|
On December 08 2017 23:24 DomeGetta wrote:
Hilarious to see Protoss tears. My favorite justification for whine is when they site "during x time we had a less than 50% winrate! So based on that being imba should be allowed!" Thats really sound logic...game use to be fucked up and so now we should leave it fucked up! LOL. Patches should happen fast when there are obvious problems. When those problems are making ur mmr artificially high the answer is always "please! Please blizz give it time! Meta will evolve!! And i might hit gm before u do!" Watch a vod of any top kr terran players stream since the first patch and the tvp matchups. These dudes are trying to go mech they are so desperate. And headsup to zerg get ready to bitch and moan yourselves cause as top eu zergs pointed out before any patch mech isnt going to be viable as a long term strategy in tvz. Thank god boring as f to play and watch. Kr zergs have caught up with the meta..its dead and bio will be getting buffed for sure.
Mech has no room for a skilled terran player to excel. "Positioning siege tanks" is as far as it can go. Bio terrans should step up in these threads and end this madness.
|
On December 08 2017 23:32 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 20:54 egrimm wrote:On December 08 2017 20:31 xTJx wrote:On December 08 2017 17:56 egrimm wrote:On December 08 2017 17:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 17:09 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 17:03 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 16:51 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote:ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:[quote] because this is awful gameplay u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_- sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build. I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol. Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range. You avoided my question. I'm going to sleepers now. I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious... On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote:
Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it. Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway? The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops. However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine. Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed. Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot" and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line. So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener. Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me.
Well if terran player had a viking or even was a bit more lucky (GumiHo almost spotted the prism with his marines) he would
deflect the drop. Actually it looked like he was suspecting WP from protoss player and trying to find and intercept it but failed to do so. The only question is if it is ok design-wise when you drop disruptor on top of some unit and use nova so there is almost instant explosion and no potential for micro from the oponent. This is both true for worker harass as well as against army movements. TBH idk - rarely ever this behavior does insane hits.
|
On December 08 2017 22:44 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 20:20 xTJx wrote:On December 08 2017 15:11 SHODAN wrote:
terran player perspective:
unimaginative changes which don't address the core design issues.
agree with the disruptor nerf
agree with the oracle nerf
strongly disagree with the chrono and stalker nerfs. it's the wrong approach. it messes with ZvP.
the most pressing issues for terran were not addressed:
1) strength of bio
2) micro potential of mech
3) terran anti-air and overlapping roles
universal consensus in the sc2 community that the marauder's single-shot attack should be reinstated.
widespread dissatisfaction with the micro potential of mech. in particular, tornado blaster cyclones.
there is ZERO skill difference between Innovation killing a zealot with a tornado blaster cyclone vs. a platinum league player killing a zealot with a cyclone. no kiting, no scoot and shoot, no nothing. probably the worst unit design in the game...
ground-to-ground lock-on should be reinstated. kiting is fun, a-move is not.
cyclone anti-air damage needs some major buffs. none of this "first 4 shots fire faster" bullshit. make it strong like the early days of LotV. if it's too strong in the early-game, add charon booster AA range upgrade and mag-field accelerator to the techlab.
widespread dissatisfaction with the state of terran anti-air. too much overlap. all of terran's mech AA is clumsy, slow, unmicroable, or hard-countered by one or more Z/P units. Well, that's what mech is, a bunch of slow high damage units. The whole game in a mech vs Zerg is about Terran trying to get helions to mineral lines and it all ends with 1 big battle. On top of that mechers ask for the removal of swarm hosts and you're asking for even more antiair, as if 1 thor shutting down any mutalisk play wasn't enough. Asking for more microable units when you basicaly force zergs into a no micro gameplay is ironic at least. mate, I've seen things you wouldn't believe. roach/hydra/viper armies torn apart by multi-pronged hellion/cyclone/mine harass. I watched a maxed ultra army get kited all the way across Dusk Towers. all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. yes, sadly that's what mech is. but it's not what mech should be. mech is an idea, a way of life. every terran player with half a brain wants thors removed from the game and replaced with a high skill AA unit. the only reason why thors are fun to use is because of the medivac. likewise, the only micro you can do with the current cyclones is afforded by medivacs. hellbats... same story. maybe you weren't as clued into the 2016 meta, but speedy mech was developing into something great thanks to lock-on cyclones. for the record, I don't want swarm-hosts removed from the game. free units is a perfectly fine design concept. I just want a different answer to them. on the 2016 patch, if Z went swarm hosts, you could move out with lock-on cyclone/hellion/mine and force him to defend. now Z knows exactly where the terran army is at all times. that's why playing vs swarm hosts is obnoxious... because mech is poorly designed, not because swarm hosts are poorly designed.
