second I think the Grenade is fun, it adds skill, unpredictibility and utility to the unit. I think the Combat Regeneration is the troublesome part and what allows Mass Reapers to snowball to the degree that it does. I totally agree. Nerf or remove regeneration and keep the grenades like they are. I mean removing the healing would obviously help a ton, but it would also weaken scouting reapers. I prefer to not touch the utility of scouting reapers and remove the dumb spamming of grenades 
Easiest thing imo would be to (1) remove the knockback from the grenade or (2) remove damage.
Option (1) would make Reapers more harass centric with less escapability and (2) would make it more scouting focused with less damage.
I think that it's simply the combination of harassment potential and escapability which makes this unit akward to balance. This goes back to the general theme that units with mixed roles—harass and scout in this case—always seem to cause balance issues. I laid this out in another community feedback a while back.
Personally, I favor (2) because the Reaper should simply be an early scout with minimal harassment potential. Option (1) might work just as well though, because it would be easier to micro against Reapers. Zerg for example could simply counter with Ling surround since Reapers wouldn't be able to catapult themselves or the Lings away.
|
On February 24 2017 23:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 22:49 Gwavajuice wrote:
Half the people think widow mine nerf is too big, the other half thinks it's not enough.
Excellent patch I'd say... As far as design goes, I'd say it's a very sound idea. But I'm quite certain it will trigger some months of Protoss total dominance of the match-up. I'm talking 60-70% dominance ; libs were nerfed, mines will be nerfed, the only thing T has now that helps compared to what they had last year is a kinda stronger tank. Meanwhile most P tools were untouched and buffed chargelots should now have a place again in the mu.
A tank that's barely better at killing adepts than last year and can no longer be micro'd to account for shading on top of it.
The mine nerf is definitely risky for balance. But probably the right step for design.
|
imp, if u nerf widow mines, you should also nerf adepts, otherwise how can Terran deal with mass adepts while mines are useless
|
On February 24 2017 23:15 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 23:06 [PkF] Wire wrote:On February 24 2017 22:49 Gwavajuice wrote:
Half the people think widow mine nerf is too big, the other half thinks it's not enough.
Excellent patch I'd say... As far as design goes, I'd say it's a very sound idea. But I'm quite certain it will trigger some months of Protoss total dominance of the match-up. I'm talking 60-70% dominance ; libs were nerfed, mines will be nerfed, the only thing T has now that helps compared to what they had last year is a kinda stronger tank. Meanwhile most P tools were untouched and buffed chargelots should now have a place again in the mu. A tank that's barely better at killing adepts than last year and can no longer be micro'd to account for shading on top of it. The mine nerf is definitely risky for balance. But probably the right step for design.
yeah, the logical step after that one is a straight adept / warp prism nerf that will help PvZ too. So I'm OK with going through some months of P dominance vT if it means we get a better game overall afterwards.
|
On February 24 2017 23:12 Turb0Sw4g wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 22:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 24 2017 22:03 Foxxan wrote:On February 24 2017 21:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 24 2017 21:33 Foxxan wrote:
There are other ways than removing smartcast for spells to not be as spammable. Do you want every cd to be extremely high? That sounds awful to me tbh (because as i said, the number of spellcasters you build is oftentimes more relevant than if the cd is a few seconds higher) Other approaches? Pls elaborate Nah cooldowns are pure shit initself. Iam talking more about if a spell hits next to one other spell of the same type, it could lose value Lets take storm: Cast storm on location a first, then b immedaitely after. The storm on location b now loses value since they are close to each other. What value? Many numbers to play with i guess. Aoe range, damage. Eh cant think of more but there must be more than that. Interesting approach but also quite complex imo. I prefer solutions which are more intuitive to understand. On February 24 2017 22:17 StarscreamG1 wrote:On February 24 2017 20:41 ejozl wrote:On February 24 2017 20:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Again: can anybody tell me why reapers have grenades to begin with? IIRC blizzard wanted to make the reaper have impact in the midgame, well all the grenades did was creating the cheese/allin possibility (and most of the time you can transition perfectly fine)
Spamable aoe on an early game unit which can jump cliffs and heals itself out of combat. Just think about that for a second I think the Grenade is fun, it adds skill, unpredictibility and utility to the unit. I think the Combat Regeneration is the troublesome part and what allows Mass Reapers to snowball to the degree that it does. I totally agree. Nerf or remove regeneration and keep the grenades like they are. I mean removing the healing would obviously help a ton, but it would also weaken scouting reapers. I prefer to not touch the utility of scouting reapers and remove the dumb spamming of grenades Easiest thing imo would be to (1) remove the knockback from the grenade or (2) remove damage. Option (1) would make Reapers more harass centric with less escapability and (2) would make it more scouting focused with less damage. I think that it's simply the combination of harassment potential and escapability which makes this unit akward to balance. This goes back to the general theme that units with mixed roles—harass and scout in this case—always seem to cause balance issues. I laid this out in another community feedback a while back. Personally, I favor (2) because the Reaper should simply be an early scout with minimal harassment potential. Option (1) might work just as well though, because it would be easier to micro against Reapers. Zerg for example could simply counter with Ling surround since Reapers wouldn't be able to catapult themselves or the Lings away.
