|
4 Posts
The 4.11.0 patch with major balance changes is now live! Original post on StarCraft2.com
- New Co-op Commander and Announcer: Arcturus Mengsk
- Control the battle with an iron fist as Arcturus Mengsk, the newest Co-Op Commander for StarCraft II.
- Feed an endless stream of cheap troopers into the meat grinder, softening your enemies for your Royal Guard to go in for the kill.
- Learn more in our blog.
- A new Winter Announcer is now available.
- 16 Nation Wars 2019 team Portraits were added into the Nation Wars 2019 Complete Bundle available for purchase through Matcherino website.
- MMR is now revealed on the loading screen for Master and Grandmaster players in 1v1 ladder games.
- Account Management link has been added to the log in screen.
- Queue up with DeepMind feature is going to be shut down with this patch.
- Balance test tab is going to be disabled.
CO-OP MISSIONS
- Brutal+ difficulties have been added to Co-op. These create random mutation challenges of increasing levels of difficulty. The Retry Brutal+ setting allows players to attempt a failed challenge on the same map against the same enemy unit composition. Brutal+1 can be queued with any level 15 commander through matchmaking. Brutal+2 through Brutal+6, and the Try Again setting, can only be played with a premade group.
- Co-op players on Hard difficulty will now play at Faster game speed in order to better match with Brutal players.
- The Ultralisk’s Frenzied ability no longer blocks mind control effects in Co-op.
- Ultralisks may now walk over Zerglings, Banelings, Locusts, and Broodlings in Co-op.
VERSUS
- Balance Update
- Terran
- Battlecruiser
- Tactical Jump now stuns and puts the Battlecruiser into a 1 second vulnerability phase before it teleports. In this state, the Battlecruiser can be damaged, but Tactical Jump may not be canceled.
- Yamato Cannon will no longer cancel itself if a target enters a transport or becomes cloaked/burrowed. Instead, the Yamato Cannon will miss, and the ability will go on cooldown.
- Fixed an issue that if a Battlecruiser used shift to queue several commands which included Tactical Jump, it would be immune to Abduct or Interference Matrix as if it was using Tactical Jump during that time.
- Fixed an issue where the Raven’s Interference Matrix and the Viper’s Abduct were causing the Battlecruiser’s Tactical Jump to go on cooldown.
- Fixed an issue that displayed the opponent’s Battlecruiser’s locations on the minimap after using Tactical Jump.
- Hellion/Hellbat
- Infernal Pre-Igniter research cost decreased from 150/150 to 100/100.
- Liberator
- Advanced Ballistics upgrade moved from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core.
- Advanced Ballistics upgrade now increases the range of Liberators in Defender Mode by 3, down from 4.
- Medivac
- Moved the Rapid Re-Ignition System upgrade from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core.
- In addition to reducing the Medivac's Ignite Afterburners cooldown by 5 seconds, this upgrade will also increase the Medivac's base movement speed from 3.5 to 4.13. However, this upgrade will not affect Medivac’s movement speed during the Ignite Afterburners effect.
- M.U.L.E.
- Duration remains at 64 seconds.
Developer Comment: Since there are some situations where the mule duration decrease could return less minerals than before, we want to revert the mule's duration to their original 64 second value.
- M.U.L.E.’s now always attempt to spawn on the side of minerals closest to a town hall.
- Raven
- Interference Matrix energy cost increased from 50 energy to 75 energy.
- Interference Matrix duration increased from 8 seconds to 11 seconds.
- Raven movement speed increased from 3.85 to 4.13.
- Fixed an issue where splash damage will not properly apply to units affected by Anti-Armor missile.
- Thor
- High Impact Payload damage decreased from 40 (+15 vs Massive) to 25 (+10 vs Massive).
- High Impact Payload weapon cooldown decreased from 1.7 to 0.9.
- Zerg
- Brood Lord
- Broodling leash range decreased from 12 to 9.
- Creep
- Active Creep Tumors may no longer be canceled.
- Infestor
- Removed the Infested Terran ability.
- New Ability: Microbial Shroud
- Creates a shroud that obscures ground units below, reducing the damage they take from air units by 50%. Lasts 11 seconds. Energy cost: 100.
- Cast range: 9.
- Radius: 3.
- New upgrade found on the Infestation Pit: Evolve Microbial Shroud
- Requirement: Hive.
- Research cost: 150/150.
- Research duration: 79 seconds.
- Updated visual effects and sounds for Microbial Shroud
- Neural Parasite range decreased from 9 to 8.
- Neural Parasite can no longer target Heroic units.
- Lurker
- Lurker Den build time decreased from 86 seconds to 57 seconds.
- Lurker range decreased from 9 to 8.
- New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines
- Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10.
- Requirement: Hive.
