|
On October 06 2019 22:32 kajtarp wrote:
Can anybody tell me why does Zergs need Infested terrans? And if their supposed role is to beef Zerg anti air against late game airballs, why can't they make the unit to only be able to shoot only air units? That way they would still fullfill their role as anti air, but wouldnt be massable/spammable to massacre entire bases or late game ground armies. I'm a zerg fan, so i'm not trying to hate on zergs, i just can't get my head wrapped around this.
W/o IT 2 marauders/stalkers would just be able to massacre your out-positioned infestors.
Honestly, I think it would make more sense to remove IT and give infestors an attack, it sure would make them easier to control.
|
On October 06 2019 09:56 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2019 02:18 BerserkSword wrote:On October 05 2019 13:01 seemsgood wrote:On October 05 2019 11:34 BerserkSword wrote:On October 05 2019 08:58 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 05 2019 08:41 Charoisaur wrote:On October 05 2019 08:18 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 05 2019 07:49 Boggyb wrote:On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote:
how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite. Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ. Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors? Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong. What nerfs? Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier. Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact. A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring. These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really. I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be. Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum. Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA On October 05 2019 12:19 BerserkSword wrote:
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
how tho ? this unit only goes out of control when zerg players make over 20 infestors while still be able to harrass P/T naturals and that secures them a very healthy eco for another instant 20-25 units remax 20 infestors for 60 supply will definately hold thier ground no problem like the current one but zerg players must work harder in drone count and thier hit squads.Late game was never just about all out direct engagement I agree that infestors can be out of control. I'm not saying this unit should NOT be nerfed I'm saying that making them 3 supply is too drastic. Zerg needs a strong infestor to contend. I dont see why Blizzard doesnt look into buffing protoss lategame. I agree with wombat in that 2018 lategame pvz was very close to balanced, at least ocmpared to 2019 after carriers lost graviton catapult, tempests got nerfed, and feedback got nerfed. 3 supply is too drastic ? will it become a nail in da coffin ??? or you are just simply overthinking ? welp....you gotta elaborate to us instead of saying it many times tho.3 supply infestor isnt a must, its just our suggestion in case the current proposed changes dont go well and there should be better options while i find your opinion about 2018 skytoss is purely biased but nvm...buffing late game toss aint bad either,may be the balance team think its better to nerf every stuffs they ve done right now ?
I am not overthinking.
It is simple math. Increasing the supply of a unit by 50% is a massive nerf when you consider the fact that the infestor is the one thing allowing Zerg to contend against air comps of Terran and Protoss.
My opinion about 2018 skytoss is biased in what way? The fact of the matter is that Skytoss was gutted, and Feedback was nerfed in half, and all of a sudden you see Protoss literally unable to do anything against Infestor BL. It's cause and effect.
the solution imo is to buff protoss lategame but i agree with you. that will never happen.
Until Blizzard realizes that it has made mistakes in the past, I don't have high hopes for this game.
By the way, this balance patch literally told us that they do NOT want Protoss ground to be able to contend with Zerg ground in the late game. The lurker got an insane late game buff against protoss ground units that forces Protoss to go air or die.
|
you may as well bring the warhound back! Some of these changes are nearly reverting the game back to a way it was.
|
On October 07 2019 02:39 MrFreeman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2019 22:32 kajtarp wrote:
Can anybody tell me why does Zergs need Infested terrans? And if their supposed role is to beef Zerg anti air against late game airballs, why can't they make the unit to only be able to shoot only air units? That way they would still fullfill their role as anti air, but wouldnt be massable/spammable to massacre entire bases or late game ground armies. I'm a zerg fan, so i'm not trying to hate on zergs, i just can't get my head wrapped around this. W/o IT 2 marauders/stalkers would just be able to massacre your out-positioned infestors. Honestly, I think it would make more sense to remove IT and give infestors an attack, it sure would make them easier to control.
That seems quite a weak reasoning to me.
|
On October 07 2019 04:50 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2019 02:39 MrFreeman wrote:On October 06 2019 22:32 kajtarp wrote:
Can anybody tell me why does Zergs need Infested terrans? And if their supposed role is to beef Zerg anti air against late game airballs, why can't they make the unit to only be able to shoot only air units? That way they would still fullfill their role as anti air, but wouldnt be massable/spammable to massacre entire bases or late game ground armies. I'm a zerg fan, so i'm not trying to hate on zergs, i just can't get my head wrapped around this. W/o IT 2 marauders/stalkers would just be able to massacre your out-positioned infestors. Honestly, I think it would make more sense to remove IT and give infestors an attack, it sure would make them easier to control. That seems quite a weak reasoning to me.
