|
On March 31 2017 09:17 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 08:12 Lexender wrote:On March 31 2017 07:39 FrkFrJss wrote:
Like some of the others on here, I think you have to be very careful where you nerf Protoss. I agree that against zerg, the warp prism + adept is hard to deal with.
However, any nerf to the warp prism whether it be health/speed/pickup range (health was already nerfed, by the way), is a nerf in PvT, where Terran really doesn't need any more help there against Protoss. On March 31 2017 07:28 Tyrhanius wrote:On March 31 2017 05:12 Olli wrote:
Pretty terrible as far as Protoss is concerned. PvZ variety is perfectly fine, and it's not going to improve if they take away potential Protoss openings without giving anything in return. No idea what they were thinking there. Meanwhile in PvT, there's exactly one somewhat reliable playstyle in phoenix/adept, everything else dies to tank pushes. How about addressing that first? With these propositions Terran will be the big winner of the patch : Better thor vs mutas with both bio and mech. Also thor could become a really good counter to phoenix adept, he can't be lifted by phoenix, deal + light on AOE, has 400 HP and 1 armor, so it needs 45 shots of adept to die, it's repairable, and has a good 66 DPS (same than sieged liberator) before the patch... The oracle into void to defend liberator/tanks push could be also weaker when void charge is on cooldown. And the WP nerf won't just affect PvZ but aslo PvT. Terran has won 4 tournaments on the last 5, they are not really on trouble. Stop looking at it from balance view. If something needs to be nerfed for terran or buffed for toss after the changes thats ok, as long as the changes makes sense. Not making changes and letting meta get stale for months just because some winrates its not the way to go. Nobody has said they shouldn't do anything, but we begin to be used the way they proceed. The change won't be lived until 2-3 months, and then we have to wait for 2-3months to get the " corrective patch" because it's too strong, and usually it takes 2-3 patchs to correct something, so well it will take around 1 year from the change to the moment it will be balanced... Better try to warn them about the consequences before the patch, rather than waiting 9months-12months.
This isn't a patch is just "things we might be looking into" community update, and your post isn't warning anything is just "don't change anything because terrans just won tournaments"
|
The raven change may, in fact, be a buff at higher levels as pro players are quite good at pulling workers before they take too much damage, however, if the turret is around for a longer period of time it will stop the workers from mining longer also.
It might be interesting to increase the size of the turret itself, allowing players to block it with structures or units and also making it more of a strategic decision when to drop.
|
This isn't a patch is just "things we might be looking into" community update, and your post isn't warning anything is just "don't change anything because terrans just won tournaments"
To add to that, TY won before the WM nerf. Stats is the most recent big-tournament champion and last time I checked he doesn't play Terran.
|
On March 31 2017 08:30 pvsnp wrote:
Raven
Yeah Autoturrets have had way too high DPS for way too long. Ravens are supposed to be support units not harassing ones.
A turret nerf and compensating buff to other abilities would help redefine them as defensive units.
¿Compensating?
ALL three abilities of Raven are OP.
|
I think if someone like soO can get to 5 GSL Finals and lose to 4 Protosses then that should of already had David Kims spider sense tingling.
|
¿Compensating?
ALL three abilities of Raven are OP.
HotS PDD was OP. LotV one is trash.
|
Thor
There is potential to the Thor change, but please in balance testing test it alongside the other units you want it to work well with. The problem with Thors in compositions is that they're so clunky they don't attack properly. For instance, previously the single-target AA damage was buffed, but anyone who has used Thors whether in Bio or Mech will tell you that vs. Carriers, Broodlords, or any other powerful air they mostly just walk in circles and don't attack. Also, the AI of the Thor is so bad that you will see it targeting overlords when it's being killed by Hydras.
To me, the answer for the Thor is one of two things.
(A) make an upgrade where Thors can attack air and ground simultaneously.
or
(B) specialize the unit to make it more powerful, such as:
(i.) massively powerful vs. air with almost no ground attack,
(ii.) extremely tanky
(iii.) you could make it powerful vs. ground and give the anti-air capability to a different unit.
(iv.) simultaneous targeting of 2 ground units, with lowered AA capability
In any case, I think the Thor needs more of an overhaul than a buff to its anti-air. The AI needs to be looked at. Remember that a few months ago the AA splash radius was increased from .5 to .6, and there was discussion that this was going to be a big deal. It hasn't been. This is a unit that needs basic changes.
