|
On November 30 2019 05:52 Decendos wrote:
Lets see if it stays as speedy in the next months.
I don't see how they could nerf the speed of charge zealots without giving them something else. If they slow them down at all then they're suddenly useless in PvT because they will neither do their up-front damage they used to do nor be able to keep up and keep dealing damage to stim bio like the current ones do. It'd be the worst aspects of both versions of charge combined into one. We'd be left with zealots that can't keep up with either of the other race's armies, but also are only guaranteed to get one swipe worth of damage. They'd be as useless as the new adept.
The last thing I want them to do is try to do a half-hearted nerf to zealots like they did to stalkers after they changed how stalkers did damage. They took stalkers that were good in one way (they did low damage but attacked quickly so they could deal with things like zerglings and stuff well), changed them to be good in another way instead (they attacked slowly but did more damage. They could 3-hit marines and were actually reasonable for cost against roaches as the like), but then after a bunch of whining from the community they nerfed them after less than a month of being changed and we ended up with a stalker that's not good at either of their previous strengths anymore (it now takes 4 hits again to kill a marine but the stalker attacks slower, and they're completely useless against zerg now). If I remember right people pointed to blink all-ins being too good so stalkers got nerfed then they ended up nerfing the blink research time significantly a couple months later anyway.
I do think we need to wait a while and see GSL or other higher calibre tournaments where people have had more time to practice with the current units before we pass judgment on any of these changes (other than the adept glaive change because we're never going to see anyone use it outside of all-ins now). Things that seem strong at first often tend to lose that strength as people learn how to deal with them. If they keep being too good then maybe look at them.
|
On November 30 2019 09:47 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 05:52 Decendos wrote:
Lets see if it stays as speedy in the next months.
I don't see how they could nerf the speed of charge zealots without giving them something else. If they slow them down at all then they're suddenly useless in PvT because they will neither do their up-front damage they used to do nor be able to keep up and keep dealing damage to stim bio like the current ones do. It'd be the worst aspects of both versions of charge combined into one. We'd be left with zealots that can't keep up with either of the other race's armies, but also are only guaranteed to get one swipe worth of damage. They'd be as useless as the new adept. The last thing I want them to do is try to do a half-hearted nerf to zealots like they did to stalkers after they changed how stalkers did damage. They took stalkers that were good in one way (they did low damage but attacked quickly so they could deal with things like zerglings and stuff well), changed them to be good in another way instead (they attacked slowly but did more damage. They could 3-hit marines and were actually reasonable for cost against roaches as the like), but then after a bunch of whining from the community they nerfed them after less than a month of being changed and we ended up with a stalker that's not good at either of their previous strengths anymore (it now takes 4 hits again to kill a marine but the stalker attacks slower, and they're completely useless against zerg now). If I remember right people pointed to blink all-ins being too good so stalkers got nerfed then they ended up nerfing the blink research time significantly a couple months later anyway. I do think we need to wait a while and see GSL or other higher calibre tournaments where people have had more time to practice with the current units before we pass judgment on any of these changes (other than the adept glaive change because we're never going to see anyone use it outside of all-ins now). Things that seem strong at first often tend to lose that strength as people learn how to deal with them. If they keep being too good then maybe look at them.
Stalkers before the buff/change did 10 damage to non-armored, they took five shots to kill a marine, not four.
|
On November 30 2019 09:51 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 09:47 Ben... wrote:On November 30 2019 05:52 Decendos wrote:
Lets see if it stays as speedy in the next months.