It's not really a reasoning (if you are referring to "why infestors have IT" part), just experiences I've had. Throwing IT, turrets or morphing to archons have saved my bacon so many times, because these units are really easy to move somewhere by accident. I hate viper for this reason, since all I can do is throw the unstackable bomb, so I can't even throw it in panic.
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On October 07 2019 02:36 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2019 03:11 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 06 2019 02:15 BerserkSword wrote:On October 05 2019 12:53 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 05 2019 12:19 BerserkSword wrote:On October 05 2019 11:58 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On October 05 2019 11:34 BerserkSword wrote:On October 05 2019 08:58 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 05 2019 08:41 Charoisaur wrote:On October 05 2019 08:18 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
[quote]
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors? Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong. What nerfs? Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier. Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact. A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring. These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really. I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be. Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum. Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me. A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT. There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over. Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9... Which is fine? Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case. Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly. Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so. Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc. It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate. Completely changing the game, essentially from scratch, will kill SC2, which is why I don't think it's fine. Despite the fact that I do think that ideally, heavy redesigns everywhere are ideal. The elephant in the room is that Protoss ground is severely outclassed in the lategame. Which is why Skytoss deathball has to be viable. Protoss ground simply doesnt scale well, has poverty AA capabilities, and gets eviscerated in the lategame. A 3 supply infestor would make lategame balance HEAVILY in favor of protoss (and Terran, but I'm one of the few who believe that terran lategame actually beats zerg lategame). To balance this skytoss would require further nerfs, essentially turning it from the garbage it is now to a pile of crap. Because of these nerfs Protoss ground to air capabilities would have to be buffed, and they'd probably turn the immortal into a mini thor, since buffing stalkers would make them broken - whatever the case protoss ground would become broken as they now are capable of handling air units. I can go on and on, but the point is that drastic changes in units lead to drastic metagame changes, and that is a death knell for an already dying game. It should not happen for a variety of reasons. If it’s for the better it will benefit the game, radical or not. HoTS Protoss ‘needed’ the mothership core to be viable at certain times. Instead of just accepting that, Blizzard removed it, gave Protoss shield batteries and the game improved. When Ravens were extremely strong and massable they got nerfed too. Sure you have to change a lot potentially, change a lot. fine by me personally. Blizzard want these mass air balls to be viable, Infestors must be strong so Zergs can deal with them. Why? Air balls are boring, they circumvent terrain and generally aren’t microable or interesting to watch. Tone down air balls across the board, give units a niche to fulfill by all means but not be so potent when masses. The game is nowhere near as popular as it was during HoTS. At the end of HoTS, a complete new expansion was imminent. Right now, LoTV is the last of the trilogy and SC2 is struggling to stay afloat. Whether or not the game improved from HoTS is debatable , as well. I, for one, do not think it has. The difference between the Raven and the Infestor is that Terran does not need a powerful raven to contend in the lategame. Zerg needs a powerful infestor to contend. I am not saying Infestors should not be toned down. 3 supply is insane though. It's like instead of nerfing BC's TJ, they just make BCs 9 supply.
Perhaps, does that make it worse than WoL or HoTS?
Personally I prefer the current iterations of LoTV, but tastes do differ.
Looking at the market around, what other RTS is doing half decently? I presume a lot of people persevered with SC2 for quite a period, only to move on for whatever reason.
Myself I do like the game, but I only really stick around because it’s too hard to get good at BW nowadays, and there’s basically no other option for an RTS fix.
I’ve had a fair few big hiatuses from the game, personally I find myself burnt out and re-energised when I return, perhaps others don’t return though. My two main ones were towards the end of WoL and BL/Infestor, and HoTS when mass swarm host became prevalent even on ladder.
Personally I find the state of the game immeasurably better than those times, equally I think my frequent breaks from the game and even the scene entirely maybe give me a slightly different perspective.
I really, really disliked HoTS as a Protoss player who was a (relative) PvT sniper in WoL. My strengths were in splitting and positioning my army well, then boom Mothership core negated all my strengths in that matchup and was dumb. And my off-race T whose best matchup was TvP fucking sucked at it in HoTS.
|
On October 04 2019 05:16 Noocta wrote:
This game has become way too upgrade bloated. There's a design problem ? make a new upgrade ? Something too strong, too weak, upgrades there, upgrades everywhere.