Raven
This change sounds fine.
PvP
I would love to see options in all matchups for early aggression. In LOTV, Zerg has quite a few early game options with Ravagers and Overlord drops added to early ling bane options, but in the long term it only makes sense to me that there should be options for multiple timing attacks and all-ins for all 3 races.
One thing I think could be explored is each race having some option similar to the way a single overlord can be turned into a slow "dropperlord" It's a modest investment for a modest harass option. Perhaps make an option for the Mothership Core to transform it to a more aggressive style that would function like a "fighting warp prism" of sorts. In this case it would lose all its defensive abilities as it gains offense. This would need to be a one-way transformation so it would be a definite decision in the game, but I think it may have merit.
For Terran, This could be applied to giving bunkers the option to increase cargo space on a single bunker for a cost for instance, or perhaps an extra turret on top of it. If not this, I'm pretty convinced at this point that a "Hellbat/Flaming Betty" that when transformed has more armor but can't move at all would be more useful than the current Hellbat.
PvZ
I play Terran, so I know almost nothing about PvZ. 
|
On March 31 2017 09:30 pvsnp wrote:HotS PDD was OP. LotV one is trash.
Its still stronger than any avarage ability in the game.
Its also disturbing that no one mentions how broken is the new seeker missile with the upgrade.
|
What kind of feedback have them been listening to? What are they thinking? Nerfing adept and warp prism will definitely make PvT even more invariant. The reason for the "lack of" variance in meta is that nothing other than adept and warp prism is efficient enough, especially in PvT. Even in PvZ, adept / warp prism harassment is an essential component, since there are no other effective ways.
If there is anyone truly responsible for this scenario, it is Blizzard. Instead of kicking the ball to players for the lack of variance in meta, they should offer us more choices!
|
Its still stronger than any avarage ability in the game.
Its also disturbing that no one mentions how broken is the new seeker missile with the upgrade.
Lol, what exactly constitutes an "average" ability? Pretty much all of them are situational.
Let me put it this way: I cannot remember ever having seen a PDD thrown down in a LotV pro game. Not saying it's never happened, but certainly not anytime recently. There's no reason at all to use them. Compare with spells like storm or fungal or autoturret, which are in pretty much every game.
Seeker missiles? I barely remember what those are. Certainly haven't seen them any more recently than PDDs. And what exactly is"new" about seeker missiles, which haven't changed since LotV was released?
|
On March 31 2017 10:39 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +Its still stronger than any avarage ability in the game.
Its also disturbing that no one mentions how broken is the new seeker missile with the upgrade. Lol, what exactly constitutes an "average" ability? Pretty much all of them are situational. Let me put it this way: I cannot remember ever having seen a PDD thrown down in a LotV pro game. Not saying it's never happened, but certainly not anytime recently. There's no reason at all to use them. Compare with spells like storm or fungal or autoturret, which are in pretty much every game. Seeker missiles? I barely remember what those are. Certainly haven't seen them any more recently than PDDs. And what exactly is"new" about seeker missiles, which haven't changed since LotV was released?
Just watch avilo's stream, and you'll see enough pdds and seeker missiles for a lifetime.
|
One more thing, the real problem is not the lack of variance in meta, but the lack of effective variance in meta. As long as Blizzard doesn't realize this, or it doesn't acknowledge this, the game will continue to be stale, and even more staler. The problem today concerns adept and warp prism, both of which become unfortunate targets of laments from the community. Who knows which unit or strategy will suffer from this fire of hatred in the future.
|
What kind of feedback have them been listening to? What are they thinking? Nerfing adept and warp prism will definitely make PvT even more invariant. The reason for the "lack of" variance in meta is that nothing other than adept and warp prism is efficient enough, especially in PvT. Even in PvZ, adept / warp prism harassment is an essential component, since there are no other effective ways.
If there is anyone truly responsible for this scenario, it is Blizzard. Instead of kicking the ball to players for the lack of variance in meta, they should offer us more choices!
They've been listening to the feedback about how mass Adepts are incredibly stupid to play against and incredibly stupid to watch in pro games. About how Skytoss is cancer. In short, they've been listening to people who are not massively biased Protoss players.