Hm yeah i thought about that as well. There are definitely a few ways to make it less of a balance issue. We shouldn't forget about TvT though tbh, there mass reaper strats can also work quite well.
In general i think the grenade isn't needed and only really adds nonsense to the early game. It has no impact on the usefulness of the unit in the midgame. I also do not think that the early game interactions it creates are interesting or fun, it's basically more or less spamming grenades to zone/do dmg while the other guy cannot respond with much.
|
On February 24 2017 23:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 23:12 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 24 2017 22:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 24 2017 22:03 Foxxan wrote:On February 24 2017 21:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 24 2017 21:33 Foxxan wrote:
There are other ways than removing smartcast for spells to not be as spammable. Do you want every cd to be extremely high? That sounds awful to me tbh (because as i said, the number of spellcasters you build is oftentimes more relevant than if the cd is a few seconds higher) Other approaches? Pls elaborate Nah cooldowns are pure shit initself. Iam talking more about if a spell hits next to one other spell of the same type, it could lose value Lets take storm: Cast storm on location a first, then b immedaitely after. The storm on location b now loses value since they are close to each other. What value? Many numbers to play with i guess. Aoe range, damage. Eh cant think of more but there must be more than that. Interesting approach but also quite complex imo. I prefer solutions which are more intuitive to understand. On February 24 2017 22:17 StarscreamG1 wrote:On February 24 2017 20:41 ejozl wrote:On February 24 2017 20:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Again: can anybody tell me why reapers have grenades to begin with? IIRC blizzard wanted to make the reaper have impact in the midgame, well all the grenades did was creating the cheese/allin possibility (and most of the time you can transition perfectly fine)
Spamable aoe on an early game unit which can jump cliffs and heals itself out of combat. Just think about that for a second I think the Grenade is fun, it adds skill, unpredictibility and utility to the unit. I think the Combat Regeneration is the troublesome part and what allows Mass Reapers to snowball to the degree that it does. I totally agree. Nerf or remove regeneration and keep the grenades like they are. I mean removing the healing would obviously help a ton, but it would also weaken scouting reapers. I prefer to not touch the utility of scouting reapers and remove the dumb spamming of grenades Easiest thing imo would be to (1) remove the knockback from the grenade or (2) remove damage. Option (1) would make Reapers more harass centric with less escapability and (2) would make it more scouting focused with less damage. I think that it's simply the combination of harassment potential and escapability which makes this unit akward to balance. This goes back to the general theme that units with mixed roles—harass and scout in this case—always seem to cause balance issues. I laid this out in another community feedback a while back. Personally, I favor (2) because the Reaper should simply be an early scout with minimal harassment potential. Option (1) might work just as well though, because it would be easier to micro against Reapers. Zerg for example could simply counter with Ling surround since Reapers wouldn't be able to catapult themselves or the Lings away. Hm yeah i thought about that as well. There are definitely a few ways to make it less of a balance issue. We shouldn't forget about TvT though tbh, there mass reaper strats can also work quite well. In general i think the grenade isn't needed and only really adds nonsense to the early game. It has no impact on the usefulness of the unit in the midgame. I also do not think that the early game interactions it creates are interesting or fun, it's basically more or less spamming grenades to zone/do dmg while the other guy cannot respond with much.
I don't see how the grenade is needed either. At least removing the knockback would be good. It looks silly and indeed doesn't add much : the hope was probably to see some cool reaper usage in the mid/lategame but as we all know this is not realistic.
|
For the reaper remove grenade damage. But suggestions to nerf or remove the healing make the unit pointless - it is a scouting unit. I am happy to have a unit whose purpose is to scout in the early game, and has no later utility - not every unit needs to be viable later game.
Lib nerf, Mine nerf, and a tank nerf (unable to pick up sieged - tanks die to shade/blink/disruptor) means that the matchup swings to Protoss dominance - OK as long as it is not 8 months until the Blizztards fix the matchup.
I will switch to watching for a while to see how bad it gets before thinking about playing.
|
On February 24 2017 23:36 DeadByDawn wrote:
For the reaper remove grenade damage. But suggestions to nerf or remove the healing make the unit pointless - it is a scouting unit. I am happy to have a unit whose purpose is to scout in the early game, and has no later utility - not every unit needs to be viable later game.