- Research cost: 150/150.
- Research duration: 57 seconds.
- Increased research duration of Adaptive Talons from 54 seconds to 57 seconds.
- Lurkers affected by Blinding Cloud will now only fire to melee range.
- Nydus Network
- Nydus Worm cost increased from 50/50 to 75/75.
- Summon Nydus Worm ability cooldown increased from 0 to 14.
- Nydus Network and Nydus Worm initial unload delay increased from 0.18 to 0.36.
- Nydus Network and Nydus Worm load period increased from 0.09 to 0.18.
- Nydus Network and Nydus Worm unload period increased from 0.18 to 0.36.
- Overlord
- Pneumatized Carapace research cost increased from 75/75 to 100/100.
- Protoss
- Adept
- Resonating Glaives reworked. Instead of increasing attack speed of the Adept by 45%, it will increase the attack speed of the Adept by 60% for 6 seconds after a completed Psionic Transfer.
- Mothership
- Time Warp now affects air units in addition to ground units and buildings.
- Time Warp delay reduces from 3.57 seconds to 1.79 seconds.
- Gains the Heroic Tag. Neural Parasite can no longer target Heroic units.
- Fixed an issue where beam-type weapons didn’t get slowed in the Mothership’s Time Warp.
- Observer
- Observer movement speed decreased from 3.01 to 2.63.
- Gravitic Boosters upgrade now increases movement speed by 1.31, down from 1.51.
- Oracle, Sentry, Void Ray
- Fixed an issue where beam attacks could deal more damage than intended.
- Tempest
- Kinetic Overload (anti-air) range decreased from 15 to 14.
- Health increased from 150 to 200.
- Shields decreased from 125 to 100.
- Void Ray
- New upgrade found on the Fleet Beacon: Flux Vanes
- Increases the Void Ray’s movement speed from 3.5 to 4.65.
- Increases the Void Ray’s acceleration from 2.8 to 3.76.
- After the upgrade, the Prismatic Alignment ability will still reduce the Void Ray’s movement speed to 2.625.
- Research cost: 100/100.
- Research duration: 57 seconds.
- Fixed an issue after getting the Flux Vanes upgrade where the Void Ray’s acceleration didn’t get reduced while using Prismatic Alignment.
- Zealot
- The Charge upgrade no longer provides Zealots with +8 damage on impact. Instead, it increases Zealot movement speed from 3.15 to 4.72, up from 4.13.
- Maps
- Introducing a new map mechanic:
- Acceleration Zone Generators
- Increases movement speed of ground and air units within the generated field by 35%.
- Changed the color of Inhibitor Zones and Time Warp bubbles from green to red. Acceleration Zone Generators will be green.
- Inhibitor Zone Generator minimap icons updated from green to red. Acceleration Zone Generator minimap icons will be green.
- The center of Inhibitor and Acceleration Zone Generators are now pathable. The art was updated to reflect this.
- Concord LE
- Eternal Empire LE
- Fixed an issue where players could not build on certain gas geysers.
- Fixed and issue where units could clip into rock doodads and become hidden.
- Nightshade LE
- Adjusted some mineral and gas locations at the natural, third, and fourth bases.
- Updated some doodads at certain locations.
- Updated the map so that units and structures are brighter and easier to see.
- Winter’s Gate LE & Turbo Cruise ’84 LE
- The center of the Inhibitor Zone Generators were changed to be pathable. Maps were updated to maintain the original pathing around the Inhibitor Zone Generators.
- World of Sleepers LE
- Changed the Rich Vespene Geysers to normal Vespene Geysers.
- Zen LE
- Changed the pathing near the Reaper paths so that Reapers can path properly.
- Changed the location of the reduced mineral field and updated the pathing on the map to allow Terran players to wall off the natural base with 1 Command Center and 2 Supply Depots.
- Fixed the heights of certain rooftops on doodad structures.
- Updated grass and rock textures in the middle of the map.
BUG FIXES
Campaign
- Legacy of the Void
- Kerrigan’s Queens no longer attempt to place creep tumors incorrectly during the first epilogue mission.
- Nova Covert Ops
- Hunter-Seeker Missiles from Ravens with Special Ordinance equipped now deal splash damage.
Co-op Missions
- General
- Missions will now properly pick a map or commander victory line at random.
- Amon’s Brood Queens should no longer autocast Ensnare on structures.
- Commanders
- Han & Horner
- Fixed several of Han’s buildings to display her Junker adjutant.
- Karax
- Chrono Beam can no longer be cast on Kerrigan's resource pickups.
- Kerrigan
- Omega Worms can no longer prevent defeat for Kerrigan’s ally.
- Raptor strain Zerglings should no longer occasionally launch themselves from Nydus Worms at great speed.
