|
On December 11 2017 16:54 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 16:53 Myrddraal wrote: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. 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
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
|
On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 16:54 pvsnp wrote:On December 11 2017 16:53 Myrddraal wrote: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. 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 Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
You forgot Maru
|
On December 11 2017 17:06 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 11 2017 16:54 pvsnp wrote:On December 11 2017 16:53 Myrddraal wrote: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. 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 Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)? You forgot Maru
Most people have after the last six months.
|
On December 11 2017 17:06 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 17:06 pvsnp wrote:On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 11 2017 16:54 pvsnp wrote:On December 11 2017 16:53 Myrddraal wrote: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. 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 Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)? You forgot Maru Most people have after the last six months.
Can't really blame them tbh
|
In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
So no balance concerns there.
EDIT: I stand corrected, soO won that game with the followup allin. The mindgames are real. Shitty ravager rush confirmed shitty, but in the best possible way. Still no balance concerns.
|
On December 11 2017 17:17 pvsnp wrote:
In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
INno really invented it ?
Also what a shame that the balance patch won't kick before IEM qualifier :/
On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
Mvp won 2 of 3 GSL and his GSL World with TvT in Gom TvT area and Taeja isn't even a Starleague winner
|
Hey everyone!
First, I want to tell that I like that Blizzard is changing the game, because it makes it alive. If no changes were made than the game would simply die, or its core players mass would decrease massively.
In the same time, I think we all want game to be fun and fair. No race or units should be too strong, at which point you can mass it, then A + Click and win the game. At the same times there should be no units or upgrades, which are not rarely to none used.
Regarding December changes, I think changes are too limited, as if Blizzard thinks only how to balance TvP, forgetting that there are other match-ups. So, by nerfing protoss they are breaking PvZ, which already was a bit in favor of zerg, now will be unbalanced. Moreover, changes are not addressing the biggest problem of tvp, or tvz is the extinction of bio based armies, as they are almost unplayable, as specially in late game. So, lower is changes which I offer.
Terran.
New upgrade:
1. “advance Stim”, researched from tech lab, after Stim, fusion core required. After update marines will take minus 5hp, marauders -10hp. This is update is needed for late game as in late game medivac die very fast (from, stalker, phoenix, hydra, corruptors), and what is left is over stimed army which is trying to run away from ultras or colossus.
2. “advance Shields”, researched from tech lab, after combat shields, fusion core required, +10hp to marines and marauders, this address another problem of late game bio that terran units are too easily to die. At the same time this won’t affect either baneligs nor storms(marine will steal die from two banelings and one storm).
3. “advance Interference Matrix” – cost 150/150, after the update Ravens interference Matrix will drain 50 energy from opponents caster.
Existing upgrades:
1. “Drilling claws” – make the price 200/200, researched from tech lab(no armory is needed), - mines will stay invisible after the shoot. (it will open possibility for some terran cheese, but will make it very expensive and risky to do. (revert mines production time to 28.6)
2. “Infantry Weapon upgrade 3” will give Marauders +2(or+3 more tests are needed) for attack, instead of +1.
3. “Advance ballistics” – in antiair mode will give Libirator bonus vsLight, and vsShields (terrans air units are The Weakest in the game, at least in late game you can counter Mutas and Phoenixes.)
4. “Corvid Reactor” – delete from the game
5. “Neosteel Frame” – delete from the game
Units:
1. Reapers – rarely used, something needs to be done, perhaps KD8 charge cooldown time reduce from 14 to 10. (makes some cheese possible, but still very hard)
2. Battlercruiser – now almost no use, possibly increase attack range vs ground units from 6 to 8 (for late game harass)
Protoss
1. Keep stalkers as they are now(+2 per upgrade and damage)
2. Oracles (damage 15+10 light, damage type changed from normal to spell damage, build time 27.4)
3. Something needs to be done with chrono boost it is too strong in early game. My suggestion: keep chrone boost as it is now, but Nexus needs to be upgraded after “Cybernetics Core” is build. (similar to terran CC to Orbital Command) After upgrade Nexus can cast “Chrono Boost” and “Mass Recall”, starting energy 50.