Lib nerf, Mine nerf, and a tank nerf (unable to pick up sieged - tanks die to shade/blink/disruptor) means that the matchup swings to Protoss dominance - OK as long as it is not 8 months until the Blizztards fix the matchup.
yeah removing the healing is really a silly suggestion imo. You can tone it down if needed but without the healing capacity the reaper just won't be an efficient scout anymore.
|
I disagree a bit that the Reaper *has* to be an early game scout only unit.
Because this means it HAS to be really good at that or no one will ever build them and that allows for these 3rax Reapers and probably why they have this weird grenade.
I'd be fine with the unit being toned a bit offensively early on (get rid of current grenade) but it having a lategame upgrade available. I still fondly remember having a squad of lategame Reapers in WoL that could devastate worker lines and snipe Pylons. The lategame upgrade (requires Armory and E-Bay or something like that) could give the Reaper its +Light damage and anti-building grenades back.
|
On February 24 2017 08:04 Charoisaur wrote:
Imo they should wait to see how the liberator nerf affects the mu before doing another patch. Weird that they do another nerf so shortly after the first one, TvP doesn't seem to be that t favored anymore from what I've seen.
Also I'd prefer the liberator being nerfed even further or even removed.
Also the corruptor buff is pretty significant for tvz because it makes it much easier to chase medivacs for corruptors.
Overall I dislike this patch.
pretty much this. its too early to see the real impact of the liberator nerf in the matchup. Also, the corruptor buff will affect TvZ in a bigger way than what they are thinking imo, and i dont want to see stronger air units.
in the topic of the reaper, was the damage to buildings even a issue?? at this point make the grenade tech lab requirement or just remove it.
|
On February 24 2017 23:22 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 23:12 Turb0Sw4g wrote:On February 24 2017 22:27 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 24 2017 22:03 Foxxan wrote:On February 24 2017 21:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On February 24 2017 21:33 Foxxan wrote:
There are other ways than removing smartcast for spells to not be as spammable. Do you want every cd to be extremely high? That sounds awful to me tbh (because as i said, the number of spellcasters you build is oftentimes more relevant than if the cd is a few seconds higher) Other approaches? Pls elaborate Nah cooldowns are pure shit initself. Iam talking more about if a spell hits next to one other spell of the same type, it could lose value Lets take storm: Cast storm on location a first, then b immedaitely after. The storm on location b now loses value since they are close to each other. What value? Many numbers to play with i guess. Aoe range, damage. Eh cant think of more but there must be more than that. Interesting approach but also quite complex imo. I prefer solutions which are more intuitive to understand. On February 24 2017 22:17 StarscreamG1 wrote:On February 24 2017 20:41 ejozl wrote:On February 24 2017 20:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Again: can anybody tell me why reapers have grenades to begin with? IIRC blizzard wanted to make the reaper have impact in the midgame, well all the grenades did was creating the cheese/allin possibility (and most of the time you can transition perfectly fine)
Spamable aoe on an early game unit which can jump cliffs and heals itself out of combat. Just think about that for a second I think the Grenade is fun, it adds skill, unpredictibility and utility to the unit. I think the Combat Regeneration is the troublesome part and what allows Mass Reapers to snowball to the degree that it does. I totally agree. Nerf or remove regeneration and keep the grenades like they are. I mean removing the healing would obviously help a ton, but it would also weaken scouting reapers. I prefer to not touch the utility of scouting reapers and remove the dumb spamming of grenades Easiest thing imo would be to (1) remove the knockback from the grenade or (2) remove damage. Option (1) would make Reapers more harass centric with less escapability and (2) would make it more scouting focused with less damage. I think that it's simply the combination of harassment potential and escapability which makes this unit akward to balance. This goes back to the general theme that units with mixed roles—harass and scout in this case—always seem to cause balance issues. I laid this out in another community feedback a while back. Personally, I favor (2) because the Reaper should simply be an early scout with minimal harassment potential. Option (1) might work just as well though, because it would be easier to micro against Reapers. Zerg for example could simply counter with Ling surround since Reapers wouldn't be able to catapult themselves or the Lings away. Hm yeah i thought about that as well. There are definitely a few ways to make it less of a balance issue. We shouldn't forget about TvT though tbh, there mass reaper strats can also work quite well. In general i think the grenade isn't needed and only really adds nonsense to the early game. It has no impact on the usefulness of the unit in the midgame. I also do not think that the early game interactions it creates are interesting or fun, it's basically more or less spamming grenades to zone/do dmg while the other guy cannot respond with much.