Just compare how clean most of the Broodwar upgrades are compared to this.
I can only second this. The game already has a lot of units and almost every unit has at least one upgrade altering its stats or abilities. This does not only make the game way too complicated for new players, but also puts way too much focus on getting these upgrades than making decisions for experienced players.
I almost feel like removing most of these upgrades would keep the game pretty balanced, because you take upgrade-based power spikes from both parties in a match (I didn't really think about if it would actually be like that). It could also make the advantages of one player less drastic if he can get these upgrades earlier. I think a game should be won by getting multiple small wins and not because of one single clash which it looks like is the case today.
|
On October 07 2019 07:14 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’ve had a fair few big hiatuses from the game, personally I find myself burnt out and re-energised when I return, perhaps others don’t return though. My two main ones were towards the end of WoL and BL/Infestor, and HoTS when mass swarm host became prevalent even on ladder.
This describes me too. I left at roughly the same points. When I came back I was surprised how much better the game is now and I've ended up playing rather frequently on and off the last couple years. Most of the changes made sense and nothing seemed completely broken in the way those two issues in WoL and HoTS were.
The current status of PvZ is the first thing I've played that has felt like those eras. Even a few months back, most PvZs I played were compositions like ling/bane/hydra against immortal/archon/HT or other compositions that make for fun, dynamic games. Now most PvZs that aren't nydus nonsense seem to be the zerg speedrunning for hive again like in WoL while spamming mass static defence at their bases rather than building an actual army then going straight to infestor/broodlord/corruptor. Combine this with maps that aren't particularly great for protoss all-ins due to the lack of chokes for forcefields/preventing surrounds and we're left with a matchup as bad or worse than WoL PvZ was. I'm not convinced this new patch in its' current state will fix this problem.
I quite literally just finished playing a game on Acropolis where the zerg had 24 infestors. The entire game was basically fighting against spammed infested terrans. That 48 supply of units was more or less fighting a 100+ supply air/HT army on its own at times. It was stupid.
edit: I agree with the sentiment of the posts about there being too many upgrades as well. It's getting silly.
|
On October 07 2019 07:32 realityyy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2019 05:16 Noocta wrote:
This game has become way too upgrade bloated. There's a design problem ? make a new upgrade ? Something too strong, too weak, upgrades there, upgrades everywhere.
Just compare how clean most of the Broodwar upgrades are compared to this. I can only second this. The game already has a lot of units and almost every unit has at least one upgrade altering its stats or abilities. This does not only make the game way too complicated for new players, but also puts way too much focus on getting these upgrades than making decisions for experienced players. I almost feel like removing most of these upgrades would keep the game pretty balanced, because you take upgrade-based power spikes from both parties in a match (I didn't really think about if it would actually be like that). It could also make the advantages of one player less drastic if he can get these upgrades earlier. I think a game should be won by getting multiple small wins and not because of one single clash which it looks like is the case today.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think upgrades add a nice layer of strategy to the game. Yes an rts can deffinity work without them, but im not sure one like starcraft can. Things are so asymmetric the upgrades really help gate the power of units so they are not to strong to early. Its just to fundamental to how the game works.
|
Does anyone think the reason Zerg is dominating so much besides the infestor/brood death ball is because of how many units they have that create "free units?"
The last time I remember Terran dominating zerg late game, terran had the splash anti-armor missiles which was essentially another "free" unit and Maru would dominate Serral late game.
It seems like between swarm hosts, brood lords and infestors Zerg can just be so efficient late game and eventually the other race just runs out of money. Case in point - if terran tries to counter by "zoning out" with nukes - terran will be bleeding money while zerg continues using free units cost effectively. If Terran tries to go Thors, and then loses them to neurals, terran is bleeding money while Zerg just used mana.
Just some food for thought. I'm not sure if the new patch quite fixes this..
