|
Instead of right away nerfing the missile damage into the ground they should try out different nerfs to the ability, e.g. reduce its splash radius, some start-up delay to give opponents the opportunity to micro against it or just reduce the duration of the debuff - plus I don't really see an adequate compensation by giving Vikings plus 10HP instead.
Terran lategame lacks some kind of reliable splash damage to go up against lategame Zerg and Protoss air-based armies.
But for Blizzard's argument regarding the prevention of mass caster build-up, what is considered "massing" them? Having to build 10+ Ghosts in TvZ to deal with Zerg's expensive lategame units is ok? Just wondering what their magic number is...
|
Or we could try a 3 second cooldown on the missile. That way you can only cast one missile per Raven and the opponent then gets 3 seconds to either kill some Ravens or split their units before the 2nd missile can fire.
It would cut the damage output in half if you do some counter micro without nerfing Ravens into the ground.
|
Viking buff will hopefully help with late game TvZ air game. TvT will probably turn into cyclone then most vikings wins as it seems to be going. TvP... I’m not the best or fastest player but I feel behind throughout this match up. They have stronger units with quicker warp in times, can get upgrades and probes quicker. I feel I wouldn’t have to rely on late game mass ravens if I had a way or slowing them down during early to mid game. Drops and mines I find are hit and miss. Not going to pretend I know how to fix the issue but maybe abit of a maurader buff to help with cyclones, Protoss and Zerg early to mid game. Maybe blizzard want bio just for early game and I should be transitioning to mech half way through a game? But then I will be behind again. I just need a way of keeping on equal foot with Protoss or slowing them down to make late game more equal?
|
On March 07 2018 19:16 neutralrobot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 15:33 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On March 07 2018 15:21 neutralrobot wrote:On March 07 2018 15:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 07 2018 14:58 MockHamill wrote: I do not even know what to say.
Terran finally had an answer to clumped up Carriers with HT support. And you instantly nerf it.
10 more hit points on Vikings does absolut nothing in comparison. Vikings can still not be used against Carrier/HT due to storm plus no native amour so no protection against interceptors.
I could understand the move if Terran was dominating all tournaments. But every finale is a PvZ and there were only 2 Terrans in the top 12 in Katowice.
Terran is not overperforming so why nerf their only answer to the golden armada? I need every Terran to remember when PvT was at 50%, and then Blizzard nerfed the Adept. Or when PvT was at 50% and Khaydarin Amulet was removed. Is PvT now at 50%? If I read it right, people are arguing that there's already an imbalance, that the imbalance has just barely started to be figured out, and the way it's been figured out is being nerfed. In other words, the existing imbalance is being made worse. For my part, I have no idea. Obviously at the highest levels, terran has been doing badly lately overall. I don't know how well it generalises across skill levels. The idea of every late game turning into the same comp with the same ideas sounds like something worth avoiding, but obviously it's not worth avoiding if late game becomes severely imbalanced. While PvT win-rates are at 50% approximately on aligulac terrans are still forced into a lot of all-ins to get that win rate (and ofc aligulac has lots of weaknesses). Playing macro Terran against Protoss right now is difficult, because chrono-ed Protoss upgrades outscale terran units really fast, and (to a lesser extent) due to the new colossus absolutely evaporating marines. I'd like to see a few nerfs targeting those two points. Redistributing the colossus's damage to do less versus light would be rather easy since colossi aren't particularly good in PvZ anyways. Nerfing Protoss upgrades is trickier since it also impacts PvZ, but I think increasing the build time for +2 and +3 might be necessary. The golden armada is tbh a rather minor issue when it comes to PvT. At a glance, it seems like Aligulac suggests that PvT win rates are at 50% or so now after a recent drop from P dominance. Do we think this is because of a meta shift toward ravens? Again, honest question. I don't know what to make of it.