Honestly i dont think mech is ever going to workout vs zerg. The concept of the mech v z matchup is flawed. Basically a mech army in terms of damage output is currently better suited to take on a hive army than bio is but the problem is its too easy for zerg to take the entire map while terran tries to spread his slow army out enough to cover 4 bases. That combined w zerg macro mechanic needing 1 building per tech tree being able to literally bank max armies in larva made it hard enough on its own..now add in free units from SH /BL and 150 mineral AA defense w queens and spores. Sure it can get wins with timings if the zerg is caught off guard but overall the zerg is gonna have to fuckup to lose imo..no matter how good the terran is..bc skill cap on mech is way too low. And lets be honest...outside of terran players who play mech..can we really say these games are entertaining for anyone??? Smart zerg wont overcommit to kill the terran bc he doesnt have to..smart terran wont move out onto creep ever..so the game drags on and on...if i have to watch another gsl of it will be a sad day. The bio tvz matchup needs review badly. I dont have the answer but ever since queen AA buff and hydra buff became part of the meta there doesnt seem to be any bio openings that put you in a good position for midgame. Hb openings can be defended with queens only. 2 1 1 as well..and greedy openings get punished by too many options (nydus / ravager ling all ins...see dark vods whenever he scouts fast third cc) last problem is still the ultras overall strength late game..which the ghost buff should definitely help with. Easy to point out problems much harder to find solution. Hope someone does!
|
These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
|
On December 08 2017 23:32 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 20:54 egrimm wrote:On December 08 2017 20:31 xTJx wrote:On December 08 2017 17:56 egrimm wrote:On December 08 2017 17:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 17:09 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 17:03 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 16:51 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote:ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_- sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build. I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol. Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range. You avoided my question. I'm going to sleepers now. I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious... On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote:
Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it. Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway? The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops. However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine. Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed. Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot" and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line. So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener. Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me.
Ah yes, because Protoss had so much time to react when a boosted medivac dropped a mine inside the mineral line.
|
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote:
These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
|
On December 09 2017 00:29 Lokxpr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 23:32 xTJx wrote:On December 08 2017 20:54 egrimm wrote:On December 08 2017 20:31 xTJx wrote:On December 08 2017 17:56 egrimm wrote:On December 08 2017 17:15 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 17:09 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 17:03 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 16:51 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote:
ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
[quote]
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build. I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol. Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range. You avoided my question. I'm going to sleepers now. I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious... On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote:
Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it. Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway? The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops. However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine. Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed. Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot" and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line. So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener. Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me. Ah yes, because Protoss had so much time to react when a boosted medivac dropped a mine inside the mineral line.
Yeah last time i checked the widow mine had to burrow to attack...not become invincible and able to chase ur probes..and then it has to unburrow to get picked up..and would u believe it..the medevac has to fly back over it to pick it up..not grab it from way the fuck outside ur base lol.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On December 09 2017 00:35 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote:
These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother. Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
|
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:...
preface: my thoughts on cyclones exist in a hypothetical patch where
a) there is no techlab requirement for lock-on cyclones
b) there is no auto-cast range bug (you know, the one which went unreported / broken for 7 months)
c) the supply cost is 3
the reason why you rarely saw lock-on cyclones as a core unit at pro GSL level was because of the bug, the supply cost, and the techlab requirement.
