|
On March 12 2018 18:18 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2018 13:04 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I hate the drop nerf for zerg, now it's just back to the way it was before. I imagine there is a better solution to the problem then revert it to the way it was before. They couldve just make overlords take longer to morph into droppalords and after lair finishes its faster morph again. That way drop would still be a thing but come out a bit later which is the whole problem.
There were few voices here, that problem with droperlords is not about defending the drops, but with scouting for Protoss. So what they should do is to low the energy cost for hallucination. That way, Protoss could not open stargate to scout, but they could just make sentry and scout with hallucination. And Zerg could have some early pressure options.
Instead, they are removing early game pressure for Zerg, so Protoss will be perfectly safe without scouting, without units to defend. Jjust pumping probes and tech. Doesn't seem fair to me.
|
On March 12 2018 09:52 ilikeredheads wrote:
just making the damage unstackable like storm would be a good change, but no, let's nerf it into the ground to ensure terran has no viable late game.
Easy fix, easy solution.
|
On March 12 2018 18:37 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2018 18:18 Decendos wrote:On March 11 2018 13:04 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I hate the drop nerf for zerg, now it's just back to the way it was before. I imagine there is a better solution to the problem then revert it to the way it was before. They couldve just make overlords take longer to morph into droppalords and after lair finishes its faster morph again. That way drop would still be a thing but come out a bit later which is the whole problem. There were few voices here, that problem with droperlords is not about defending the drops, but with scouting for Protoss. So what they should do is to low the energy cost for hallucination. That way, Protoss could not open stargate to scout, but they could just make sentry and scout with hallucination. And Zerg could have some early pressure options. Instead, they are removing early game pressure for Zerg, so Protoss will be perfectly safe without scouting, without units to defend. Jjust pumping probes and tech. Doesn't seem fair to me.
Right? The whole reason the MsC was removed from the game was because it let protoss get far ahead safely with no risk. They wanted to open up the options but now regret it?
|
On March 12 2018 19:38 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2018 18:37 hiroshOne wrote:On March 12 2018 18:18 Decendos wrote:On March 11 2018 13:04 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I hate the drop nerf for zerg, now it's just back to the way it was before. I imagine there is a better solution to the problem then revert it to the way it was before. They couldve just make overlords take longer to morph into droppalords and after lair finishes its faster morph again. That way drop would still be a thing but come out a bit later which is the whole problem. There were few voices here, that problem with droperlords is not about defending the drops, but with scouting for Protoss. So what they should do is to low the energy cost for hallucination. That way, Protoss could not open stargate to scout, but they could just make sentry and scout with hallucination. And Zerg could have some early pressure options. Instead, they are removing early game pressure for Zerg, so Protoss will be perfectly safe without scouting, without units to defend. Jjust pumping probes and tech. Doesn't seem fair to me. Right? The whole reason the MsC was removed from the game was because it let protoss get far ahead safely with no risk. They wanted to open up the options but now regret it?
The problem is that the MsC provides a whole host of options other than just base defense. MsC provides early game scouting, early game harass, and early game defense. And a lot of LotV was balanced around the MsC.
By taking away the MsC and replacing it with the shield battery + nexus recall, you don't cover all of the things that the MsC did. What you're seeing is the result of getting rid of the MsC without fully accounting for the things that the MsC actually did.
This isn't to say that the MsC should have been in the game just that the MsC covered multiple roles, and the balance issues we're seeing now is a result of the roles not being properly filled by other units/abilities.
|
Here is an idea: Reduce the cost & research time of the blue flame upgrade for terran. Make research time 1 minute and the cost 100/100. With the current research time & cost, it has pretty much zero place in the game.
|
On March 12 2018 18:25 Shakattak wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2018 09:29 Beliskner wrote:On March 11 2018 14:01 ReachTheSky wrote:
Has anyone asked the big question of "Why is protoss and zerg allowed to have broken late game armies but terran isn't?" This double standard really needs to go. It's like toss/zergs want everything in the world but don't want their opposing counterparts to have anything. Like get real.
All this raven nerf talk is a bunch of nonsense. The reason for the raven nerf has nothing to do with terran not allowed to have a good late game. It's getting changed because Blizzard did not intend for the new raven to be massed and anti-armor missile to be spammed like it is, they specifically said that was their goal with the redesign. Which is why it's getting changed so quickly. It has nothing to do with it being really OP and Blizzard saying 'OMG NO WE CANT LET TERRAN HAVE LATEGAME' but Blizzard probably saw it at IEM and thought 'Oh whoops that's specifically the opposite of what we intended'. Don't bother like talking to a brick wall
These kinds of posts are plague in these discussions. You patch to BALANCE the game not bc of "stale meta game" or "not designed intent" or any of the other reasons blizzard has used that dont include the word BALANCE. Please someone highlight a single patch that was made for reasons other than imbalance that didnt make the game worse. There is no functioning human that believes plus 10 hp on vikings compensates for nerfhammering the raven.. if it wasnt already clear terran is UNDER performing and needs overcompensation if anything.. this is as batshit nuts as the hots widow mine nerf and a close second to the post 4.0 stalker rofl
|
On March 13 2018 04:05 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2018 18:25 Shakattak wrote:On March 12 2018 09:29 Beliskner wrote:On March 11 2018 14:01 ReachTheSky wrote:
Has anyone asked the big question of "Why is protoss and zerg allowed to have broken late game armies but terran isn't?" This double standard really needs to go. It's like toss/zergs want everything in the world but don't want their opposing counterparts to have anything. Like get real.