I don't see how they could nerf the speed of charge zealots without giving them something else. If they slow them down at all then they're suddenly useless in PvT because they will neither do their up-front damage they used to do nor be able to keep up and keep dealing damage to stim bio like the current ones do. It'd be the worst aspects of both versions of charge combined into one. We'd be left with zealots that can't keep up with either of the other race's armies, but also are only guaranteed to get one swipe worth of damage. They'd be as useless as the new adept. The last thing I want them to do is try to do a half-hearted nerf to zealots like they did to stalkers after they changed how stalkers did damage. They took stalkers that were good in one way (they did low damage but attacked quickly so they could deal with things like zerglings and stuff well), changed them to be good in another way instead (they attacked slowly but did more damage. They could 3-hit marines and were actually reasonable for cost against roaches as the like), but then after a bunch of whining from the community they nerfed them after less than a month of being changed and we ended up with a stalker that's not good at either of their previous strengths anymore (it now takes 4 hits again to kill a marine but the stalker attacks slower, and they're completely useless against zerg now). If I remember right people pointed to blink all-ins being too good so stalkers got nerfed then they ended up nerfing the blink research time significantly a couple months later anyway. I do think we need to wait a while and see GSL or other higher calibre tournaments where people have had more time to practice with the current units before we pass judgment on any of these changes (other than the adept glaive change because we're never going to see anyone use it outside of all-ins now). Things that seem strong at first often tend to lose that strength as people learn how to deal with them. If they keep being too good then maybe look at them. Stalkers before the buff/change did 10 damage to non-armored, they took five shots to kill a marine, not four. Ah, I must have done the math wrong.
I still stand by my point of not wanting them to do half-measure changes just to please the community though.
|
United Kingdom20303 Posts
I think the new stalker is a lot more fun to play with than the old one. The older one had to spend a much larger % of its time attacking so micro like stutter stepping was much less practical. It was also objectively a bit weaker, IMO.
It's in the pre-LOTV campaign missions and feels awful to play with after being used to the new one (which always felt great)
---
On the zealot subject, i think the issue is not so much the charge damage as it is medivac healing rate. They perform very good in some ways but shockingly bad in some other situations where they used to be okay because they were relying heavily on that +8 damage to outdps medivac healing.
A small change in DPS has a huge different on fight outcome when dealing with constant healing like with medivacs.
I think overall bio is probably too reliant on medivacs to fight, even just on an open field. They gain too much of their power from that healing beam since they're so squishy, having medivacs around is the difference between losing your whole army vs being able to stim and shred through all of the zealots then other P units before you've lost much.
It's a lot more obvious than before without the zeal charge damage, they have an easy time without medivacs around but they often do full surrounds on bio that has medivacs and all die without really killing anything. Many of the HSC casters including pros & Artosis were remarking on how weak they looked and how they'd have to recalibrate their expectations for some fights with zealots when that happened. It's also highly sensitive to upgrades, a +1 armor/attack difference swings that fight way more than it probably should.
|
On November 30 2019 08:29 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 05:09 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 04:12 Slydie wrote:On November 30 2019 03:40 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 02:57 MockHamill wrote:On November 30 2019 02:32 washikie wrote:
I for one am quite enjoying this patch. The changes they made have done a lot to improve ballance. I think I might enjoy a few more radical changes that shake up late game. But overall this was good. I agree that this patch is a major improvement. Zealot change improved TvP and Nydus went from OP to strong. The only thing I do not like is that TvT is still about who can mass the most vikings. Thors do absolutely nothing against vikings or liberators. Basically if I see my opponent trying to mix in Thors instead of just massing more vikings, it is a free win, given similar skill level. The heck? The Zealot is a total unmitigated failure in TvP after the Charge nerf. Chargelots cannot contest bio now and that was a fairly important dynamic. Well, PvT had a fantastic overall winrate at homestory cup, which was played on the patch, and both Terran and Protoss pros stated they think the new Zealot is too strong. I'm not the kind of guy to just accept what pros say without analysis. If I did, then I'd agree with Special that ObSeRvErS ArE ToO StRoNg. As one example of insane pro bias and why critical thought is very important. Homestory cup wasn't a good indicator of anything. New patch, small sample size and it's the 1st tournament on the new patch. The meta has absolutely zero refinement right now. But on paper and in practice, Zealots are bad vs bio now. Very, very bad and it's because without the +8 damage on charge, they don't kill as fast which means they have to tank more. Even double forge chrono'd constantly doesn't make up for that loss. In PvZ it's more of a redesign though. Not entirely sure how the speed works out vs Roaches but Roaches off creep could kite before whereas they can't now so it probably ends up being about the same. It was early of the patch, but I think the PvT overall winrate was the best of the tournament, way in th 60s, so it should be a good indicator, even considering the Korean P vs European T matchups. Some individual winrates in PvT: Parting: 4-3 Showtime: 5-4 MaNa: 9-3 Trap: 12-4 Stats: 4-0 Zest: 4-0 On the flipside, Cure, Innovation and uThermal went 5-1, 5-0 and 7-4 respectively, but Clem, who is famous for being one of the best TvP players in Europe, recently beating MaNa in nationwars, only managed a 5-4 record, and solid players like souL and Marinelord did not win a TvP. As for the pros, I have heard Harstem, Demuslim and Heromarine state that they think the new zealots are very strong after the patch released, which are pretty much all the ones I have heard talk about the issue lately. Yes, the sample sizes could have been bigger, but it is still a lot more data and qualified opinions than what you came up with. I think what they lose in dps in main fights is more than made up for by a massive improvement as a catchup, flanking, runby and harassment unit.
