EPTOn the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
Community Update - December Balance Changes - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NonY
8371 Posts
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2580 Posts
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs. Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way. For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades. I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal. | ||
|
zyce
United States649 Posts
It feels to me like Protoss players won't ever be able to have decent tools or units without them being moderated into the ground by Blizzard. I understand that most players are Z/T and complain about Protoss, but that shouldn't effect gameplay or balance philosophy. I still consider myself primarily a Protoss player, despite playing mostly Terran for the past year. I just can't stand the years of reactionary balance changes that put Protoss players in this ridiculous position of having to invent new ways to win games, and then nerfing those innovations at a slightly slower pace. I think it's important to keep the damage numbers stable if chronoboost is being nerfed all over again. I'd prefer Blizzard settle on a chronoboost timing, because it's highly ingrained into how I play - it's a timing that I have to build up over years, and it's incredibly annoying to have it changed mechanically and functionally so frequently. Ideally, it'd be exactly how it was in WoL. I don't particularly care if Terrans get angry when their marines don't insta-kill every gateway unit, or their air unit dies to our "new anti-air unit". We were told this would be a change to how the race operated, and to help compensate for overcharge. We'll now have completed the nerf of every single Protoss buff planned; instead, gve Protoss a proper early-game unit and ignore the endless lobbying by T/Z players and analyze some games with your eyeballs. Ignore the complaints and try to get some of your Protoss playerbase to return to the game and test it out, because we're tired of being beaten down by rhetoric-based patch changes that make the game frustrating and un-fun. Sorry for the negativity, I do appreciate that the game is being worked on but I'm really surprised - and frankly, angry - at these proposed changes. I can't imagine how any non-pro could ever keep up with it all. | ||
|
MrWayne
219 Posts
On December 11 2017 06:32 Lexender wrote: Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way. For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades. I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal. The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim. Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game. | ||
|
franzji
United States571 Posts
On December 11 2017 07:20 MrWayne wrote: The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim. Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game. To answer your question "Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines?", it more like... They don't exactly, but they do need to ultimately be better vs everything else. For example, with no mothership core protoss needs and effective way to defend proxy cyclones, proxy liberators, proxy rax, ect. You can no longer defend your main with your motheship core, instead you need to split off a unit to defend, making you weaker elsewhere. The way to compensate was the shield battery and the use of stalkers and kiting. Your comment "Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game" makes no sense because adepts are weak to many things that early-midgame terran can pump out: widow mines, liberators, cyclones, banshees, plus they need an upgrade to do good dps. The adept is in a weird state of being a midgame tanking unit for timing attacks or harrassment. Also one last thing, just saying "Why should the stalker be good vs. marines?" is just not fair. It's like saying "why should the marine be good vs ______" or any other unit. There's nothing wrong with having a core unit that is just.... good. I've already been saying for months and months that the stalker is one of the worst protoss units (pre 4.0). | ||
|
Azures
United Kingdom3 Posts
| ||
|
Skyro
United States1512 Posts
A lot of Protoss changes have been made that specifically target this early game PvT interaction (Adepts, Oracles, and now Stalkers) and as more and more tweaks are made it highlights to me at its core this is really a game design issue. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On December 11 2017 10:12 Skyro wrote: I am very confused on why there is such intense focus on early game stalker vs marine dynamics. Early game Terran has been weak since the dawn of SC2, this interaction only makes it easier to pick off the stray Marine or SCV here or there, whereas this nerf has much bigger ramifications in so many other unit interactions throughout the game. It's not like Terran doesn't have multiple other units that destroy Stalkers, and MMM still obliterates Stalkers in any straight up encounter. A lot of Protoss changes have been made that specifically target this early game PvT interaction (Adepts, Oracles, and now Stalkers) and as more and more tweaks are made it highlights to me at its core this is really a game design issue. So you're saying that Terran needs an earlygame buff? | ||
|
CNMGBProtoss
1 Post
On December 11 2017 10:12 Skyro wrote: I am very confused on why there is such intense focus on early game stalker vs marine dynamics. Early game Terran has been weak since the dawn of SC2, this interaction only makes it easier to pick off the stray Marine or SCV here or there, whereas this nerf has much bigger ramifications in so many other unit interactions throughout the game. It's not like Terran doesn't have multiple other units that destroy Stalkers, and MMM still obliterates Stalkers in any straight up encounter. A lot of Protoss changes have been made that specifically target this early game PvT interaction (Adepts, Oracles, and now Stalkers) and as more and more tweaks are made it highlights to me at its core this is really a game design issue. Can't agree more. man you are saying sth that all terran want to say.Protoss is gou bi and CNM | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5126 Posts
On December 08 2017 07:58 Olli wrote: Classic, triple nerf Protoss after less than one month of play, and simultaneously double buff Terran. That's not to say I dislike the individual changes, most of them are good. Just, as usual, complete overkill the second Protoss appears to be strong. It's actually kind of funny now. When the Adept was strong it had one month of play before it got massively nerfed. And it restored TvP to the 45-55% it was before the Adept came into mass usage. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On December 11 2017 14:26 BronzeKnee wrote: It's actually kind of funny now. When the Adept was strong it had one month of play before it got massively nerfed. And it restored TvP to the 45-55% it was before the Adept came into mass usage. Isn't 45-55% the optimal range for balance that Blizzard (and everyone) wants? Actually the real question is, what is the antecedent for "it" the first time it is used in the second sentence? Bonus points if you get the grammar joke. In any case, I approve of the balance team's approach. Rapid and decisive fixes are completely warranted after drastic design changes like 4.0. This kind of response is exactly what was needed after 3.8 as well, but the balance team dropped the ball last year. It's good to see them learning from their mistakes and correcting imbalance before the tournament season starts up in earnest. Hopefully they will continue to do so. | ||
|
ihatevideogames
305 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16535 Posts
On December 11 2017 15:41 ihatevideogames wrote: Can I just point out the fact that in 11 pages of discussion the Raven changes are very rarely mentioned? I think Blizzard might as well delete the unit from the game now and not much would change, maybe only in TvT. It's not exactly surprising that people discuss the changes that could make or break PvT rather than some raven tweaks. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia767 Posts
On December 11 2017 07:20 MrWayne wrote: The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim. Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game. Don't forget that the -10 from stim is usually mitigated by Medivacs, at the point where you have stim stalkers generally get shredded in a head on engagement. I don't actually mind the stalker changes though, the current fire rate feels a bit too slow to me. We will have to see how it plays out. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball? Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"  Well, I guess that's why there's a balance patch. | ||
|
Mun_Su
France2063 Posts
| ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On December 11 2017 16:50 Mun_Su wrote: Is the new patch on ? I'm always happy when protoss is nerfed, but this was a muc-needed patch. No, the new patch is not live. Not until the 19th, probably. Fortunately that is just in time for IEM qualifiers. | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia767 Posts
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball? Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!" Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible. | ||
|
pvsnp
7676 Posts
On December 11 2017 16:53 Myrddraal wrote: Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible. Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda. He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340 | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia767 Posts
On December 11 2017 16:54 pvsnp wrote: Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda. He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340 Ah right, I didn't see him on the sidebar so assumed he wasn't streaming atm. Cheers I'll have a look when I get the chance. | ||
| ||