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On October 06 2019 21:04 MrFreeman wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2019 20:28 deacon.frost wrote:On October 06 2019 20:19 MrFreeman wrote:On October 06 2019 00:41 deacon.frost wrote:On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote:
Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience. PvZ on a ladder is sitting around 50 %. Do you know why? Because match making! That makes the ladder bellow high master 50 %. So, uh, Blizz has nothing out of ladder because their own system is placing the players together so both have equal chanca to win...  That is not how ladder works. Yes, we do have individual MMR for each race (though random players don't even have that), but is still the same MMR for each matchup and each gamestate. So when PvZ lategame is protoss favoured in dia and lower, blizz can very clearly see that. On October 05 2019 23:54 Wombat_NI wrote:On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote:
Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience. What late game Toss composition in PvZ is easy to control? Zerg lategame is extremely difficult to control to the level of a Dark or Serral too, I do agree that observers aren’t aware of that when they’re complaining. I don’t think there’s 100% consensus, most people concede that in the current state of the game that Zerg need really potent Infestors, but would prefer the game change to alter this in some way. Well, most of them, as long as you don't mix in disruptors. I usually try to mix in carriers and mothership, because interceptors and invisibility really messes with auto targeting and my opponents even tend to set their detection forward in panic. Another gr8 thing about carriers is that when they get neuraled, the remaining units just insta kill their interceptors and leave them be, so I don't lose them and they don't cause havoc. To add to that, I have some pretty gr8 options that are easy to control, even a few HTs are gr8 against clumpy compositions like Vikings, Corruptors, Hydras, voids and Marines, storms are easy to cast with HTs on 1 control group, storm's range and instant cast and the small hit boxes HT's have, plus when I fail to control them properly, they turn to archons quickly and then I just a-move them for buffer. Immortals are good for cleaning the ground if they have mostly air, like infestor, tank, cyclone, disruptor, plus they don't take air targeting priority. When they have a lot of corruptors or vikings, I add a few voids, they work gr8 when A-moved and when they r on same control group as carriers, they show up first so I can prismatic align them easily. It sure is much easier than when I'm trying to juggle T or Z late game compositions :D . You have a separate ladder MMR for Protoss, not PvZ. Thus you (as a P player) play against Z/R/T/P with similar MMR. In a big enough numbers it will result in 50/50 PvZ on ladder bellow masters because you will play some ZvP masters and some ZvP losers. Because despite what people think(ZvP broken, Zerg OP) it doesn't hit until you're high enough so there will be some Zerg losers who will tank the ZvP w/r You can't go much out of the way. And on the top of that you have unranked players messing things even more up(and offracing players). Ladder can't show anything and will show 50/50, it's built this way to show this, the only exception is the top where people play each other all the time and we're out of the big sample  Your overall w/l rate is 50/50, if PvZ is one sided, that percentage will be lower for the weaker race and higher for the other matchups. If lategame of one of the races in PvZ is favoured, again, the percentage of wins in longer games against that race, something blizz can easily view, will be out of balance as well. This is not even lack of understanding of statistics, since these numbers are in your profile and in your opponents profiles. All you have to do is look and see that even for people with thousands of games, the numbers are far from 50/50 for all matchups. The advantage that blizz has is the ability to take all the players and filter through them as they see fit.
Uh, wrong, but doesn't matter. (BTW if you check my profile you will se 0 % wr in all matchups  )
Why would Blizz balance anythign based on the lower leagues anyway? Like - I play mass speed banshee and have 50 % success rate (thanks ladder). If I start losing does this mean anything? It means total nonsense because I am not in the high masters and I can play - literally - anything I want and get 50 % w/r with it. If I start losing more does this mean anything for the overall balance? if so, it means speed banshees needs moar hp, moar damage and moar speed You can't balance the game around people who cannot build a pylon on time and are in frequent supply blocks. And I am still in the higher parts of the ladder with my troll builds... There's a reason why so many people will say that up until medium masters you can play anything and the balance doesn't matter to you...
Also you can't balance the game based on pure numbers as - e.g. what is PvZ lategame? Game which ended at 20th minute mark or after it? If so - what does it mean if I do a successful cannon rush and then prolong the game while playing with the Zerg who refuses to leave? Or vice versa - the Zerg makes successful push and is just unable to finish the game and I just prolong the inevitable. Such games say nothing about the lategame PvZ as the game was decided BEFORE the lategame even begun. (although considering my league everything's possible, especially when my Terran is tanking my Protoss MMR )
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On October 07 2019 13:17 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2019 07:14 Wombat_NI wrote:
I’ve had a fair few big hiatuses from the game, personally I find myself burnt out and re-energised when I return, perhaps others don’t return though. My two main ones were towards the end of WoL and BL/Infestor, and HoTS when mass swarm host became prevalent even on ladder.