I will stop here as, when started writing didn't thought it would be so long,so my respect to anyone who has read it to the end. Regarding Zerg I have some ides, but this post is already too long.Thank you.
|
On December 11 2017 17:40 Mun_Su wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 17:17 pvsnp wrote:
In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
INno really invented it ? Also what a shame that the balance patch won't kick before IEM qualifier :/ Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)? Mvp won 2 of 3 GSL and his GSL World with TvT in Gom TvT area and Taeja isn't even a Starleague winner
IIRC soO gave Inno credit for inventing the shitty ravager build on stream (dankshrine?). It's the one-base three-ravager rush I'm talking about.
The patch most likely goes live on Tuesday, December 19. The Korean qualifiers for IEM are on December 22-23.
|
On December 11 2017 17:59 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 17:40 Mun_Su wrote:On December 11 2017 17:17 pvsnp wrote:
In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
INno really invented it ? Also what a shame that the balance patch won't kick before IEM qualifier :/ On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)? Mvp won 2 of 3 GSL and his GSL World with TvT in Gom TvT area and Taeja isn't even a Starleague winner IIRC soO gave Inno credit for inventing the shitty ravager build on stream (dankshrine?). It's the one-base three-ravager rush I'm talking about. The patch most likely goes live on Tuesday, December 19. The Korean qualifiers for IEM are on December 22-23.
INno so strong at mindgame that he gave a shit build to Zerg so that they can lose more and more often.
Ok thanks so Korean will have 3 days to adapt
|
i think it's important to stick to the principle that change must be for a good reason
i don't buy into LOL or Dota's belief that change for change's sake to help keep the game fresh
if the game isn't fresh, that's because it lacks strategic depth.
it might have been important to buff underused units and strategies (carriers are a good example), but it is absurd to make lesser seen units completely unusable.
|
Ok, I went back and dug around through some old vods, and I can now confirm that INnoVation is in fact the inventor of the Shitty Ravager Build™.
During soO's winner's interview over TY in the first season of GSL this year, Gyuri specifically asks if soO invented the shitty ravager build, and soO gives Inno the credit for that. soO thought it was "an almost perfect build."
TL forumgoers, on the other hand, promptly named it the "shitty ravager build," so.....
|
Austria24417 Posts
Really not the thread to be discussing who soO credits with inventing a ravager build.
|
On December 11 2017 19:03 pvsnp wrote:
Ok, I went back and dug around through some old vods, and I can now confirm that INnoVation is in fact the inventor of the Shitty Ravager Build™.
During soO's winner's interview over TY in the first season of GSL this year, Gyuri specifically asks if soO invented the shitty ravager build, and soO gives Inno the credit for that. soO thought it was "an almost perfect build."
TL forumgoers, on the other hand, promptly named it the "shitty ravager build," so.....
To be honest this Ravager build was first invented by Polish Zerg Matiz, then adapted by Elazer and then used by soO. Innovation had nothing to do with that.
|
On December 11 2017 20:22 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 19:03 pvsnp wrote:
Ok, I went back and dug around through some old vods, and I can now confirm that INnoVation is in fact the inventor of the Shitty Ravager Build™.
During soO's winner's interview over TY in the first season of GSL this year, Gyuri specifically asks if soO invented the shitty ravager build, and soO gives Inno the credit for that. soO thought it was "an almost perfect build."
TL forumgoers, on the other hand, promptly named it the "shitty ravager build," so..... To be honest this Ravager build was first invented by Polish Zerg Matiz, then adapted by Elazer and then used by soO. Innovation had nothing to do with that.
During the interview after he beated TY in GSL 2017 S1 soO said that to Gyuri, that it was Inno who recommended him that build.
|
Austria24417 Posts
|
It's an interesting informative related discussion. Please, keep talking about an interesting build in a balance thread.
|
On December 11 2017 14:34 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 14:26 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Isn't 45-55% the optimal range for balance that Blizzard (and everyone) wants?
Yes, but only if Terran is at 55% for the match up.
|
8748 Posts
On December 11 2017 08:47 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2017 07:20 MrWayne wrote:On December 11 2017 06:32 Lexender wrote: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. 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, as youngjiddle explains, but I'll exound on i. 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).
