EPTCommunity Feedback Update - March 6 - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kikirik1
45 Posts
| ||
|
Athenau
570 Posts
This change is fine. Maybe they can make Ravens cheaper, or reduce the build time, or even remove the tech-lab requirement if it's too weak, but the damage is dumb and needs to go. | ||
|
Fango
United Kingdom8987 Posts
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. The community will be always aggravated if terran gets a solid lategame. P and Z have used "defend until ultimate army" playstyles for years. If the terran super-lategame is buffed to the point of actually competing, people will always complain because that's not supposed to happen. I understand the issues people have with the raven, but I didn't personally think it was that overpowered. If it was then terran wouldn't be objectively the worst performing race at the top level. Sky terran has typically never a viable comp, but after 2-3 games of the best terran winning with it it gets nerfed? The viking buff doesn't to enough to compensate for AAM doing negligible damage. | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
It also didn't really bother me that Z had aggressive early game options vs Protoss. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
On March 08 2018 00:11 Kikirik1 wrote: I dont understand balance team logic.We see alot vikings play right now and almost no see BC for years.And they go buff viking instead of BC.Now we go see mass vikings play, all mass play is bad for viewers like me, i'm not player. I think they really want to avoid (or at least should) having another carrier which is pretty much uncounterable with units in zvp, and leads to these weird spore-forest+ mass infestor type of guerilla warfare, which sure is fun sometimes, but i dont think it s a dynamic they want to further promote / replicate in other match-ups. From a purely e-sport /viewer point of view, it s more important to incentivize army vs army clashes and trades rather than camping/starving out tactics. . Viking buff makes more sense from that point of view, Indirectly it might encourage BC usage, because with buffed vikings, going full air might be the way for T lategame (BC-s included), we shall see. What i dont get is why they re messing with the TvZ match-up, when all the stats point to Terrans having more problems in TvP. Probably they have more data than is publicly available for us. | ||
|
Ransomstarcraft
75 Posts
On March 07 2018 21:59 Lillekanin wrote: 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. Ravens and Vikings I agree with this completely. The Raven can be a sort of support unit, but there is such an investment to get it that if it isn't powerful no one will build it. While I appreciate the idea of buffing vikings, the thing that has changed since many years ago when vikings were a powerful air unit is that they could outdistance opponents. At one time Carriers leash range was not as long as it is now, and corrupters were slower and the old macro state meant you weren't dealing with 10-20 of them coming out on the first round, overwhelming your viking numbers in short order. I propose raising the AA range of vikings by 1. If the way they want to balance the matchup is by raising their HP, they're going to have to give a whole lot more than 10HP per viking. The Early Game I like seeing some attention on the early game. I think in both TvP and TvZ the late game is a problem because Terran has almost no aggressive options in the early game and a weaker mid-game than in the past with Hydra strength and the Widow Mine nerf. If Terran early game had more variety, there would be much less turtling by P and Z. Here are some ideas: 1. Allow individual bunkers to get neosteel frame. (+2 to cargo space) or an armor buff 2. Give reapers back the attack that destroyed buildings quicker. 3. If widow mines are going to be as bad as they are, remove their friendly splash damage. | ||
|
jedi1982
United States172 Posts
| ||
|
xongnox
540 Posts
On March 08 2018 00:45 BuddhaMonk wrote: In my opinion the Widow Mine nerf is the what truly screwed TvP. Protoss right now can basically open with any build and not have to worry about widow mine drop openers, whereas in the past, it was something you always had to account for. This would leave T in a better mid-game position. Yep. TvP could be more or less fixed with : -windowmine reverse. So protoss should account for it in their BO. In particular, The blink opening into fast 3rd into 2xforges (like in Maru vs Dear ) which broke the korean PvT, will no longer be that strong vs everything. -A slight bio buff, like marauder reverse, or some speed-up of bio opening (combat shield and stim duration, etc. ), or a buff to medivacs starting mana | ||
|
MrWayne
219 Posts
On March 07 2018 21:59 Lillekanin wrote: 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. I think you analysis of the situation and your proposed changes are flawed. First of all, blizzard don't want to remove the AoE from Terran. the AAM is still in the game and is still designed around a AoE but it works different than the other AoE spells. Storm helps you in fights by damaging or killing enemy units, AAM however buffs you own units by giving them better firepower. I think that's a pretty interesting design because it adds a new flavor to the game. the stacking problem: All spells that can not stack have something in common, they have an effect over time. This kinda makes sense, the units are under a certain effect but they cannot be under the same effect twice but the dmg of the AAM is not an effect. It would be very unintuitive that you can not be hit by two missiles in a row. and third, a delay on the AAM would make it super inconsistent. It would create the same problem the old seeker had that the AAM on a single or low number of raven become useless. I think thay can balance the game with the 5dmg AAM. | ||
|
MiCroLiFe
Norway274 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