This describes me too. I left at roughly the same points. When I came back I was surprised how much better the game is now and I've ended up playing rather frequently on and off the last couple years. Most of the changes made sense and nothing seemed completely broken in the way those two issues in WoL and HoTS were. The current status of PvZ is the first thing I've played that has felt like those eras. Even a few months back, most PvZs I played were compositions like ling/bane/hydra against immortal/archon/HT or other compositions that make for fun, dynamic games. Now most PvZs that aren't nydus nonsense seem to be the zerg speedrunning for hive again like in WoL while spamming mass static defence at their bases rather than building an actual army then going straight to infestor/broodlord/corruptor. Combine this with maps that aren't particularly great for protoss all-ins due to the lack of chokes for forcefields/preventing surrounds and we're left with a matchup as bad or worse than WoL PvZ was. I'm not convinced this new patch in its' current state will fix this problem. I quite literally just finished playing a game on Acropolis where the zerg had 24 infestors. The entire game was basically fighting against spammed infested terrans. That 48 supply of units was more or less fighting a 100+ supply air/HT army on its own at times. It was stupid. edit: I agree with the sentiment of the posts about there being too many upgrades as well. It's getting silly.
I found it’s a combo of things for me, but I’ve always felt PvZ is by a distance the worst Protoss matchup to play, bar a few sadly short lived periods.
Not enjoying a matchup personally doesn’t make it bad necessarily, there are personal tastes at play.
PvT is pretty stable, there’s a bunch of valid styles and you can play a macro game where you’re active on the map constantly. PvP is weird and can be wonky, but micro really shines in the relatively low supply skirmishes and pushes you see, there’s a lot of comeback potential and strategic improvisation you can do.
PvZ of late feels fast expand into some kind of harassment tech, into some kind of allin that you hope your opponent misreads. There’s not really an active back and forth midgame generally where you can gain advantages through positioning and fighting over territory like in PvT, TvZ or TvT. Partly due to the maps really not having much terrain you can even use to push out.
Protoss can’t compete with the scale of Zerg forces in all these open areas, it’s stupidly risky to be sharking much in this pool.
Not mentioned enough either but really obvious, Zerg stuff is also way faster than that of Protoss. Combined with wide open spaces, creep, Protoss’ relatively low DPS and small forces are just waiting to get surrounded and wrecked. Protoss could really have done with something to fulfil the hellion role, something speedy and can be out on the map separate from main forces.
If Protoss had a consistently viable way of playing an aggressive midgame to keep Zerg honest, or could even vaguely go toe to toe in the real lategame the matchup would be a good deal better, we don’t really see either really being the case currently.
Hopefully these changes and future ones will gradually see an improvement to the matchup anyway. I feel PvT and PvP have much improved over the years, but Protoss and Zerg just don’t mesh all that well
|
I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On October 07 2019 19:34 MockHamill wrote:
I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup.
See, I think it's the exact opposite, with every iteration the WoL seems to me better and better and the new product worse and worse. But that's just me. (although I accept the issue WoL had and some balancing would have to be done I loved that there were less hardcounters, try responding to mass muta in PvZ with storm/blink nowadays. You could at WoL )
BTW Disruptors having the same range as tanks means that tanks sitting behind a terrain cover can freely shoot at them, IMO it should stay the way it is or give the balls ability to walk the cliffs
(Edit> to be fair I hate disruptors but I believe they're now part of the game and cannot be esily ermoved)
|
blizzard please fix you map pools
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
On October 07 2019 20:13 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2019 19:34 MockHamill wrote:
I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup. See, I think it's the exact opposite, with every iteration the WoL seems to me better and better and the new product worse and worse. But that's just me. (although I accept the issue WoL had and some balancing would have to be done I loved that there were less hardcounters, try responding to mass muta in PvZ with storm/blink nowadays. You could at WoL ) BTW Disruptors having the same range as tanks means that tanks sitting behind a terrain cover can freely shoot at them, IMO it should stay the way it is or give the balls ability to walk the cliffs (Edit> to be fair I hate disruptors but I believe they're now part of the game and cannot be esily ermoved)
Disruptors emerging from the fog from the same range as tank fire fills me with horror.