Aligulac isn't a perfect showcase of balance. At the elite level none of the good terrans seem to be doing well in TvP. Inno, Ty, Maru, byun, gumiho, alive, and special are all underperforming in the matchup. At least they were last time I checked their ratings.
At the same time classic, stats, zest, dear, sOs, trap etc PvT ratings are all dramatically higher than their historical norm. I doubt that's because they all just got better
|
I would actually have been in favor of increasing the cost of the missile back to 125 but leaving it as it is.
|
On March 07 2018 21:45 JackONeill wrote: I would actually have been in favor of increasing the cost of the missile back to 125 but leaving it as it is.
Agreed, also a very reasonable suggestion.
|
Im bringing this up based on the recent proposed changes to the Ravens Anti-Armor missle. The context can be found here: https://us.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/20761897646.
We can all agree upon that Blizzard gave each race a Spellcaster which has an energy based AOE-spell. Blizzard gave Protoss the High-templar which cast "Storm", they gave Zerg the Infester which cast "Fungal" and they gave Terran the Raven which had Seeker missle / Anti-armor Missle.
With the proposed changes they want to "remove" the AOE possibility for the Raven (which is seen in the reference at the top).
Removing the Terran AOE spellcaster is actually more a redesign than a nerf. The whole idea behind giving each race an energybased AOE spellcaster will be non- existing and an imbalance will appear.
What would a better direction be? - I agree that a spam-able missle is not a good design, but why not look at how fungal / storm is balanced out? The big difference between Storm+Fungal and the seeker missle(Anti-armor-missle) is the stacking of damage. Storm and fungal doesnt stack where the seeker missle(Anti-armor misssle) does.
A more correct balance direction would be to make the damage of the seeker missle (Anti armor missle) unstackable. Eg. when the anti armor is enabled the unit cannot take extra dmg from a new missle. What does this solve? You can no longer spam ravens which is the current issue that blizzard is having.
But with an unspamable missle then you also need to touch the parametres to make it balanced. My proposed changes would be:
Anti Armor Missle 100-125 Energy Deals 50-60-75? (Same dmg range as Storm/Fungal?) Damage in X Radius -3 Armor / -1 Armor / -0 Armor(remove it) Whenever the unit is debuffed a new Missle wont affect the units at all / Make the units that got hit by the seeker orange - when they are orange they cant get hit in X time. Perhaps give it a track time again, so you can split or make a delay like on Parasitic bomb.
I hope Blizzard will go in the right direction.
|
On March 07 2018 21:59 Lillekanin wrote: We can all agree upon that Blizzard gave each race a Spellcaster which has an energy based AOE-spell. Blizzard gave Protoss the High-templar which cast "Storm", they gave Zerg the Infester which cast "Fungal" and they gave Terran the Raven which had Seeker missle / Anti-armor Missle.
Isn't ghost more fitting in your description? I've always thought of HT, Infestor and Ghost as main spellcasters for each race
|
On March 07 2018 22:15 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 21:59 Lillekanin wrote: We can all agree upon that Blizzard gave each race a Spellcaster which has an energy based AOE-spell. Blizzard gave Protoss the High-templar which cast "Storm", they gave Zerg the Infester which cast "Fungal" and they gave Terran the Raven which had Seeker missle / Anti-armor Missle.
Isn't ghost more fitting in your description? I've always thought of HT, Infestor and Ghost as main spellcasters for each race
For me each race has now 2 main spellcasters, a flying and ground ones : Oracle/Raven/Viper and HT/Ghost/Infest
|
Except ghosts only do "aoe" vs protoss.
|
I like how a bunch of people from every races hate the new community feedback, even the Viking buff is "controversial" data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3594e/3594ed82511d459ad4f879c5b933937c65093cdc" alt=""
As a Terran i think these changes are fine. It's probably hard to balance things when a Race is quite strong in one match up but weak in another one. I don't have strong thoughts about the Droplord but the raven change is needed imo. Maru vs Solar on Backwater at IEM Katowice was, while beeing a good game, the best example why this is needed. nerfing the dmg is the easiest way to prevent AA-missle spam. It's nice that the origami-plane gets some love too.