Another way to answer the question "why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have. With 10 (15) and +1 per weapon upgrade, they weren't very good. Part of the redesign patch was to make stalkers better against light units so that they could be good all-around units, like marines are. That's why I'm asking why they're changing it to 13 (18). If someone then asks "why should they be good against marines?" it's just going full-circle and not making any progress. They should be good against marines because that was part of the redesign this year. That's a core change that I assumed would stick for a while and balance issues would be dealt with around it, so we could see what the game is like when the stalker is an actual good unit.
Is it actually good for the game? Who knows. It's way too early to tell. But now they're just reverting a major design change they made as a knee-jerk reaction to a balance issue. PvT success has been totally dependent on three things: oracle openings (gone), the new stalker being the key to a solid 3 base defensive build (gonna be gone), and chrono boost providing stronger openings (gonna be gone). I can see how they didn't intend oracles to do what they were doing, so I'm fine with that changing, but I don't understand how this wasn't what they envisioned for stalkers and chrono boost. If it's too strong, they should look for other ways to alter the win percentages. Giving us design changes and then simply taking them away when they're key to our strategies is just absurd. What if these are really good design changes? Just because the matchup happens to start out imbalanced, you're gonna revert your design changes instead of finding a way to keep the gameplay intact and tweaking the win percentages some other way?
Expounding on what youngjiddle already just explained: Adepts are a good way to deal with marines but they're pretty 1-dimensional units. If protoss has to make adepts in anticipation of terran making marines, I think terran is better off there, because adepts are more of a liability early-game than marines are. Hypothetically, we'd have to make adepts just to survive your marine pressure, whereas it's easy for you to survive early adept pressure. So it's just a survival tool for us against on specific thing, but then we are no threat to medivacs, not prepared for liberator harass, and they're also horrible against cyclones. If protoss doesn't get lucky with probe scouting and we can't tell if you're going marine pressure or cyclone pressure, god forbid we make adepts and 2 cyclones show up.
Remember also that adepts aren't really a great counter to marines until they get glaives and +1. If we're forced into doing that all the time, that gives the terran such a large window throughout early game and mid game when there's no blink. Protoss plays against protoss too -- we know how nice it is to harass a protoss that doesn't have blink.
|
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote:
"why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have
from the "design change" presentation for 4.0 they said
"Stalker:
With the removal of the Mothership Core we are also looking into Protoss’s other early game units. In particular we wanted to try sharpening the role of the Stalker, and make it more of a shoot and move unit with sniping capabilities. To do this we are slowing its attack rate but increasing its damage per shot. "
I don't know if you have inside info on additional reasons for the stalker change, but making it better against marines wasn't part of the description for the change.
My theory was that with the adept and the zealots being frontline fighters, they wanted the stalker to be better at early skirmishes and better at sniping suff, maybe for stalkers being better at picking off liberators in the later stages of the game when terran has range.
I agree with the idea that the stalker should be a little better since LOTV and 3.0 introduced a lot of new counter to it (tanks now shred them, ravagers are decent, lukers massacre them, etc.), but over-buffing a core unit that can teleport (which is extremely strong as far as RTS abilities go) every 8 secs or so can have extreme and very immediate implications on balance
|
hey, like ummm call me captain obvious here.. but Stalkers should be good against Marines because they cost gas.. a Marine is 50 Minerals and requires only a Rax. A Stalker requires a CyberCore and a Gateway and they cost 125 Minerals and 50 Gas.
<<goes into his John Lennon voice>>
"All We Are Saying .... Is Give Peace Stalkers A Chance"
if i get smashed by good stalker micro right after i've done 1-rax fast expand... its on me...
keep the Stalker strong. the Stalker nerf is a bad idea.
if you want to nerf something on Protoss nerf an air unit.
i'd like to see Protoss early air and Protoss early multiple gateway both be viable as aggressive openings so that i see my opponents doing a mix of things. i don't want to see 500 Protoss opponents in a row all going for the Oracle as their 1st offensive move every game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