Did any of the pros you mention break down why they think the new zealot is strong in comparison to why I think they're weak?
Because feelings don't really matter much, what does matter is cold, hard logic.
And the cold, hard logic of the matter is that zealots are being asked to tank a lot more damage than before and this impacts TvP massively as well as ZvP (before you could bleed out zerg gas bank by forcing banelings via chargelots and splitting, now you can't even do that). Now in ZvP, the movement speed kind of sort of makes up for the nerf in some instances like vs non-speed Roaches but in TvP, bio deals way, way, waaaaay too much damage for a simple movement speed buff to matter.
Protoss don't need another way to harass. They already have Oracles, Adepts, Warp Prisms, DTs, Phoenix and now, Flux Rays. What they need is a front line unit that soaks up damage and the new zealot doesn't do that.
Also, win rates right now mean absolutely nothing. Nobody knows what's going on with this patch just yet. We need a meta to evolve before win rates mean something, outside of extreme outliers.
|
On November 30 2019 10:30 Cyro wrote:
I think the new stalker is a lot more fun to play with than the old one. The older one had to spend a much larger % of its time attacking so micro like stutter stepping was much less practical. It was also objectively a bit weaker, IMO.
It's in the pre-LOTV campaign missions and feels awful to play with after being used to the new one (which always felt great)
---
On the zealot subject, i think the issue is not so much the charge damage as it is medivac healing rate. They perform very good in some ways but shockingly bad in some other situations where they used to be okay because they were relying heavily on that +8 damage to outdps medivac healing.
A small change in DPS has a huge different on fight outcome when dealing with constant healing like with medivacs.
I think overall bio is probably too reliant on medivacs to fight, even just on an open field. They gain too much of their power from that healing beam since they're so squishy, having medivacs around is the difference between losing your whole army vs being able to stim and shred through all of the zealots then other P units before you've lost much.
It's a lot more obvious than before without the zeal charge damage, they have an easy time without medivacs around but they often do full surrounds on bio that has medivacs and all die without really killing anything. Many of the HSC casters including pros & Artosis were remarking on how weak they looked and how they'd have to recalibrate their expectations for some fights with zealots when that happened. It's also highly sensitive to upgrades, a +1 armor/attack difference swings that fight way more than it probably should.
That is another variable which I doubt the balance team considered. The +8 damage allowed Zealots to contest bio. Now bio often out heals the damage that chargelots can generate. I mean it's at the point where the Terran is better off not microing their bio. No stutter stepping, no kiting, no using choke points. Just stand still and kill chargelots.
That's a pretty big tell as to how bad the change is.
|
8 damage on charge is half of a zealot attack. If the extra speed allows a zealot to get even one extra swing over the entire charge cooldown (~7 seconds) in compared to before, it's a net win.
|
On November 30 2019 11:29 Athenau wrote:
8 damage on charge is half of a zealot attack. If the extra speed allows a zealot to get even one extra swing over the entire charge cooldown (~7 seconds) in compared to before, it's a net win.
Ish. You have to remember that damage is front loaded so if anything dies to the 8 damage+2 attacks, that's less that a zealot has to tank. If that damage is applied as a normal attack, that means the zealot has to tank more. And that is where the issue lies. By taking away the +8 damage, zealots are significantly less tanky.
|
On November 30 2019 11:55 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 11:29 Athenau wrote:
8 damage on charge is half of a zealot attack. If the extra speed allows a zealot to get even one extra swing over the entire charge cooldown (~7 seconds) in compared to before, it's a net win. Ish. You have to remember that damage is front loaded so if anything dies to the 8 damage+2 attacks, that's less that a zealot has to tank. If that damage is applied as a normal attack, that means the zealot has to tank more. And that is where the issue lies. By taking away the +8 damage, zealots are significantly less tanky.