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:
the problem is its too easy for zerg to take the entire map while terran tries to spread his slow army out enough to cover 4 bases.
patch 3.7 cyclones (4.72 movement speed) are faster than every zerg unit in the game besides metabolic zerglings. this not only makes it possible to defend 4+ bases, it also makes possible a Brood War strategy which has never been a part of sc2... long distance expansions.
patch 3.7 cyclones with 2nd fastest move speed unit in the match-up = you can take a long distance expansion.
patch 3.7 cyclones with serious ground and AA damage that can beat lair/hive units = you can take a long distance expansion
patch 3.7 cyclones that can kite any zerg unit besides zerglings = you can take a long distance expansion
not only is it possible to take a long distance 4th, it is strategically the best option on maps which allow it (e.g. Frost).
Frozen Temple was a great map for mech vZ because both players had to expand towards each other. 8-fact cyclone/hellion/widow mine vZ resulted in non-stop skirmishes and army trades. the only thing that could break this composition was infestor and/or brood lord - in which case, you needed to transition to tanks or thors. but under my hypothetical conditions, it would be very difficult for zerg to transition to brood lords thanks to the constant army trades and low-econ circumstances.
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:zerg macro mechanic needing 1 building per tech tree being able to literally bank max armies in larva made it hard enough on its own
8-factory lock-on cyclone/hellion/widow mine can remax almost as fast as zerg can remax.
factor the time it takes for zerg to group up and travel across the map.
factor the ability for terran to buy time with planetaries + repair + lock-on kiting
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:And lets be honest...outside of terran players who play mech..can we really say these games are entertaining for anyone???
lock-on cyclones have amazing synergy they have with hellions and widow mines. this composition is fast, furious, and very entertaining to watch. the games where Innovation went hellion/cyclone vZ made for some very excited live report threads 
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:Easy to point out problems much harder to find solution. Hope someone does!
hey, you found that someone. it's me! here is the solution to fix mech vZ
1) bring back patch 3.7 cyclones
- remove tornado blasters
- reinstate ground-to-ground lock-on
- reinstate ground-to-air lock-on
- revert the movement speed nerf
- revert the health buff
(yep, you found a terran player asking for a terran nerf. cyclones should be glass cannons)
- supply cost: 3
- patch 3.7 model size
- bring back mag-field accelerator upgrade
2) no techlab limitation
3) reduce the cost to 125/75 and proportionally reduce ground-to-ground lock-on damage to match the cost (e.g. -20% damage, 320 damage over 14 seconds)
4) new upgrade: charon boosters. increases lock-on activation range for the ground-to-air weapon by 3 (activation range, not missile range)
5) if early game AA damage becomes a problem (too strong against oracle / overlords / medivacs / banshees), make AA dmg an upgrade, or merge the upgrade bonus with one of the other cyclone upgrades (e.g. mag field or charon boosters also increases the AA damage)
|
Really good changes overall.
The Stalker nerf seems a little bit controversial but I think it is needed, right now the Stalker is way too good vs marines (3 shooting marines) and other light units, this change addresses exactly this problem.
I'm still not convinced that they going in the right direction with the mine but it’s a buff to a garbage unit so I’m neutral to this one.
And to all who are saying things like “blizz is terran biased!”, “5 protoss nerfs at once, that’s too much, the Meta needs to settle down!”, “they wanted the stalker to be a strong unit, why are they rolling back?!” or “after 3.8 terran was favored for months in PvT that’s unfair!11”.
First off, the Stalker will be still better than pre 4.0, Chrono boost will be still better than pre 4.0, Protoss will still have better timings than pre 4.0 and the widow mine is still worse than pre 4.0. So i don't know why any Protoss player is upset right now.
Blizz changed a lot with 4.0 and it was clear they will change a lot after 4.0.
Secondly, the balance teams job is to balance the game and keep it fun to play, not keeping a Matchup unbalanced for 3 month only because they made a mistake a year ago.
I prefer watching good TvPs rather than watching Terrans doing 2 base all-ins or going mech in 90% of the games for another 2 month.
|
On December 09 2017 01:12 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 00:35 DomeGetta wrote:On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote:
These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother. Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense. Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge.
Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat.
The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
|
the new skins are visible in the SC2 client!