Sure balance is important, but if these changes break the balance Stalkers or other gateway units can be buffed to compensate for adepts, and they already mentioned buffing Tempests. The important thing is shifting the terrible meta.
Also they should offer us more choices!
What the hell do you think Blizzard is doing with this update?
"....favoring skytoss compositions too heavily.....lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays....opponent has limited options except to build a similar army.....encourage players to build a more varied army composition.....don’t think we’re seeing enough variety in the early stages of this matchup.......we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup..."
To spell it out: Blizzard is changing certain units to shake up the current meta because a handful of builds are near-exclusively used at the moment. I.e. they are offering more choices.
|
Just watch avilo's stream, and you'll see enough pdds and seeker missiles for a lifetime.
I did say "pro game" and avilo is not a pro, his own delusions notwithstanding. I made the mistake of visiting avilo's stream once and saw a 2015 cancer mech throwback followed by an infantile rant that Donald Trump would have been proud of. Never went back.
|
8751 Posts
Protoss vs Zerg Matchup
We don’t think we’re seeing enough variety in the early stages of this matchup as we are frequently seeing Adept openers with Warp Prisms, followed by DT/Archon harass with Warp Prisms. While we aren’t necessarily seeing an imbalance in win rates, we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup. We are still deciding what the best course of action would be here, but some early thoughts are to look at reducing the effectiveness of the Psionic Transfer ability, or having the Warp Prism have a “slow warp” power field until an upgrade is researched.
Risk vs reward here seems way off. The matchup is balanced and those standard openers involve active gameplay with micro and tactical decisions and little different builds to actually get those units out. It's really not that bad of a situation as far as having standard openers goes. And the first brainstorm responses are two things that'd be pretty significant nerfs not only to a matchup that is apparently balanced atm, but some big repercussions for PvT and PvP. In PvP they say the problem is that turtle on 3 bases into stargate play is too powerful and then they're thinking about reducing the effectiveness of adepts and warp prisms? Only helps the turtle.
What a tiny problem to try fixing with such potentially problematic adjustments.
|
On March 31 2017 05:05 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
Protoss vs Protoss Matchup
The PvP matchup, especially in the EU region, has been favoring skytoss compositions too heavily. We’re seeing players take 3 bases, then turtle with Void Rays and Disruptors while building towards the late game composition including Carriers. We think part of the problem here is that there is a lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays. Stalkers are the primary non-Stargate option and Void Rays are fairly effective against them. Another part of the problem is that once a protoss player builds the late game composition with Carriers, an opponent has limited options except to build a similar army. We’re thinking we could potentially relocate some of the +armored power from Void Rays into the Prismatic Alignment ability to create better windows of opportunity to attack while they are on cooldown. In addition, we want Tempests to be more effective against capital ships to encourage players to build a more varied army composition.
This is the most nonsense part.
As the capital of the Protoss arsenal, carriers should and ought to be strong.
The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units.
Mass Phoenix could only be countered by mass Phoenix, and now BZ is still evading the fact
it is Stalker should be better against air.
Prompting Protoss to go Stargate when the opponent Protoss goes Stargate is the same as
build a similar army. There is no difference in
"You Carrier, I Carrier" or "You Tempest, I Tempest".
At same time, the fore one seems to have more interesting!
PLEASE, Stop playing with Tempests, it will only gives even more stale gameplay.
I would rather like to see 100 Carrier PvP than any Tempest PvP play.
|
The PvZ adept wp+archon build is the viable one, not the bad one. Fix the problem, don't mess with the only solution. Tempests are fine, everybody hates that thing.
If this patch goes forward, it would be a huge retrocess. Again..
And for f*** sake...remove the thor and put the goliath, it's 6 years late.
|
8751 Posts
tbh this airtoss trend is trash imo. hopefully i can show my solution to it against someone good at austin :D
Regardless, the thing Europeans are doing in PvP has not been around that long. I mean maybe in some form or fashion you can trace it back pretty far, but this is WAY too quick of a reaction by Blizzard thinking they need to change the rules of the game before letting the players try to sort it out themselves with the current rules. I know Blizzard is trying to learn a new rhythm to their patches but this one seems too soon to be floating out to the community. It's still in the "keep an eye on it" phase.
|
On March 31 2017 10:51 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +What kind of feedback have them been listening to? What are they thinking? Nerfing adept and warp prism will definitely make PvT even more invariant. The reason for the "lack of" variance in meta is that nothing other than adept and warp prism is efficient enough, especially in PvT. Even in PvZ, adept / warp prism harassment is an essential component, since there are no other effective ways.
