EPTCommunity Feedback Update- April 13 - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Dracover
Australia177 Posts
| ||
|
Mahanaim
Korea (South)1002 Posts
Either the CD or health nerf seems reasonable if done at a small amount as presented in the bluepost. | ||
|
showstealer1829
Australia3123 Posts
| ||
|
jy_9876543210
265 Posts
There are many subtleties, for example, how much shield do you lose when you start to shade? how much shield do you lose over time when you're shading? how much shield do you lose when you finish the shading? It should make the game more strategic and make it balanced as well, IMO. | ||
|
jy_9876543210
265 Posts
On April 14 2017 11:35 jy_9876543210 wrote: Rather than nerfing the CD or HP, I prefer the ideas on nerfing the shield. Every time you shade, you lose some shield. If you shade repeatedly, it will decrease the same amount repeatedly until it's zero, and it regains after some time just like when it's attacked. It will keep all the choices (to shade or not to shade, when to shade, where to shade) but require much more calculations and do the nerfing job as well. There are many subtleties, for example, how much shield do you lose when you start to shade? how much shield do you lose over time when you're shading? how much shield do you lose when you finish the shading? Nerfing the HP will make the early defense for protoss harder, and nerfing the CD doesn't affect the fact that the shading of a lot of adepts is too powerful in the mid game. Instead, this way it should make the game more strategic and make it balanced as well, IMO. | ||
|
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
United States257 Posts
| ||
|
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
United States257 Posts
On April 14 2017 12:27 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: Omg people listen to me. Buff the adept but get rid of cancel shade option. To offset this nerf, increase the starting speed of observers, redesign Disrupters so there is some guaranteed damage. | ||
|
yht9657
1810 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
Also, the sheer amount of salty whiners playing every race never ceases to amaze me. The instant any nerf of any kind is proposed for their own race, they just start their bitchy chorus. Thought Protoss was slightly better in that regard, but apparently not. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5226 Posts
On April 14 2017 03:08 Olli wrote: Nothing about tanks, great stuff. One month of Protoss doing well vs Terran and they're patching, 4 months of tanks wrecking Protoss and still nothing. Classic Blizzard, only listening to the loudest balance whine which always, always, always comes from the Terran part of the community. You have to nerf tanks if you're nerfing adepts, or we'll be right back at 40% winrate for PvT. 45% winrate is the norm. Everyone is used to it. When it gets to 50/50 everyone feels off. Terrans feel like they never win and Protoss players feel like the matchup is too easy. I'm being 100% serious here, there is a real psychological phenomenon behind this. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
45% winrate is the norm. Everyone is used to it. When it gets to 50/50 everyone feels off. Terrans feel like they never win and Protoss players feel like the matchup is too easy. I'm being 100% serious here, there is a real psychological phenomenon behind this. If what you say is true, then everyone must feel extremely strange right now. Because PvT is at 57%. | ||
|
Alienship
China28 Posts
On April 14 2017 10:10 StraKo wrote: I would prefer an adept redesign to make it an useful unit without relying on such a frustrating, gimmicky and honestly just stupid spell like shade. But if we can only choose between CD nerf and HP nerf, I'd go with the HP nerf. Adepts are too efficient in both harassment and straight up engagements. Adept play can quickly snowball out of control, if you take harassment damage, because protoss doesn't has to transition out of them, he can just keep building more adepts to overwhelm you with a follow up push. This obviously wouldn't be a problem, if adepts couldn't shade through every defense... Agree. Long ago when LotV started, adept was a unit that excelled at scouting, harassing through multi-tasking, and straight-up engagement. Its first nerf addressed its harassing power and the second nerf addressed its scouting. I think it would be reasonable to reduce the overall health of adept by 10 or 15 points, meanwhile empowering zealot and / or stalker. Adept is most effective in straight-up engagement when a cluster of it surround and squeeze in the enemy line. Reducing its health should make it less powerful when used this way. There are few ways that the charge ability can be empowered: 1) adding a temporal effect that increases the shield of zealot by 20 for 5 seconds; 2) when a charging zealot hits the target, the target is "frozen" for 1.5 seconds. These aren't necessary viable options. I hope my suggestions can inspire more ideas to change the gateway units. | ||
