|
On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening.
Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance.
PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives.
|
On March 19 2018 06:36 bObA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 21:08 bObA wrote:
And atm all the best terrans : Gumiho, Innovation, Byun, Ty are losing and not doing well in tournaments.
Only Maru is succeeding.
So talking about nerfing ravens because one player is using them well is non sense.
That is good Blizzard backed off with that nerf.
Anyway Serral shew us Zerg can use mass Vipers and Infestors and be as deadly as Ravens in late game.
The game was balanced but Maru played a bit better and also Serral is a foreigner.
In any matchups Koreans are almost better than foreigners.
That was what I said. I have just watched the first game between Maru and Dark and even with mass ravens Dark killed Maru easily. No need to nerf Ravens. And guess what, to avoid ravens missile damage, Dark was doing simple moves what all terrans have been learning for 10 years to be in Master league : splitting and spreading units !
you probably didnt watch the first game, Dark pretty much won with ravager bust, then Maru clang on for dear life, from a massively disadvantageous position.
Sure he managed to crawl up to 200 vs 200, but while he had no bank and no mapcontrol, Dark was sitting on 10k resources and the entire map was covered with creep, mining from 8 and a half bases while Maru has been on 5 untill he mined them all out. This way Dark could afford to carefully take like 10 trades (all of them cost-inefficient still) and win, but by the end he was out of resources as well, his massive bank down to almost 0.
If anything Maru vs Dark g1 is a very good argument to rethink the missile, cuz i dont think that s the way to go, you almost kill the Terran but if he refuses to leave then u have to starve them out until they have no more resources in their bases.
The units lost tab clearly showed how cost effective Maru could be with that composition, even from a very bad position, against a very good and careful opponent.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives.
PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some  (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed))
|
On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed))
Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras.
A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ.
|
On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ.
Doesn't a marauder buff mostly mean the all-ins get better?
And the colossus revert is the obvious choice since it has the benefit of barely affecting PvZ at all. I'm not sure it would be enough of a change though--terran might need more than that.
|
On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ.
I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd.
|
On March 19 2018 10:09 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ. I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd.
I've said it before, give Liberator AtG 5 damage back so that they two-shot Stalkers at +1 instead of +2. Protoss has better chronoboost and better stalkers now, so this gives Terrans some initiative in the midgame even when they're behind a set of upgrades. It's a small, targeted change that's unlikely to affect any other matchup.
|
On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance.
Whether Blizzard should make one change or multiple depends on the size of the change and the size of the problem needing fixing. I don't see the dropperlord change as being massive while the issues with PvZ are. I'd like to see some more, small changes.
The idea of buffing storm so that it did either more damage to burrowed units or put a slow debuff on burrowed units has been floating in my head as a way to help Protoss deal with Lurkers without deleting them entirely from the match up and not really impacting PvT. (Yeah, Widow mines, but using storm to kill them would be a super niche strat)
|
On March 19 2018 11:44 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 10:09 seemsgood wrote:On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ. I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd. I've said it before, give Liberator AtG 5 damage back so that they two-shot Stalkers at +1 instead of +2. Protoss has better chronoboost and better stalkers now, so this gives Terrans some initiative in the midgame even when they're behind a set of upgrades. It's a small, targeted change that's unlikely to affect any other matchup.
I agree a Liberator (or perhaps Widow Mine) tweak would be much better than reverting back to the old Marauder which would only further incentivize more all-ins from Terran.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 19 2018 13:37 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 11:44 Athenau wrote:On March 19 2018 10:09 seemsgood wrote:On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote:
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ. I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd. I've said it before, give Liberator AtG 5 damage back so that they two-shot Stalkers at +1 instead of +2. Protoss has better chronoboost and better stalkers now, so this gives Terrans some initiative in the midgame even when they're behind a set of upgrades. It's a small, targeted change that's unlikely to affect any other matchup. I agree a Liberator (or perhaps Widow Mine) tweak would be much better than reverting back to the old Marauder which would only further incentivize more all-ins from Terran.
I believe that Blizzard doesn't want to buff units which are annoying. And flying siege tank is annoying. It's similar to the Oracle. IMO 
|
Terran need better bio vsP, not libs. And libs actually are more present in terran all-ins than maraudeurs, so i don't get your point.
Libs are dead vP not only because they were nerfed and stalkers buffed, but because the free Recall. Let's say you turtle to liberator range. If the P isn't tech ready but position himself aggressively he simply win time, then basetrade you, then recall. With protoss being on more nexus etc it' a 100% legit move.