If there is anyone truly responsible for this scenario, it is Blizzard. Instead of kicking the ball to players for the lack of variance in meta, they should offer us more choices! They've been listening to the feedback about how mass Adepts are incredibly stupid to play against and incredibly stupid to watch in pro games. About how Skytoss is cancer. In short, they've been listening to people who are not massively biased Protoss players. Sure balance is important, but if these changes break the balance Stalkers or other gateway units can be buffed to compensate for adepts, and they already mentioned buffing Tempests. The important thing is shifting the terrible meta. Also What the hell do you think Blizzard is doing with this update? "....favoring skytoss compositions too heavily.....lack of options for protoss to attack into Void Rays....opponent has limited options except to build a similar army.....encourage players to build a more varied army composition.....don’t think we’re seeing enough variety in the early stages of this matchup.......we want to make sure that the meta doesn’t settle into a single strategy that gets used for every matchup..."To spell it out: Blizzard is changing certain units to shake up the current meta because a handful of builds are near-exclusively used at the moment. I.e. they are offering more choices.
I hope what they plan to do is really effective in regulating the game meta. As far as I recall, after the launch of LotV, Protoss players have fewer and fewer options in building an efficient army. I don't see anything in the post indicating a buff on units other than nerfing adept and warp prism. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I only have as much faith in one thing as what is offered.
Watching Starcraft played in the same way for a long time can be boring. It is human nature, and I do understand this. What I don't understand is why they don't address the issue of unit / strategy effectiveness, but solely focus on variance. As long as there is only limited number of ways to play a game so that one can be even with the opponent or slightly advantageous, most of other alternatives, no matter how elaborately they are designed, will be cast away.
|
On March 31 2017 10:18 Ransomstarcraft wrote:ThorThere is potential to the Thor change, but please in balance testing test it alongside the other units you want it to work well with. The problem with Thors in compositions is that they're so clunky they don't attack properly. For instance, previously the single-target AA damage was buffed, but anyone who has used Thors whether in Bio or Mech will tell you that vs. Carriers, Broodlords, or any other powerful air they mostly just walk in circles and don't attack. Also, the AI of the Thor is so bad that you will see it targeting overlords when it's being killed by Hydras. To me, the answer for the Thor is one of two things. (A) make an upgrade where Thors can attack air and ground simultaneously. or (B) specialize the unit to make it more powerful, such as: (i.) massively powerful vs. air with almost no ground attack, (ii.) extremely tanky (iii.) you could make it powerful vs. ground and give the anti-air capability to a different unit. (iv.) simultaneous targeting of 2 ground units, with lowered AA capability In any case, I think the Thor needs more of an overhaul than a buff to its anti-air. The AI needs to be looked at. Remember that a few months ago the AA splash radius was increased from .5 to .6, and there was discussion that this was going to be a big deal. It hasn't been. This is a unit that needs basic changes. RavenThis change sounds fine. PvPI would love to see options in all matchups for early aggression. In LOTV, Zerg has quite a few early game options with Ravagers and Overlord drops added to early ling bane options, but in the long term it only makes sense to me that there should be options for multiple timing attacks and all-ins for all 3 races. One thing I think could be explored is each race having some option similar to the way a single overlord can be turned into a slow "dropperlord" It's a modest investment for a modest harass option. Perhaps make an option for the Mothership Core to transform it to a more aggressive style that would function like a "fighting warp prism" of sorts. In this case it would lose all its defensive abilities as it gains offense. This would need to be a one-way transformation so it would be a definite decision in the game, but I think it may have merit. For Terran, This could be applied to giving bunkers the option to increase cargo space on a single bunker for a cost for instance, or perhaps an extra turret on top of it. If not this, I'm pretty convinced at this point that a "Hellbat/Flaming Betty" that when transformed has more armor but can't move at all would be more useful than the current Hellbat. PvZI play Terran, so I know almost nothing about PvZ.
All of this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