I don't see why the grenade is needed either. But, given the pace of the "balance process", removal is out of the picture at least until the end of this year. :D
On February 24 2017 23:36 DeadByDawn wrote:
For the reaper remove grenade damage. But suggestions to nerf or remove the healing make the unit pointless - it is a scouting unit. I am happy to have a unit whose purpose is to scout in the early game, and has no later utility - not every unit needs to be viable later game.
Lib nerf, Mine nerf, and a tank nerf (unable to pick up sieged - tanks die to shade/blink/disruptor) means that the matchup swings to Protoss dominance - OK as long as it is not 8 months until the Blizztards fix the matchup.
I will switch to watching for a while to see how bad it gets before thinking about playing.
Tbh, I hope that it does. Maybe this will get them think about the purpose of Adepts and they will consider reworking the shade.
|
im in favor of reaper nerfs but i think they would be nerfing a lot with this all at the same time in addition to buffing corruptors and hydra
|
It's funny how this buff will help corruptor beat skytoss very little (somewhat more microable vs storms i suppose?), while it's the perfect buff for it to overpower vikings.
ZvT air battles rely a lot on vikings being able to kite corruptors, especially when you're playing mech.
For a little reminder, the viking has 3.85 move speed. Just like a ravager off creep.
4.7 is MORE than a stimmed marine.
Can someone explain how we'll be supposed to kite stimmed marines with ravagers?
|
Its about time..Zerg is truly in bad shape at the moment ..Thanks Blizz for addressing the issues we are facing..
Hopefully the changes will shed some light for Zergs out there ! keep on fighting! <3 GL HF out there!
|
the game doesnt look good atm - it's not "elegant" if u know what i mean. Too much worker harass focused, adepts are a bad design imo, sh hard counter mech whitch last patch was designed to make viable. Zerg seems op yet zerg players cant win games latelly - game design seems bad right now. Look at sos quaterfinals games - very dissapointing imo, only the last game was good; the game seems balanced but it's not in a good spot - it's just my personal feeling and I've been following the scene non stop from wol beta. Hard to point one thing that's wrong...
|
On February 25 2017 03:25 Barnabaszu wrote:
the game doesnt look good atm - it's not "elegant" if u know what i mean. Too much worker harass focused, adepts are a bad design imo, sh hard counter mech whitch last patch was designed to make viable. Zerg seems op yet zerg players cant win games latelly - game design seems bad right now. Look at sos quaterfinals games - very dissapointing imo, only the last game was good; the game seems balanced but it's not in a good spot - it's just my personal feeling and I've been following the scene non stop from wol beta. Hard to point one thing that's wrong...
On February 24 2017 20:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Spamable aoe on an early game unit which can jump cliffs and heals itself out of combat. Just think about that for a second
its Red Alert 3 inside a Starcraft game! maybe they can give the Reaper a sword too! its the problem with game sequels in general you have to come up with new cutting edge stuff like Colos, Reapers, Motherships to stretch the boundaries of how you think about the game. Then, the end result comes off as gimmicky.
i play SC2 with a bunch of people who love RTS and have very little free time. We play 2v2s together. We all have every game in the trilogy and we all play WoL 2v2s as a group together. As long as Blizzard keeps maintaining the WoL servers there is really nothing Blizzard can do to help us.
although i play and enjoy LotV 1v1s i can't talk these people into playing LotV 2v2s.
On February 24 2017 23:36 DeadByDawn wrote:I am happy to have a unit whose purpose is to scout in the early game, and has no later utility - not every unit needs to be viable later game.
i'd like Attack Dogs and Russian WarBears as well.. but it'll never happen... alas i can only dream. 
|
See that is what i meant No talk about the reaper, the ability, how it affects the game or anything
I never played Red Alert 3 so that reference is lost on me. I care about sc2 though and in sc2 the reaper got a grenade because people wanted the unit to be relevant after the early game. Well that did not happen, instead we got TvT gamble and TvZ abuse. I think the design failed.
|
On February 25 2017 03:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:See that is what i meant No talk about the reaper, the ability, how it affects the game or anything I never played Red Alert 3 so that reference is lost on me. I care about sc2 though and in sc2 the reaper got a grenade because people wanted the unit to be relevant after the early game. Well that did not happen, instead we got TvT gamble and TvZ abuse. I think the design failed.
it does a nice job of dealing with zerglings at the very start of the game. so i don't know about removing the ability. how about removing all of the Reaper's abilities except cliff jumping and just improving its basic attack and health stats?
i think its a symptom of sequel-itis. if its RA3 its the 3rd game in the series and Red Alert is by its nature a gimmicky game/franchise. My view of what should be done with the Reaper is earlier in the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