about TvP: after watching IEM, GSL and some minor tournaments it's fair to say that Terran has still problems to play a straight up macro game vs Protoss (especially with the new raven nerf) but it's difficult to find a solution without destroying the balance in TvZ and PvZ. The solution i came up with is: reduce the widow mine cost to 50/25 (-25 min) or give it +10 extra splashdmg vs shields (40 (+35 vs shields) splash). This change will force protoss to spend more gas and chrono boost for higher tier units and tech instead of upgrades and since widow mines are almost exclusively used in TvP both of this changes won't effect other match ups all that much.
another nice little change would be to get rid of the +25% vision for observer in Surveillance Mode. I'm fine with the Surveillance Mode per se but the +25% vision is just a straight up and unneeded nerf for dropplay imo.
|
I think everyone expected raven change. I think all mentioned changed are pointing in correct direction but we need more.
Updated raven will clearly be worse unit. From my point of view it will be on similar level as sentry. So make raven cheaper (maybe 50mineral, 100gas) and remove techlab requirement.
To improve terran's late game please wake up and redesign battlecrusers! Reduce attack speed, increase damage per shot and make them shoot while moving (same as Phoenix). With these buffs tactical jump and Yamato cannon need nerf. Make them share cooldown and greatly reduce jump range.
While we are saving SC2, maybe also move Advanced Ballistics upgrade from techlab to Fusion Core.
Yes, I'm a Terran player.
|
I came up with some ideas for changes not sure how great they are but they would mostly be to compensate for changing the raven.
Terran changes:
Raven: Shredder missile -5 damage (25 dmg per missile) auto turret +1 range (So 2 range)
Liberator aa +1 range, +1 damage. The liberator has to get too close imo to fight outside of sieging and while I do think it mostly should be used in its siege mode I think its air fighting power is also something that could be explored further. I think giving it more range will allow it to fight units a bit more actively without things just escaping it or giving it more room to maybe kite or fight in safety. As for the damage I think its current AA damage won't really make a big big difference vs something like mutas (Unless heavily upgraded) for the 1 damage to impact things in an overpowered way but I do think it could help it in fights.
Viking +10 hp buff (from this patch not an extra) additionally not sure how to word this but I think changing the firing speed of the viking to match the banshee would be a good change. I say this in the sense that the viking would be able to both shoot and move without having to add a stop within its pattern of moving and shooting (move stop shot move etc) It would also let the viking fire slightly faster which would yes increase its DPS but only to a point where it can kite other air units slightly better
Battlecruisers ground range +1 (Maybe 2) and slight movement speed increase as well as turning speed increase. When say turning speed increase I think the battlecruiser as a unit is a little bit clunky in its rotation speed when firing and having to turn. Additionally I think adding some more movement speed will make it slightly more mobile and active on the map since most people want to save the teleport for defensive uses (like saving the unit) rather than offensive additionally I think an increase to its ground range will let it fight ground units from further away kind of like how the carrier and shoot units further away in a safer spot
Protoss changes:
Carrier interceptor count lowered from 8 to 6 but each interceptor would become 25% stronger. This would mean carriers would reach a max out faster on interceptors and each one would be stronger but splash damage would affect them more and things like losing them to widows would make a bigger impact as less of them would remain alive. Also I am not quite sure if interceptors have an armor tag but I think they should become light units or have a light tag if they don't already.
anyways these are just my thoughts on potential changes not sure if they're great or not but they are suggestions I suppose
|
On March 07 2018 20:15 Lokxpr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 20:02 xongnox wrote:On March 07 2018 19:40 Daimai wrote:Cool changes, opens up PvZ quite a lot! On March 07 2018 15:41 SCMasterGoD wrote: I don't understand why late game Terran is considered bad. I'm a low GM toss and I ALWAYS lose late game Pvt. I just feel like I can't do anything vs Viking ghost, emp rips my ground and Viking my colossus. The end. If I get tempest to chip away the terran army he just a moves into me. I just don't understand it. In pro games this is never the case because the game ends much earlier.
