EPTIt beats turtling with tanks and turrets.
And it certainly beats quitting the game for months because of SHs, but that's another story.
Community Feedback Update - March 30 - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
It beats turtling with tanks and turrets. And it certainly beats quitting the game for months because of SHs, but that's another story. | ||
|
RaFox17
Finland4581 Posts
On April 01 2017 01:16 c0sm0naut wrote: 1. more terran nerfs 2. random zerg buffs in a matchup they are not struggling in anyone want to enlighten me as to why zerg players can drop me with lings on 3 base vs 2 base while taking a 4th base ZvP and thats fine but getting a lot of value out of archon shields/ravens which are both really expensive units with big commitment of production time/gas/APM is not ok? im not talking about low masters or mid masters zergs. im talking about high mmr players who are dropping me with zerglings/banelings while being equal on economy, buying ling upgrades which i couldnt even dream about investing into my forge and forcing me to warp in stalkers or lose the game to nonstop drops/probe pulls?? anyone see solar lose 5 roaches/tons of queens to sOs's first warp prism? and then go on to win the game? literally just made 25 roaches and walked across the map and the game was over because the matchup is being balanced around zerg players mashing f2 and following a warp prism around the map while protoss chronos out immortals n techs to templars and hopes nothing attacks him. gets attacked and his army has to crab walk/360 congaline just to get out of the wall that you have to make to not automatically lose on the the game to mineral units blizzard: "we noticed that one strategy was more popular than others in PvZ, so we decided we would nerf it. However we are not fond about the idea of nerfing adepts or warp prism pick up range, instead we are putting an upgrade into the game that will forever change, yet again, how warp prisms work and this will hopefully massively gimp protoss in pvz" Where do you see pro zergs dropping lings while taking a fourth and protoss just sitting home and unable to handle the drop? | ||
|
WeddingEpisode
United States356 Posts
On April 01 2017 01:19 ihatevideogames wrote: What's wrong with massing Thors? It beats turtling with tanks and turrets. And it certainly beats quitting the game for months because of SHs, but that's another story. Nothing, it's probably their cost, supply cost, and size make them less popular. | ||
|
Scarlett`
Canada2393 Posts
On March 31 2017 19:11 reneg wrote: That is literally what the entire PvZ section is about? They say adepts are too prevent, and are looking at ways to address it without outright nerfing the adepts adepts 2 shotting drones (and 2shot scv with +1) is one of the biggest issues though and has needed a nerf forever if anything else, mothership basically ends the game in pvz as theres no reliable detection (such as scan/revelation) for zerg and is the biggest reason late game skytoss/storm is unbeatable | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
On April 01 2017 02:11 Scarlett` wrote: adepts 2 shotting drones (and 2shot scv with +1) is one of the biggest issues though and has needed a nerf forever This +1 Adepts being as good as they are pretty much prevents any buffs ever going to the Zealot/Stalker (<---desperately needs a buff) which is just the same old same old with Protoss, oddly scaling Gateway units that are super strong early game but useless in the late game where all they want is a Carrier/Archon/Templar deathball because it's unbeatable even in it's own mirror match. Buffing the Stalker and nerfing the Adept seems like the most sensible way to increase meta diversity in ZvP, especially with buffed Hydralisks, I see no real reason that power cannot be shifted a bit away from the Adept to the Stalker, which to me is a real high skill cap unit (blink) where as Adepts while requiring skill are more of a gimmick (the shade takes micro but it applies "fake" but real pressure) so no clue why the Stalker isn't getting love. Oh, and Carriers just need to be straight up nerfed, they are OP in every match up, once again, not sure where the balance team's hesitance on nerfing units that are OP stems from. In Heroes of the Storm Blizzard is very proactive about buffing and nerfing problematic heroes and lo and behold, amazing balance AND amazing meta diversity (arguable in high level HOTS but whatever) MY proposal to make Protoss more well rounded... 1. Nerf Adepts in whatever way is appropriate (make them 3 shot workers and less tanky) 2. Give Stalkers a small buff vs light units so they scale better against bio/zerg armies 3. Redesign the Sentry into a mobile shield battery, remove Force Field, buff it's damage so it can function more like a frontline version of the BW medic, keeping small groups of early game gateway units alive and rewarding good micro (not allowing your units to take hull damage) Oh, and obviously nerf the Carrier. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
That is literally what the entire PvZ section is about? They say adepts are too prevent, and are looking at ways to address it without outright nerfing the adepts Just as long as Adepts are nerfed already, they are obnoxiously shitty to both play and watch en masse. Buff Stalkers or other gateway tech if necessary. Getting very sick of always either Adept/Phoenix or Adepts slaughtering drones. There are so many ways to put in small nerfs without crippling them anyhow. Increase Glaives research time, increase shade cooldown time, WP slow warpin, etc etc. A health or shield nerf would be appropriate too, they are so tanky. On the plus side, it's good to see so much focus on the Adept, hopefully Blizzard will take notice and nerf. Same with Carrier. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On March 31 2017 09:23 Lexender wrote: 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" No it's, more : maybe don't buff a race that has won 80% of the last premier tournament from patch 3.8 ? Seems to be common sense no ? If they really want to change things, if you give some race one buff, give the other another to compensate, that's the way you balance. If you want to nerf the harass, do it for every race. If you want better anti-air, do it for every race. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
On March 31 2017 11:14 kirayao wrote: The problem is always that Protoss could only built Stargate units to counter Stargate units. This is really one of the glaring issues with SC2, across all races and matchups. When air units counter air units it creates stale and boring unit interactions. The strength of air units should be two things: the fact that only certain units can attack them, and the fact they can move freely over any part of the map. Air units and compositions should play a supporting role, not a primary role, and ground based anti-air should be strong. Marines countering Mutalisks requires so much more skill for both players and invites more innovative play than the interaction of Phoenixes countering Mutalisks. | ||