It's true that more damage earlier in the fight is more significant that more damage later in the fight, but treating this as some sort of catastrophe is overblown. The extra damage on the charge is not likely to change most interactions most of the time. Let's take zealots vs marines + medivacs for example. Before, zealots could two shot marines on the charge IF the following happened:
1. The marine just stimmed (so at 45 hp)
2. Two zealots charge that marine and hit almost simultaneously (denying medivac healing) OR
3. The medivacs are all busy healing different targets.
Zealots are melee, they tend to spread out and engage different targets and don't hit all at once because they have to path through each other to attack. What this amounts to is that, occasionally, one or two extra units will live through the charge that wouldn't have, and in return you get a significant chunk of extra speed on a _melee_ unit, and all that implies.
|
On November 30 2019 12:29 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 11:55 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 11:29 Athenau wrote:
8 damage on charge is half of a zealot attack. If the extra speed allows a zealot to get even one extra swing over the entire charge cooldown (~7 seconds) in compared to before, it's a net win. Ish. You have to remember that damage is front loaded so if anything dies to the 8 damage+2 attacks, that's less that a zealot has to tank. If that damage is applied as a normal attack, that means the zealot has to tank more. And that is where the issue lies. By taking away the +8 damage, zealots are significantly less tanky. It's true that more damage earlier in the fight is more significant that more damage later in the fight, but treating this as some sort of catastrophe is overblown. The extra damage on the charge is not likely to change most interactions most of the time. Let's take zealots vs marines + medivacs for example. Before, zealots could two shot marines on the charge IF the following happened: 1. The marine just stimmed (so at 45 hp) 2. Two zealots charge that marine and hit almost simultaneously (denying medivac healing) OR 3. The medivacs are all busy healing different targets. Zealots are melee, they tend to spread out and engage different targets and don't hit all at once because they have to path through each other to attack. What this amounts to is that, occasionally, one or two extra units will live through the charge that wouldn't have, and in return you get a significant chunk of extra speed on a _melee_ unit, and all that implies.
I dunno man, I've tried the new zealots vs bio and they're awful. Beasty did too and he thought they were awful. They die much, much faster now and bio actually does better by not kiting vs chargelots.
|
On November 30 2019 13:12 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 12:29 Athenau wrote:On November 30 2019 11:55 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 11:29 Athenau wrote:
8 damage on charge is half of a zealot attack. If the extra speed allows a zealot to get even one extra swing over the entire charge cooldown (~7 seconds) in compared to before, it's a net win. Ish. You have to remember that damage is front loaded so if anything dies to the 8 damage+2 attacks, that's less that a zealot has to tank. If that damage is applied as a normal attack, that means the zealot has to tank more. And that is where the issue lies. By taking away the +8 damage, zealots are significantly less tanky. It's true that more damage earlier in the fight is more significant that more damage later in the fight, but treating this as some sort of catastrophe is overblown. The extra damage on the charge is not likely to change most interactions most of the time. Let's take zealots vs marines + medivacs for example. Before, zealots could two shot marines on the charge IF the following happened: 1. The marine just stimmed (so at 45 hp) 2. Two zealots charge that marine and hit almost simultaneously (denying medivac healing) OR 3. The medivacs are all busy healing different targets. Zealots are melee, they tend to spread out and engage different targets and don't hit all at once because they have to path through each other to attack. What this amounts to is that, occasionally, one or two extra units will live through the charge that wouldn't have, and in return you get a significant chunk of extra speed on a _melee_ unit, and all that implies. I dunno man, I've tried the new zealots vs bio and they're awful. Beasty did too and he thought they were awful. They die much, much faster now and bio actually does better by not kiting vs chargelots.
You are right BeastyQT was not a fan of the change, but that was mainly before playing real ladder with and against them.
From the Terran point of view, still/kiting zealots is much more difficult now, even abusing stim and concussive shells. I have not tried to play with the new Zealots.
I will not argue that your specific build is not worse now, but that is one situation, and I doubt you have played more than 10 ladder pvts since the patch hit considering the patch problems. Good luck finding a new way to play, there are many out there!
|
If zealots were shit which I really don't think its the case, a buff I would suggest would be sentries getting a movement speed buff while their own guardian shield is active, to help them keep up with the zealots.