Globally recall is maybe needed vs Z but is a huge concern vs T. It feels really unfair, and smashing the opponents units after the recall seems OP, at least the opponent should have more time to react and go away.
|
Recall needs to be 125 Energy and with a shared global cooldown for both Nexus and Mothership.
Freely teleportering units anywhere on the map is bad for the game. Being out of position should have consequences.
Protoss may need to have single recall for balance reasons but it should be a long time between uses so that it becomes more important when to use it.
|
i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range
|
On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote:
i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range
Bunker rushes are nothing compared to what they were. If you die to a bunker rush these days you deserve the loss. They are easy to scout and easy to hold. Once they are held, it's pretty much an auto loss for terran. Bunker rushes are a gigantic gamble these days that rarely pays off. Maru got extremely lucky.
|
What if Armory cost and build time were reduced, so terran could start 2/2 infantry a bit faster?
Would faster terran infantry upgrades and faster upgrades for mech have too big ramifications for TvZ?
|
On March 19 2018 20:03 MockHamill wrote:
Recall needs to be 125 Energy and with a shared global cooldown for both Nexus and Mothership.
Freely teleportering units anywhere on the map is bad for the game. Being out of position should have consequences.
Protoss may need to have single recall for balance reasons but it should be a long time between uses so that it becomes more important when to use it.
Watch Serral Neeb on Acid Plant and imagine how that game would play out if Neeb had even LESS mobility.
|
On March 19 2018 08:03 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 06:36 bObA wrote:On March 17 2018 21:08 bObA wrote:
And atm all the best terrans : Gumiho, Innovation, Byun, Ty are losing and not doing well in tournaments.
Only Maru is succeeding.
So talking about nerfing ravens because one player is using them well is non sense.
That is good Blizzard backed off with that nerf.
Anyway Serral shew us Zerg can use mass Vipers and Infestors and be as deadly as Ravens in late game.
The game was balanced but Maru played a bit better and also Serral is a foreigner.
In any matchups Koreans are almost better than foreigners.
That was what I said. I have just watched the first game between Maru and Dark and even with mass ravens Dark killed Maru easily. No need to nerf Ravens. And guess what, to avoid ravens missile damage, Dark was doing simple moves what all terrans have been learning for 10 years to be in Master league : splitting and spreading units ! you probably didnt watch the first game, Dark pretty much won with ravager bust, then Maru clang on for dear life, from a massively disadvantageous position. Sure he managed to crawl up to 200 vs 200, but while he had no bank and no mapcontrol, Dark was sitting on 10k resources and the entire map was covered with creep, mining from 8 and a half bases while Maru has been on 5 untill he mined them all out. This way Dark could afford to carefully take like 10 trades (all of them cost-inefficient still) and win, but by the end he was out of resources as well, his massive bank down to almost 0. If anything Maru vs Dark g1 is a very good argument to rethink the missile, cuz i dont think that s the way to go, you almost kill the Terran but if he refuses to leave then u have to starve them out until they have no more resources in their bases. The units lost tab clearly showed how cost effective Maru could be with that composition, even from a very bad position, against a very good and careful opponent.
I politely disagree.
Maru didn't crawl back because his units were better but because Dark lost broadness of vision. With his bank, he could have been doing simultaneous lurker drops in the main, ling floods around the sides, and threatening with parasitic bomb (but not actually attacking) at the same time. He became too focused and kept hitting the rock that was a solid position on the map. What Dark did was a really advanced version of trying to run 100 marines again and again into 15 lurkers. But just because it was an advanced composition, that doesn't change anything from a tactical standpoint.
Move then to the later games. Dark evolved. He did learn how to break the Raven/ghost combo. You could see how without the ghosts, ravens die, and without the ravens, ghosts die. But that's not why he won. He also started attacking more than one objective on the map simultaneously. Consider the burrowed roach game. That was won because Dark could do more things than Maru could respond to - that's how Zerg is supposed to win, and he did.
|
On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote:
i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range
The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range.
|
On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote:
i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range.
Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on.
|
On March 19 2018 21:35 ihatevideogames wrote:
What if Armory cost and build time were reduced, so terran could start 2/2 infantry a bit faster?
Would faster terran infantry upgrades and faster upgrades for mech have too big ramifications for TvZ?
Making bio 2/2 upgrade faster is very interesting idea. Cheaper and faster armory might be problematic due to faster access to helbats and thors.
Maybe simple solution would be to postpone armory requirement, so you would need it only for 3/3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