|
Brighman
1 Post
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17246 Posts
On March 31 2017 19:27 Turb0Sw4g wrote: Thor It's already good versus light air. The High-Impact Payload transformation is a bit lacking though. A good change imo would be to move the Lock-On mechanic from the Cyclone to the Thor and merge it with High-Impact Payload. This obviously implies moving shot and a significant range boost. Both of which are good because the Thor is so clunky and slow. i like this idea. or even more basic, the Thor can move and shoot air units in general with no specific ability. like that Diamondback Tank. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
On April 01 2017 03:00 BronzeKnee wrote: This is really one of the glaring issues with SC2, across all races and matchups. When air units counter air units it creates stale and boring unit interactions. The strength of air units should be two things: the fact that only certain units can attack them, and the fact they can move freely over any part of the map. Air units and compositions should play a supporting role, not a primary role, and ground based anti-air should be strong. Marines countering Mutalisks requires so much more skill for both players and invites more innovative play than the interaction of Phoenixes countering Mutalisks. If there was a bible of Starcraft truth this would be in there somewhere. +1 and completely agree, aerial armies being countered by aerial armies is lame and has been lame for a long time. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
No it's, more : maybe don't buff a race that has won 80% of the last premier tournament from patch 3.8 ? Seems to be common sense no ? If they really want to change things, if you give some race one buff, give the other another to compensate, that's the way you balance. If you want to nerf the harass, do it for every race. If you want better anti-air, do it for every race. You are missing his point, and the point of Blizzard putting in this patch. The Bluepost specifically says: "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." Blizzard knows that the current balance is pretty good. What is not good, and what they are trying to fix, is the crappy Adepts-for-everything meta, and the equally crappy Carriers-for-everything meta. Which is why this update is full of good things for everyone that is not a tunnel-visioned Protoss player only thinking about winning and not about his own shitty PvP, PvZ, and PvT meta. These changes are being made to help Protoss. The point is NOT balance. The point is variety. | ||
|
91matt
United Kingdom147 Posts
On April 01 2017 03:00 BronzeKnee wrote: This is really one of the glaring issues with SC2, across all races and matchups. When air units counter air units it creates stale and boring unit interactions. The strength of air units should be two things: the fact that only certain units can attack them, and the fact they can move freely over any part of the map. Air units and compositions should play a supporting role, not a primary role, and ground based anti-air should be strong. Marines countering Mutalisks requires so much more skill for both players and invites more innovative play than the interaction of Phoenixes countering Mutalisks. they shouldve increased the supply of certain air units years ago | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17246 Posts
| ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
On April 01 2017 03:39 pvsnp wrote: You are missing his point, and the point of Blizzard putting in this patch. The Bluepost specifically says: "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." Blizzard knows that the current balance is pretty good. What is not good, and what they are trying to fix, is the crappy Adepts-for-everything meta, and the equally crappy Carriers-for-everything meta. Which is why this update is full of good things for everyone that is not a tunnel-visioned Protoss player only thinking about winning and not about his own shitty PvP, PvZ, and PvT meta. These changes are being made to help Protoss. The point is NOT balance. The point is variety. And i don't see how there will be less mass adepts or less mass carriers with these propositions. And by the way, i play zerg. Sure i must be happy with a nerf of warp with Warp prism, but let's be honest, it will make Protoss weaker while it won't encourage them to do less adepts/carrier. The archons drop won't be really weaker while it will unbalance for sure PvT. As snute mention i would prefer some inversion of the shield/hp of warp prism. | ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16033 Posts
Blizzard does what the community wants and adds a strong gateway unit and now the community complains again and doesn't want toss to have a strong gateway unit anymore. Further proof that no matter what blizzard does, the community complains anyway. I wish Blizzard would just do their thing and not listen to the community as much. | ||
|
Weltall
Italy83 Posts
If there is 1 viable build, why nerf it to promote other builds? If there is 1 playstylei it's just because other are not effective. I would rather see some protoss buffs/changes overall, because they have really few options compared to other races. | ||
|
MiCroLiFe
Norway275 Posts
On April 01 2017 04:42 Weltall wrote: There is so much nonsense. If there is 1 viable build, why nerf it to promote other builds? If there is 1 playstylei it's just because other are not effective. I would rather see some protoss buffs/changes overall, because they have really few options compared to other races. is this a troll? Protoss can use every unit in the roster and its stil viable.. terrans have ONE. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
And i don't see how there will be less mass adepts or less mass carriers with these propositions. And by the way, i play zerg. Sure i must be happy with a nerf of warp with Warp prism, but let's be honest, it will make Protoss weaker while it won't encourage them to do less adepts/carrier. The archons drop won't be really weaker while it will unbalance for sure PvT. As snute mention i would prefer some inversion of the shield/hp of warp prism. Well the idea is nerf Adepts and Carriers, either directly or indirectly through shade/WP/Void Rays, etc. Blizzard has not mentioned any specific numbers yet, so I think it's a bit premature to say that "it will make Protoss weaker w/o encouraging less adepts/carrier" like you did. Why not just wait and see before assuming worst-case? | ||
| ||