Also from a spectator point of view with no concerns for balance, I want motherships to not be abductable. It looks ridiculous. 400/400 meme etc.
|
my observations so far is to never make zealots or adepts, as they both suck extreamly bad now.
|
On November 30 2019 08:29 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 05:09 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 04:12 Slydie wrote:On November 30 2019 03:40 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 02:57 MockHamill wrote:On November 30 2019 02:32 washikie wrote:
I for one am quite enjoying this patch. The changes they made have done a lot to improve ballance. I think I might enjoy a few more radical changes that shake up late game. But overall this was good. I agree that this patch is a major improvement. Zealot change improved TvP and Nydus went from OP to strong. The only thing I do not like is that TvT is still about who can mass the most vikings. Thors do absolutely nothing against vikings or liberators. Basically if I see my opponent trying to mix in Thors instead of just massing more vikings, it is a free win, given similar skill level. The heck? The Zealot is a total unmitigated failure in TvP after the Charge nerf. Chargelots cannot contest bio now and that was a fairly important dynamic. Well, PvT had a fantastic overall winrate at homestory cup, which was played on the patch, and both Terran and Protoss pros stated they think the new Zealot is too strong. I'm not the kind of guy to just accept what pros say without analysis. If I did, then I'd agree with Special that ObSeRvErS ArE ToO StRoNg. As one example of insane pro bias and why critical thought is very important. Homestory cup wasn't a good indicator of anything. New patch, small sample size and it's the 1st tournament on the new patch. The meta has absolutely zero refinement right now. But on paper and in practice, Zealots are bad vs bio now. Very, very bad and it's because without the +8 damage on charge, they don't kill as fast which means they have to tank more. Even double forge chrono'd constantly doesn't make up for that loss. In PvZ it's more of a redesign though. Not entirely sure how the speed works out vs Roaches but Roaches off creep could kite before whereas they can't now so it probably ends up being about the same. It was early of the patch, but I think the PvT overall winrate was the best of the tournament, way in th 60s, so it should be a good indicator, even considering the Korean P vs European T matchups. Some individual winrates in PvT: Parting: 4-3 Showtime: 5-4 MaNa: 9-3 Trap: 12-4 Stats: 4-0 Zest: 4-0 On the flipside, Cure, Innovation and uThermal went 5-1, 5-0 and 7-4 respectively, but Clem, who is famous for being one of the best TvP players in Europe, recently beating MaNa in nationwars, only managed a 5-4 record, and solid players like souL and Marinelord did not win a TvP. As for the pros, I have heard Harstem, Demuslim and Heromarine state that they think the new zealots are very strong after the patch released, which are pretty much all the ones I have heard talk about the issue lately. Yes, the sample sizes could have been bigger, but it is still a lot more data and qualified opinions than what you came up with. I think what they lose in dps in main fights is more than made up for by a massive improvement as a catchup, flanking, runby and harassment unit.
You really trying to say that players like souL and Marinelord should be beating Zest Stats and Trap, some of the best Koreans ever and GSL masters? Whats Marinelord and souL's best tournament result? lol.