On December 09 2017 00:03 xTJx wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 23:24 DomeGetta wrote:
Hilarious to see Protoss tears. My favorite justification for whine is when they site "during x time we had a less than 50% winrate! So based on that being imba should be allowed!" Thats really sound logic...game use to be fucked up and so now we should leave it fucked up! LOL. Patches should happen fast when there are obvious problems. When those problems are making ur mmr artificially high the answer is always "please! Please blizz give it time! Meta will evolve!! And i might hit gm before u do!" Watch a vod of any top kr terran players stream since the first patch and the tvp matchups. These dudes are trying to go mech they are so desperate. And headsup to zerg get ready to bitch and moan yourselves cause as top eu zergs pointed out before any patch mech isnt going to be viable as a long term strategy in tvz. Thank god boring as f to play and watch. Kr zergs have caught up with the meta..its dead and bio will be getting buffed for sure. Mech has no room for a skilled terran player to excel. "Positioning siege tanks" is as far as it can go. Bio terrans should step up in these threads and end this madness.
in general i agree with your overall point about mech vs. bio.
Hellions have some micro potential and, isn't the Cyclone designed to be very "micro-able" ?
|
On December 09 2017 01:16 SHODAN wrote:preface: my thoughts on cyclones exist in a hypothetical patch where a) there is no techlab requirement for lock-on cyclones b) there is no auto-cast range bug (you know, the one which went unreported / broken for 7 months) c) the supply cost is 3 the reason why you rarely saw lock-on cyclones as a core unit at pro GSL level was because of the bug, the supply cost, and the techlab requirement. Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:
the problem is its too easy for zerg to take the entire map while terran tries to spread his slow army out enough to cover 4 bases. patch 3.7 cyclones (4.72 movement speed) are faster than every zerg unit in the game besides metabolic zerglings. this not only makes it possible to defend 4+ bases, it also makes possible a Brood War strategy which has never been a part of sc2... long distance expansions. patch 3.7 cyclones with 2nd fastest move speed unit in the match-up = you can take a long distance expansion. patch 3.7 cyclones with serious ground and AA damage that can beat lair/hive units = you can take a long distance expansion patch 3.7 cyclones that can kite any zerg unit besides zerglings = you can take a long distance expansion not only is it possible to take a long distance 4th, it is strategically the best option on maps which allow it (e.g. Frost). Frozen Temple was a great map for mech vZ because both players had to expand towards each other. 8-fact cyclone/hellion/widow mine vZ resulted in non-stop skirmishes and army trades. the only thing that could break this composition was infestor and/or brood lord - in which case, you needed to transition to tanks or thors. but under my hypothetical conditions, it would be very difficult for zerg to transition to brood lords thanks to the constant army trades and low-econ circumstances. Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:zerg macro mechanic needing 1 building per tech tree being able to literally bank max armies in larva made it hard enough on its own 8-factory lock-on cyclone/hellion/widow mine can remax almost as fast as zerg can remax. factor the time it takes for zerg to group up and travel across the map. factor the ability for terran to buy time with planetaries + repair + lock-on kiting Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:And lets be honest...outside of terran players who play mech..can we really say these games are entertaining for anyone??? lock-on cyclones have amazing synergy they have with hellions and widow mines. this composition is fast, furious, and very entertaining to watch. the games where Innovation went hellion/cyclone vZ made for some very excited live report threads Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:Easy to point out problems much harder to find solution. Hope someone does! hey, you found that someone. it's me! here is the solution to fix mech vZ 1) bring back patch 3.7 cyclones - remove tornado blasters - reinstate ground-to-ground lock-on - reinstate ground-to-air lock-on - revert the movement speed nerf - revert the health buff (yep, you found a terran player asking for a terran nerf. cyclones should be glass cannons) - supply cost: 3 - patch 3.7 model size - bring back mag-field accelerator upgrade 2) no techlab limitation 3) reduce the cost to 125/75 and proportionally reduce ground-to-ground lock-on damage to match the cost (e.g. -20% damage, 320 damage over 14 seconds) 4) new upgrade: charon boosters. increases lock-on activation range for the ground-to-air weapon by 3 (activation range, not missile range) 5) if early game AA damage becomes a problem (too strong against oracle / overlords / medivacs / banshees), make AA dmg an upgrade, or merge the upgrade bonus with one of the other cyclone upgrades (e.g. mag field or charon boosters also increases the AA damage)
This is interesting - I would be all for a version of mech that doesn't = turtle 4 base max and hope the Zerg attacks.. I'm not sure how viable it would be but I'm honestly open to anything vs. we have now. I'd prefer a fix for bio cause I still find playing and watching those games more entertaining - but can't say I have anything to compare it to relative to this - could be interesting.