All this raven nerf talk is a bunch of nonsense. The reason for the raven nerf has nothing to do with terran not allowed to have a good late game. It's getting changed because Blizzard did not intend for the new raven to be massed and anti-armor missile to be spammed like it is, they specifically said that was their goal with the redesign. Which is why it's getting changed so quickly. It has nothing to do with it being really OP and Blizzard saying 'OMG NO WE CANT LET TERRAN HAVE LATEGAME' but Blizzard probably saw it at IEM and thought 'Oh whoops that's specifically the opposite of what we intended'. Don't bother like talking to a brick wall Please someone highlight a single patch that was made for reasons other than imbalance that didnt make the game worse.
the patch after 2016 blizzcon that removed tankivacs
|
On March 13 2018 04:08 Ej_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 04:05 DomeGetta wrote:On March 12 2018 18:25 Shakattak wrote:On March 12 2018 09:29 Beliskner wrote:On March 11 2018 14:01 ReachTheSky wrote:
Has anyone asked the big question of "Why is protoss and zerg allowed to have broken late game armies but terran isn't?" This double standard really needs to go. It's like toss/zergs want everything in the world but don't want their opposing counterparts to have anything. Like get real.
All this raven nerf talk is a bunch of nonsense. The reason for the raven nerf has nothing to do with terran not allowed to have a good late game. It's getting changed because Blizzard did not intend for the new raven to be massed and anti-armor missile to be spammed like it is, they specifically said that was their goal with the redesign. Which is why it's getting changed so quickly. It has nothing to do with it being really OP and Blizzard saying 'OMG NO WE CANT LET TERRAN HAVE LATEGAME' but Blizzard probably saw it at IEM and thought 'Oh whoops that's specifically the opposite of what we intended'. Don't bother like talking to a brick wall Please someone highlight a single patch that was made for reasons other than imbalance that didnt make the game worse. the patch after 2016 blizzcon that removed tankivacs
Yah im not talking about a patch like 3.0 or 4.0. Even tho personally i dont think the game got better in either of those. Im talking about a nerf to a unit or comp in the middle of a 3.0 or 4.0.
And lets be honest. That era your talking about is the last time Terran was winning anything..so there were definitely balance implications of that and not necessarily bad ones. The point here is they are talking about a big nerf to the race which is already struggling .. intent and design should not supercede balance
|
Hopefully this is only the first step and next eill be Protoss nerf- especially chronoboost.
|
On March 13 2018 04:26 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 04:08 Ej_ wrote:On March 13 2018 04:05 DomeGetta wrote:On March 12 2018 18:25 Shakattak wrote:On March 12 2018 09:29 Beliskner wrote:On March 11 2018 14:01 ReachTheSky wrote:
Has anyone asked the big question of "Why is protoss and zerg allowed to have broken late game armies but terran isn't?" This double standard really needs to go. It's like toss/zergs want everything in the world but don't want their opposing counterparts to have anything. Like get real.
All this raven nerf talk is a bunch of nonsense. The reason for the raven nerf has nothing to do with terran not allowed to have a good late game. It's getting changed because Blizzard did not intend for the new raven to be massed and anti-armor missile to be spammed like it is, they specifically said that was their goal with the redesign. Which is why it's getting changed so quickly. It has nothing to do with it being really OP and Blizzard saying 'OMG NO WE CANT LET TERRAN HAVE LATEGAME' but Blizzard probably saw it at IEM and thought 'Oh whoops that's specifically the opposite of what we intended'. Don't bother like talking to a brick wall Please someone highlight a single patch that was made for reasons other than imbalance that didnt make the game worse. the patch after 2016 blizzcon that removed tankivacs Yah im not talking about a patch like 3.0 or 4.0. Even tho personally i dont think the game got better in either of those. Im talking about a nerf to a unit or comp in the middle of a 3.0 or 4.0. And lets be honest. That era your talking about is the last time Terran was winning anything..so there were definitely balance implications of that and not necessarily bad ones. The point here is they are talking about a big nerf to the race which is already struggling .. intent and design should not supercede balance
You seem nit picky. The 3.0 and 4.0 are patches that answer your question. They were not about balance. Then you say not to count these prime examples.