I don’t see how WoL was any less hard counter based than what we have now. Outside of a Khaydarin amulet augmented San/Man Zenith PvT was Stalker/Colossus vs bio/Viking for aeons until Parting came into prominence with Templar first. Stephano won tournaments building almost entirely roaches, then Protoss started going hardcore blind Immortal builds.
Plus units like Colossus were so much more potent so you saw a ton of stalker/collosus, or at least other units + collosus in all 3 Protoss matchups. Outside of its specific counters, the colossus was a soft counter to everything that existed on the ground.
Now it’s toned down you see more varied/balanced Protoss ground compositions
|
I feel like the game design is deeply flawed when stuff requires this much gimmicky upgrades and changes. An upgrade to give adepts 20 more shield...? The units have been changed so much now it's crazy. Stuff feels unnecessarily complex. To many units doing similar things with wacky abilities and upgrades. Disappointing.
|
Just saw this post on bnet forum
Please nerf infestors! Nerf neural. Nerf FREE units. Infested terran DPS is almost as thor dps! what? YES new thor dps and new infested terran dps is almost same! But one is 300-200 and other one is energy.
Thor - damage 25 (+10 vs Massive) cooldown 0.9.
Inf terran - damage 24 cooldown 0.95.
So a full energy Infestor can just spawn 4 Thors vs air. Seems legit
|
Northern Ireland23759 Posts
I actually quite like a lot of these changes, at least in theory.
Bar the lack of a hefty Infestor nerf, which is probably the most in-demand one from many in the community.
Splitting charge I like for TvP. Zealots are so tanky plus have that punch that it’s really hard for Terran pushes to do appreciable damage to Protoss thirds. However Zealots are further upgradeable, which is good as they do have to be good at the same time.
Perhaps that will slightly slow Protoss powering in that phase of the game too.
I like shifting some HP and shield values around so the shield is less heavily weighted and EMP is less devastating. It does also alter interactions with shield batteries, make that slow lategame Tempest pushing a little harder to sustain without taking hull damage.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On October 07 2019 23:06 Harris1st wrote:Just saw this post on bnet forum Show nested quote +Please nerf infestors! Nerf neural. Nerf FREE units. Infested terran DPS is almost as thor dps! what? YES new thor dps and new infested terran dps is almost same! But one is 300-200 and other one is energy.
Thor - damage 25 (+10 vs Massive) cooldown 0.9.
Inf terran - damage 24 cooldown 0.95. So a full energy Infestor can just spawn 4 Thors vs air. Seems legit
It's really hard to not write the obvious post when this is revelead...
On October 07 2019 21:18 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2019 20:13 deacon.frost wrote:On October 07 2019 19:34 MockHamill wrote:
I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup. See, I think it's the exact opposite, with every iteration the WoL seems to me better and better and the new product worse and worse. But that's just me. (although I accept the issue WoL had and some balancing would have to be done I loved that there were less hardcounters, try responding to mass muta in PvZ with storm/blink nowadays. You could at WoL ) BTW Disruptors having the same range as tanks means that tanks sitting behind a terrain cover can freely shoot at them, IMO it should stay the way it is or give the balls ability to walk the cliffs (Edit> to be fair I hate disruptors but I believe they're now part of the game and cannot be esily ermoved) Disruptors emerging from the fog from the same range as tank fire fills me with horror. I don’t see how WoL was any less hard counter based than what we have now. Outside of a Khaydarin amulet augmented San/Man Zenith PvT was Stalker/Colossus vs bio/Viking for aeons until Parting came into prominence with Templar first. Stephano won tournaments building almost entirely roaches, then Protoss started going hardcore blind Immortal builds. Plus units like Colossus were so much more potent so you saw a ton of stalker/collosus, or at least other units + collosus in all 3 Protoss matchups. Outside of its specific counters, the colossus was a soft counter to everything that existed on the ground. Now it’s toned down you see more varied/balanced Protoss ground compositions
The variety of composition and hardcounters aren't the same. And I even gave the best example. Nowadays you either have phoenixes or you're dead to mutalisk. You can stall for phoenixes with archon micro. Or you go for the basetrade. Back in WoL you could go for phoenixes, or you could defend with blink and move into storm(viable defense used in pro matches!!). The only problem was that the transition from mutas was BL/infestor
In WoL you had less "you either have this unit or you're dead" issues. Sure, it needed tweaking but generally to me it seemed there was less hardcountering. At least on the Protoss side of things
But this is not the place for this, if you want to discuss this more create a nostalgy thread or pms
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