Increasing the energy cost of the missile is a big nerf against raven usage early on and raven usage as a support unit (while being not as big against mass raven) which isn't good. | ||
|
Athelas
Poland15 Posts
But this raven nerf is undefendable. Terran is strugling right now, because it has midgame window to win the game that closes super quickly. Terran needs valid counterplay options against other races late games (ghosts don't answer vipers really). What do we get? 10 hp on viking - unit thats absolutely bad, it has zero chance to beat airtoss or way too fast corruptors. And raven will be garbage ' which is fine if they make it cheaper for it, but it will still cost me 200 fucking gas and techlab time. Mech to start upgrading still needs to drop 300/200 on armories, still is striclty timing push strat with no real transition. I'm not playing this iteration of starcraft. | ||
|
Kikirik1
45 Posts
On March 08 2018 01:13 Geo.Rion wrote: I think they really want to avoid (or at least should) having another carrier which is pretty much uncounterable with units in zvp, and leads to these weird spore-forest+ mass infestor type of guerilla warfare, which sure is fun sometimes, but i dont think it s a dynamic they want to further promote / replicate in other match-ups. From a purely e-sport /viewer point of view, it s more important to incentivize army vs army clashes and trades rather than camping/starving out tactics. . Viking buff makes more sense from that point of view, Indirectly it might encourage BC usage, because with buffed vikings, going full air might be the way for T lategame (BC-s included), we shall see. What i dont get is why they re messing with the TvZ match-up, when all the stats point to Terrans having more problems in TvP. Probably they have more data than is publicly available for us. Good explain, but BC not need to be overpower unit like a carier, to see play they just need to counter effective something, currently they dont counter anything effective, that why they rarely see play.If teran have problem vs something, just force BC(some useless units) to be effective vs this, that is how to balance need to work.Ye my 5cents  | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On March 07 2018 15:19 ihatevideogames wrote: So the correct way to balance this is to make sure every race takes turn in the gutter. Alright. This still doesn't explain why they keep nerfing it every time terrans have a viable lategame. They could nerf something else to make sure we get our 'turn in the gutter', no? No that isn't the correct way to balance, I argued against both the changes to Protoss mentioned unless Protoss recieved compensatory buffs. They didn't, and the 50% winrate Protoss had dropped dramatically. So we can't control how Blizzard balances. But we can man up and control the whining. Terrans have become so used to winning, that when another race starts to win and their winrate turns south of 50%, they cry imbalance, despite the fact the other race was below 50% previously. What Terran is facing now isn't half of what Protoss has faced since the start of the year. The balance stats don't lie, Protoss wins 43% of games versus Zerg and just under 50% versus Terran. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ | ||
|
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
| ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
I would much rather have the game shaken up once a month or once every 2-3 months with ***MAJOR BALANCE CHANGES*** similar to how league of legends does it. I firmly believe league **retains** its player base because they keep the game super fresh and always make changes to keep it interesting. I came back in november 2017(i think right after the major overhaul(removing msc etc etc) after a several year hiatus. Things were exciting again as I had the opportunity to be creative and experiment with new builds/openings/strategies. With the removal of the MSC, aggressive-fun-to-execute-fun-to-watch-builds/openings/strategies that keep me as a player and spectator engaged were viable again. I felt at home again. I felt passionate again like I did during WOL beta and the first year and a half of WOL. As a player, there are 4 things that drive me: 1. Aggressive, multitask oriented gameplay-It's exciting to execute, it's exciting to watch. This releases the dopamine in my brain. 2. The ability to be creative and invent builds/openings/playstyles. This releases the dopamine in my brain as well. 3. Discovering things in the game on my own. This also releases dopamine in my brain. 4. Evolution of game-play Once the game is figured out, all 4 of these go away. It makes me less interested. It makes me not want to play as much. I went from playing 30-40 games a day to on average 5-10. Some days not at all in the recent past. It's 3-5 months since the latest overhaul and everything has been figured out with in the exception of ultra ultra late game(even this is starting to get figured out now as we have seen in the recent past from major tournies). Things aren't as exciting. I strongly recommend that blizzard takes a page out of riot's playbook and do major overhauls on a regular basis similar to how they do major overhauls for their champions etc. I believe this will keep players interested and playing sc2. I sincerely hope blizzard takes this feedback under consideration. | ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
Gotcha blizz. | ||
|
engesser1
264 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgflip.com/25xcw6.jpg) User was warned for this post. | ||
|
billynasty
United States260 Posts
Its almost as if the people on the balance team are pro-zerg & anti terran... something i've heard professional players allude to before. | ||
|
J. Corsair
United States470 Posts
And again, such drastic changes so quickly, while Terran is already underwhelming in a late-game scenario, especially considering recent results. | ||
| ||