Community feedback has said that at various points in time that patches for design will happen and not always the big ones like 3.0 and 4.0. This raven change is about design. The info from Blizzard say that this is about design. A design change that results in a nerf, for which the viking will receive a compensatory buff.
I can give you an example of a design patch: adept shade will continue with the latest order when shading instead of stopping.
|
On March 12 2018 20:14 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2018 19:38 Shakattak wrote:On March 12 2018 18:37 hiroshOne wrote:On March 12 2018 18:18 Decendos wrote:On March 11 2018 13:04 ShambhalaWar wrote:
I hate the drop nerf for zerg, now it's just back to the way it was before. I imagine there is a better solution to the problem then revert it to the way it was before. They couldve just make overlords take longer to morph into droppalords and after lair finishes its faster morph again. That way drop would still be a thing but come out a bit later which is the whole problem. There were few voices here, that problem with droperlords is not about defending the drops, but with scouting for Protoss. So what they should do is to low the energy cost for hallucination. That way, Protoss could not open stargate to scout, but they could just make sentry and scout with hallucination. And Zerg could have some early pressure options. Instead, they are removing early game pressure for Zerg, so Protoss will be perfectly safe without scouting, without units to defend. Jjust pumping probes and tech. Doesn't seem fair to me. Right? The whole reason the MsC was removed from the game was because it let protoss get far ahead safely with no risk. They wanted to open up the options but now regret it? The problem is that the MsC provides a whole host of options other than just base defense. MsC provides early game scouting, early game harass, and early game defense. And a lot of LotV was balanced around the MsC. By taking away the MsC and replacing it with the shield battery + nexus recall, you don't cover all of the things that the MsC did. What you're seeing is the result of getting rid of the MsC without fully accounting for the things that the MsC actually did. This isn't to say that the MsC should have been in the game just that the MsC covered multiple roles, and the balance issues we're seeing now is a result of the roles not being properly filled by other units/abilities.
The MSC was the most cancerous unit in the game. It did not promote interactive gameplay. It promoted 10 minutes of pointless caster banter for years. The MSC will not be coming back.
|
On March 13 2018 05:30 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2018 04:26 DomeGetta wrote:On March 13 2018 04:08 Ej_ wrote:On March 13 2018 04:05 DomeGetta wrote:On March 12 2018 18:25 Shakattak wrote:On March 12 2018 09:29 Beliskner wrote:On March 11 2018 14:01 ReachTheSky wrote:
Has anyone asked the big question of "Why is protoss and zerg allowed to have broken late game armies but terran isn't?" This double standard really needs to go. It's like toss/zergs want everything in the world but don't want their opposing counterparts to have anything. Like get real.
All this raven nerf talk is a bunch of nonsense. The reason for the raven nerf has nothing to do with terran not allowed to have a good late game. It's getting changed because Blizzard did not intend for the new raven to be massed and anti-armor missile to be spammed like it is, they specifically said that was their goal with the redesign. Which is why it's getting changed so quickly. It has nothing to do with it being really OP and Blizzard saying 'OMG NO WE CANT LET TERRAN HAVE LATEGAME' but Blizzard probably saw it at IEM and thought 'Oh whoops that's specifically the opposite of what we intended'. Don't bother like talking to a brick wall Please someone highlight a single patch that was made for reasons other than imbalance that didnt make the game worse. the patch after 2016 blizzcon that removed tankivacs Yah im not talking about a patch like 3.0 or 4.0. Even tho personally i dont think the game got better in either of those. Im talking about a nerf to a unit or comp in the middle of a 3.0 or 4.0. And lets be honest. That era your talking about is the last time Terran was winning anything..so there were definitely balance implications of that and not necessarily bad ones. The point here is they are talking about a big nerf to the race which is already struggling .. intent and design should not supercede balance You seem nit picky. The 3.0 and 4.0 are patches that answer your question. They were not about balance. Then you say not to count these prime examples. Community feedback has said that at various points in time that patches for design will happen and not always the big ones like 3.0 and 4.0. This raven change is about design. The info from Blizzard say that this is about design. A design change that results in a nerf, for which the viking will receive a compensatory buff. I can give you an example of a design patch: adept shade will continue with the latest order when shading instead of stopping.
Yah I'm fine disagreeing about whether 3.0 and 4.0 made sense or not - I understand that some people wanted big changes to the game. My problem is your statement along with the few others "The info from Blizzard say that this is about design. A design change that results in a nerf, for which the viking will receive a compensatory buff." First - this logic would be OK if the game was in a balanced state AND the buff was at least comparable in impact to the nerf (which it clearly is not even close). You guys parrot this nonsense as if it's totally logical - when you need only a basic understanding of the game to know that it's not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