Also seeing in pro games zvt ghost snipes are amazing late game, maybe too hard to pull off due to fungal broods? Possibly increase its range Many terrans just play their standard "2base push until either the protoss dies or they're way too far behind"-strat and then they blame imbalance when they're outteched. A good late game T is really scary. And why do you think every Terran, even those who played macro for years in the MU, play that ? We are in the situation of "killing the zerg before infestor/bl or die". This may be balanced or not stats-wise but everyone forced into this is trash gameplay. Late game T may or may not be scary if properly executed. But (except some maps, like agora) terran is not allowed to go late game vs Toss, they simply die way earlier. (like, when protoss hits 3/3 and a-move + warp-prism storm to LOL ). Yes the fact that toss can outmacro and outupgrade the terran earlier in the game would be an issue, but late game TvP is not bad at all, terran has all the tools to beat protoss. I figured out that this upgrade advantage is blizzard's intention to give more opportunities for ravens being used in mid game.But we all have answer does it work or not.
|
On March 07 2018 09:27 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2018 09:12 Musicus wrote:On March 07 2018 09:05 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On March 07 2018 08:55 Musicus wrote: Back to defense only as zerg or go super all-in with that Elazer/Rogue nydus bullshit.
An aggressive option that could set up a cool macro game was too much I guess.
The Stargate problem is a scouting problem and not a "must open stargate to survive ling drops" problem imo. We rarely ever saw "aggressive options that could set up macro games". Sure people occasionally went for some 8 ling drops for some harassment, but overwhelmingly it was 16 lings or ling/ravager or ling/baneling off a minimal drone count that either killed the opponent or lost. Well I still think the ling drops were the least all-in option compared to ling/bane, ling/ravager or nydus/roach/queen all-ins. All those will still be viable. Would've rather seen the nydus bs removed for example. Nerfing nydus wouldn't improve Protoss opening diversity one wit. And 16 ling drops are just as all-in as the others when you have barely any drones. You are right, maybe allowing protoss to be able to scout effectively without a stargate would be better than removing ling drops though. I'd just hate it, if every game is go up to 70 workers without any interaction again and if zerg just has to play defensive every game.
|
I'm ok with the Raven change. I think they could have cut the dmg to 15 instead of 5, but it should be fine.
|
How about you stop patching the game. Seriously. The community will balance it with maps and metagame. Even at the end of WoL, Protoss and Terran were figuring out BL Infestor with timing attacks that didn't let the build set up, and late game ghost play etc. It's unbelievable that we are still seeing balance patches after eight years and two expansions. Somehow it's unforgivable that MARU could make Ravens look abusive at IEM, so they get patched. Are you kidding me? Sometimes it's really hard to stick with this game.
|
This is such a bad Raven change. Instead of making it a one second delay or something, they outright nerf the damage. I hope this doesn't go through.
|
On March 07 2018 20:14 RoflStomped wrote: It seems the "balance team" just don't know what to do with the raven. It's undergone so many changes since the major shift last year. They seem to have tunnel vision when it comes to creating an effective late game option without aggravating the community. You build science vessels to counter zerg defilers, you build science vessels to counter protoss arbiters. But you don't build those units just to fuck everything up. The raven fails to serve that role in both match up because now the others casters have became stronger to the point they are able to counter thier own counter too.So as long as ravens still can't cast interference matrix safely without being get rekt by feedbacks, PB, fungals and abducts, AAM is the only skill worth to use.
|
It's the attitude too that every opening should be viable. For many years now, PvZ standard opener in BW has been Stargate. Somehow in SC2, that's a problem.
|
|
|
|