|
On December 08 2017 07:38 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On December 08 2017 07:26 t0ssboy wrote:
So Protoss basically gets nerfed into the ground after half a month of playing. GG Blizzard. Yeah, when Terran is OP, we never see double nerf in less than a month but rather 1 small nerf after 3-6months.
when have terran been op tho? 2010 maybe?
|
I think hydralisks upgrades should be separated, they come out very quickly and they power up so fast. I think slowing that power spike when they do get the bonus speed and range will also allow for Terran specifically bio Terrans, will have a bigger window in which they can attack the Zerg. I think another good idea for helping bio vs Z is taking away the +5 HP Buff that baneling speed gives. Granted a lot of these are nerfs but in TvZ if the Bioterran goes for tanks they usually want to upgrade their ship armor. So once Zerg gets +1 armor and the speed upgrade a siege tank will no longer be able to 1 shot banes in a splash radius as effectively unless they also get that upgrade. Which Terrans aren't doing too much atm.
Vikings are also lackluster units in the late game, perhaps re-syncing the mech upgrades again may help overall late game when transitioning to air? I can see how a lot of these changes are controversial but right now Terran has very limited opportunities vs Zerg when going bio, and even when we go mech our units can still be out scaled.
|
Good direction for changes, now address swarmhost/carriers nerf them to the same level ravens are nerfed to, otherwise re-buff the raven because Terran currently has no late game vs Z or P.
|
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote:
These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
I feel like this is something that is being overlooked because everyone is upset about the nerf, that's a big reduction in weapon period time so kiting with blink Stalkers (it's not like Stalkers have ever benefited from just being a moved anyways they have always been about micro) is about to get stronger, I do feel like the Chronoboost nerf is sufficient at the moment though, I'm not a big fan of..
Chrono nerf (justified)
Stalker nerf (would be justified if Chrono wasn't already being nerfed)
Disruptor nerf (I don't care, I think this unit needs to be scrapped or redesigned into some bug like unit that shoots explosives...maybe they could call it something like the Reaver?)
It's not like Protoss is mega overpowered anything they are just pretty strong vs. Terran which I can see is what these nerfs are directed towards, I have to admit, Protoss feels a bit on the weak side vs. Zerg lately.....and I play Zerg...So I'm either waiting for Zerg nerfs (Droplords could probably go up to 50/50 or come out with maybe an upgrade in the Evolution Chamber) and we all know Ultralisks are still pretty silly vs Terran bio, so I'm predicting another Zerg nerf or two.
|
On December 09 2017 01:29 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 01:12 Olli wrote:On December 09 2017 00:35 DomeGetta wrote:On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote:
These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother. Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense. Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo. Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge. Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat. The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
Yep. Stalkers are way too strong now. Even after this upcoming nerf, they are still very strong.
|
Austria24417 Posts
On December 09 2017 01:29 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2017 01:12 Olli wrote:On December 09 2017 00:35 DomeGetta wrote:On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote:
These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother. Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense. Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo. Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge. Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat. The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
They're the exact units you buff when removing overcharge. Overcharge was used mostly to deal with early game shenanigans. Without it, what you have to deal with them, and drop play, is mostly gateway units and shield batteries.
Removing overcharge without buffing gateway units was never going to be possible. That's something you have to realize.
As for early marines, you still make one bunker to deal with the first few stalkers and that's it. It's always been this way. Stalkers being stronger doesn't change that.
Besides, stalkers being strong doesn't equate to them being too strong. If anything they were quite terrible before 4.0 and, imo, were buffed to a reasonable point. I'm fine with nerfing them a bit, but double nerfing them while also nerfing chronoboost and disruptors while double buffing terran is... questionable at best.
|
Hell ya widow mines.
I got back into terran.
Mech allins are grand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