|
On November 30 2019 18:49 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 08:29 Slydie wrote:On November 30 2019 05:09 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 04:12 Slydie wrote:On November 30 2019 03:40 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 02:57 MockHamill wrote:On November 30 2019 02:32 washikie wrote:
I for one am quite enjoying this patch. The changes they made have done a lot to improve ballance. I think I might enjoy a few more radical changes that shake up late game. But overall this was good. I agree that this patch is a major improvement. Zealot change improved TvP and Nydus went from OP to strong. The only thing I do not like is that TvT is still about who can mass the most vikings. Thors do absolutely nothing against vikings or liberators. Basically if I see my opponent trying to mix in Thors instead of just massing more vikings, it is a free win, given similar skill level. The heck? The Zealot is a total unmitigated failure in TvP after the Charge nerf. Chargelots cannot contest bio now and that was a fairly important dynamic. Well, PvT had a fantastic overall winrate at homestory cup, which was played on the patch, and both Terran and Protoss pros stated they think the new Zealot is too strong. I'm not the kind of guy to just accept what pros say without analysis. If I did, then I'd agree with Special that ObSeRvErS ArE ToO StRoNg. As one example of insane pro bias and why critical thought is very important. Homestory cup wasn't a good indicator of anything. New patch, small sample size and it's the 1st tournament on the new patch. The meta has absolutely zero refinement right now. But on paper and in practice, Zealots are bad vs bio now. Very, very bad and it's because without the +8 damage on charge, they don't kill as fast which means they have to tank more. Even double forge chrono'd constantly doesn't make up for that loss. In PvZ it's more of a redesign though. Not entirely sure how the speed works out vs Roaches but Roaches off creep could kite before whereas they can't now so it probably ends up being about the same. It was early of the patch, but I think the PvT overall winrate was the best of the tournament, way in th 60s, so it should be a good indicator, even considering the Korean P vs European T matchups. Some individual winrates in PvT: Parting: 4-3 Showtime: 5-4 MaNa: 9-3 Trap: 12-4 Stats: 4-0 Zest: 4-0 On the flipside, Cure, Innovation and uThermal went 5-1, 5-0 and 7-4 respectively, but Clem, who is famous for being one of the best TvP players in Europe, recently beating MaNa in nationwars, only managed a 5-4 record, and solid players like souL and Marinelord did not win a TvP. As for the pros, I have heard Harstem, Demuslim and Heromarine state that they think the new zealots are very strong after the patch released, which are pretty much all the ones I have heard talk about the issue lately. Yes, the sample sizes could have been bigger, but it is still a lot more data and qualified opinions than what you came up with. I think what they lose in dps in main fights is more than made up for by a massive improvement as a catchup, flanking, runby and harassment unit. You really trying to say that players like souL and Marinelord should be beating Zest Stats and Trap, some of the best Koreans ever and GSL masters? Whats Marinelord and souL's best tournament result? lol.
No, I am not trying to say that, but 0% winrate is pretty abyssmal and Hellraiser, who is a comparable protoss, did take a map from Bunny.
The main taking point from my records should be the great PvT performance of MaNa.
|
On November 30 2019 03:40 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 02:57 MockHamill wrote:On November 30 2019 02:32 washikie wrote:
I for one am quite enjoying this patch. The changes they made have done a lot to improve ballance. I think I might enjoy a few more radical changes that shake up late game. But overall this was good. I agree that this patch is a major improvement. Zealot change improved TvP and Nydus went from OP to strong. The only thing I do not like is that TvT is still about who can mass the most vikings. Thors do absolutely nothing against vikings or liberators. Basically if I see my opponent trying to mix in Thors instead of just massing more vikings, it is a free win, given similar skill level. The heck? The Zealot is a total unmitigated failure in TvP after the Charge nerf. Chargelots cannot contest bio now and that was a fairly important dynamic.
The zealot is so much better in pvz now though, in that matchup it Is a much better core army unit then it used to be the speed is a huge deal. Vs Terran yeah it’s a nerf but tbh I think it’s deserved since the only situations zealots are going to decide the game in are really cheesy openings that leave both players on low econ where that 8 charg dmg is relivant. Or really greedy openings where toss skips robo and dies mass gatewat defense. In both these edge cases I think they performed to well to begin with. They are in some ways a better harass tool to then before and provide some cool micro potential. The mu feels better to me overall with this change.
|
Mech still seems impossible to play in TvP.
Protoss can take his 3rd and attack you when you are just one 2 bases whilst having a worker lead and an army lead at the same time.
Is there any way to actually take your 3rd on time in TvP if you are going mech? Mech seems ok in TvP once you get up to 150+ supply but taking a 3rd on time seems impossible.
|
On November 30 2019 11:09 BabelFish1 wrote:
Because feelings don't really matter much, what does matter is cold, hard logic.
So pros experience and opinion doesn't matter, got it.
On November 30 2019 13:12 BabelFish1 wrote:
I dunno man, I've tried the new zealots vs bio and they're awful. Beasty did too and he thought they were awful. They die much, much faster now and bio actually does better by not kiting vs chargelots.