|
tabibitoto
5 Posts
Reducing the Adept’s base armor, would be more effective than reducing their HP because a well positioned opponent will be able to gun them down more quickly. This nerf by itself is unlikely to be enough, because often time it’s as much about the number of adepts as it is about their ability to inflict damage. That’s why both the cost and the duration of Glaives needs to be increased. Right now, Glaives is the Protoss equivalent of stim, yet not only is it the fastest upgrade you can get from a Twilight, it’s also the cheapest. Increasing the time it takes to get Glaives to 121 sec, and the cost to 150/150 or more, means that Terran/Zerg get an extra production cycle before the Protoss attack (who now has fewer Adepts because more resources have already been spent on upgrades). That should be enough – me thinks – and it would be a step towards making the Adept a more differentiated unit from the Zealot, a unit that has already gone extinct in certain matchups. | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
forces static defense. I think any group of zealots is needlessly hard to use in an even game. | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
| ||
|
Lightrush
Bulgaria164 Posts
| ||
|
Cptn wet pants
Belgium47 Posts
Also late game T needs some love too by adressing factory units; I don't think they need straight up hp, def or atk buffs, but a reduction in supply required and training time for tanks and thors (maybe even an upgrade so they can be reactored ?) would help a lot in replenishing those armies. Depending how this all affects balance future changes to nerf liberators could take place. We will just have to see I guess | ||
|
hiroshOne
Poland425 Posts
On April 14 2017 14:46 nanaoei wrote: would like to try a game where zealot legs upgrade is put back in, charge taken away. forces static defense. I think any group of zealots is needlessly hard to use in an even game. Making Zealot's speed BW like has no point in the game where warping tech exists. You can warp Zealots in every point on map with warprism. In BW Zealot legs were necessary to bring units from your production to battlefield faster. In sc2 with warpin there is no need to do that, as your gateway production can be everywhere with warprism. From PvZ and PvT perspective- Adpet needs both- CD on shade nerf and HP nerf. All u need to do is to make Zealots a unit with buffering damage abilities and make Adept more mobile/scout/harras unit. If u want to nerf siege tank- just bring back siege mode upgrade as it was in WOL. This will nerf tank timings which will give Toss and Zerg time to get proper counter (if scouted) | ||
|
Uncas23
13 Posts
But nerfing hitpoints and stuff would hurt too much. The problem with this is seige tanks. Adepts are the only relevant counter to siege tank pushes because you don't need to research shading like charge. Another solution is nerfing adepts to death as people want but than we need charge as a given ability for zealots. Just to compare: Why don't we nerf Marines all the time? They are the Terran adepts, the core of the army and super strong at harrassing. I think people complain about adepts because they are kind of new and a core unit. Nobody complains about Marines or banelings because people are used to them. And I currently play Terran. | ||
|
PPN
France248 Posts
On April 14 2017 07:07 Athenau wrote: There were two months (not four) where PvT winrates hovered near 40%: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ The last two periods were 49.72% and 57.08% respectively. http://aligulac.com/periods/185/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all http://aligulac.com/periods/186/?sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=all I'm talking about from September 2016 though I forgot that in November things went back to normal for a short while. Also even as far as from beta Protoss got shafted for long periods on Lotv (early Lotv good times in PvZ lol). Unlike Terrans, Protoss players are not whiny enough. Probably a habit of being badmouthed for no good reason ever since BW. Maybe Protoss players should start to be whiny too. On April 14 2017 13:15 pvsnp wrote: If what you say is true, then everyone must feel extremely strange right now. Because PvT is at 57%. Way to cherrypick whatever time interval suits your argument. I could easily do the same especially lately. Take a full month or bigger time intervals since February and you'll see the Lib+WM nerf brought us back closer to balance than before (periods 182+183 before WM nerfperiods 184+185 is about 49%, periods 186+187 is probably going to be closer to 52%) but somehow Terrans are not satisfied until they dominate in unreasonable proportions. | ||
| ||