So you tried the units and YOU don't like them and therefore its the truth? Oh and also one pro actually agree with me so I must be right even if multiple other pros disagree
The cold hard truth is that zealot charge overall was changed, not buffed not nerfed but changed. Zealots with charge are stronger in some situations and weaker in others. That means that if you expect them to work as well as before in all situations the problem actually lies with you. Use the unit in the ways that it is good now, instead of stubbornly trying to use it is the same as before and complain that it was changed as if you didn't know that.
If terrans need to retreat from zealots they need to stim a lot harder than before and therefore lose more health and medivac energy. Your comment how terrans dont even need to micro against mass zealots now really makes you seem like you don't understand the concept of starcraft at all. If a zerg would rage because mass zerglings (fast but frail, kind of similar to current zealots) cant counter a dense bio ball with medivacs everyone would laugh at him. Throw in some banelings (tldr colossi, storm or disruptors) and that would look a hell of a lot different. If terran bio needs to be dense to counter chargelots how about mixing in units that counter units that huddle up densily?
|
On November 30 2019 21:23 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 03:40 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 02:57 MockHamill wrote:On November 30 2019 02:32 washikie wrote:
I for one am quite enjoying this patch. The changes they made have done a lot to improve ballance. I think I might enjoy a few more radical changes that shake up late game. But overall this was good. I agree that this patch is a major improvement. Zealot change improved TvP and Nydus went from OP to strong. The only thing I do not like is that TvT is still about who can mass the most vikings. Thors do absolutely nothing against vikings or liberators. Basically if I see my opponent trying to mix in Thors instead of just massing more vikings, it is a free win, given similar skill level. The heck? The Zealot is a total unmitigated failure in TvP after the Charge nerf. Chargelots cannot contest bio now and that was a fairly important dynamic. The zealot is so much better in pvz now though, in that matchup it Is a much better core army unit then it used to be the speed is a huge deal. Vs Terran yeah it’s a nerf but tbh I think it’s deserved since the only situations zealots are going to decide the game in are really cheesy openings that leave both players on low econ where that 8 charg dmg is relivant. Or really greedy openings where toss skips robo and dies mass gatewat defense. In both these edge cases I think they performed to well to begin with. They are in some ways a better harass tool to then before and provide some cool micro potential. The mu feels better to me overall with this change.
I'd be curious what situations you actually think zealots are better in PvZ (besides an odd kiting example). From my experience of playing, they are now horrible at killing buildings and zerg static defense too. They got a massive DPS nerf in those areas and with zerg-ish maps, pulling off zealot harassment warp-ins to kill drones is even harder, not to mention the adept got nerfed too.
|
On December 01 2019 02:45 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 21:23 washikie wrote:On November 30 2019 03:40 BabelFish1 wrote:On November 30 2019 02:57 MockHamill wrote:On November 30 2019 02:32 washikie wrote:
I for one am quite enjoying this patch. The changes they made have done a lot to improve ballance. I think I might enjoy a few more radical changes that shake up late game. But overall this was good. I agree that this patch is a major improvement. Zealot change improved TvP and Nydus went from OP to strong. The only thing I do not like is that TvT is still about who can mass the most vikings. Thors do absolutely nothing against vikings or liberators. Basically if I see my opponent trying to mix in Thors instead of just massing more vikings, it is a free win, given similar skill level. The heck? The Zealot is a total unmitigated failure in TvP after the Charge nerf. Chargelots cannot contest bio now and that was a fairly important dynamic. The zealot is so much better in pvz now though, in that matchup it Is a much better core army unit then it used to be the speed is a huge deal. Vs Terran yeah it’s a nerf but tbh I think it’s deserved since the only situations zealots are going to decide the game in are really cheesy openings that leave both players on low econ where that 8 charg dmg is relivant. Or really greedy openings where toss skips robo and dies mass gatewat defense. In both these edge cases I think they performed to well to begin with. They are in some ways a better harass tool to then before and provide some cool micro potential. The mu feels better to me overall with this change. I'd be curious what situations you actually think zealots are better in PvZ (besides an odd kiting example). From my experience of playing, they are now horrible at killing buildings and zerg static defense too. They got a massive DPS nerf in those areas and with zerg-ish maps, pulling off zealot harassment warp-ins to kill drones is even harder, not to mention the adept got nerfed too.
How on earth did Zealots get a "massive dps nerf" against buildings? That's the one scenario when the impact damage doesn't matter at all because they charge once and then just sit there swinging away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