- Stetmann
- Fixed an issue where Jumping Mecha Baneling could overkill units.
- The game performance should be much improved while large numbers of Stetellites exist on the map.
- Mecha Drone hotkeys can now be set.
- Mecha Banelings now count towards Zagara’s Baneling & Scourge statistic.
- Gary now obeys the laws of air units.
- Tychus
- Tychus players can no longer gain access to additional outlaws earlier than intended.
- Vorazun
- Void Thrashers now properly spawn when Vorazun uses Time Stop before or as they are spawning.
- Fixed an issue that caused some heroic units to not benefit from Vorazun’s Time Stop Haste mastery.
- Zagara
- Damage dealt by Mecha Banelings now properly count towards Zagara's Baneling & Scourge score.
- Zeratul
- The Artifact will move itself if its spawn location becomes unpathable.
- Zeratul now properly unloads when dropped on top of large units.
- Fixed an issue that caused Void Templars to fail to do damage while blinking.
- Xel’Naga Watchers are now correctly affected by sight limiting mutators regardless of Artifacts collected.
- Mission
- Malwarfare
- Fixed an issue that could cause a Suppression Tower’s minimap icon to persist indefinitely.
- Fixed an issue that could cause air units to path poorly near the players’ main base.
- Minor Evacuation
- The Eradicator’s Rail Gun can no longer hit targets behind it.
- Mist Opportunities
- Harvesting Bots should no longer occasionally wander off.
- Fixed an issue that could cause the bonus objectives to become invisible.
- Oblivion Express
- Damage is no longer sometimes ignored when attacking multiple train cars.
- Scythe of Amon
- New units spawned from Void Rifts are now properly affected by Polarity mutator.
- Larva and Eggs will no longer die when a nearby Hatchery, Lair, or Hive is destroyed.
- Temple of the Past
- Fixed an issue that could cause the bonus objectives to become invisible.
- Void Launch
- Leviathans, Motherships, or Lokis now properly spawn in the final shuttle wave.
- Mutators
- Bonus AI terminals no longer become hostile to players with the Polarity mutator selected.
- Amon's Dehaka no longer transforms while the Transmutation mutator is active.
- Void Rift minimap icons should no longer appear very small on Low settings.
- Purifier Beams should now respect the same areas that other mutators avoid.
- The Concussive Attacks mutator no longer affects Frenzied targets.
Collection
- The Visual indicator for the cooldown of the Ihan-Rii Disruptor's Purifier Nova ability now appears, and the cooldown animation now appears as intended.
- The correct upgrade animation now appears when selecting an upgrade from the Cybernetics Core with the Forged skin applied.
User Interface
- Portrait borders on the versus loading screen should now display your league on the race you are playing as instead of your highest league across all races.
- Fixed a few issues where Console skins could appear as unintended in game and replays.
- The multiple burrow icons in the help menu for Zerglings no longer appear in game.
- The Custom lobby has been updated to prevent the screenshot button from overlapping map details text.
|
Kill the barcodes, show that MMR!
|
Nice, finally the Nation Wars portraits are here! :D
|
Bisutopia19213 Posts
I'm sure everyone went straight to Versus, but this is the best line in the whole patch: "Raptor strain Zerglings should no longer occasionally launch themselves from Nydus Worms at great speed."
|
Not enough speed buffs so had to add Acceleration Zones. :D
|
I'm in full support of the Mule change reversion
|
Does anyone have disconnection as soon as the game start and can't play a game like me ?
|
On November 27 2019 04:44 TL.net ESPORTS wrote: Fixed an issue that if a Battlecruiser used shift to queue several commands which included Tactical Jump, it would be immune to Abduct or Interference Matrix as if it was using Tactical Jump during that time. Fixed an issue where the Raven’s Interference Matrix and the Viper’s Abduct were causing the Battlecruiser’s Tactical Jump to go on cooldown. Fixed an issue where splash damage will not properly apply to units affected by Anti-Armor missile. Fixed an issue where beam-type weapons didn’t get slowed in the Mothership’s Time Warp.
At least they fixed these bugs I reported.
|
apparently u cant leave ur main base on one of the new maps
|
There seem to be following issues least on NA.
- Textures just look weird. Stretched.
- Ramps are missing textures and are blocked preventing moving.
- Sometimes game just freezes and you disconnect receiving win or lose.
Lillekanin is currently having all of the issues, but Beastyqt is playing fine.
|
Please correct the title of this thread (Mengk...)
|
So... Mule meme is the new bunker meme ? ^^
|
feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr
|
On November 27 2019 06:48 Scarlett` wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr
new meta is to leave league every match. its what maru does
|
Alright, so it is done. Does anyone know if microbial shroud works against liberators? =P
|
On November 27 2019 06:48 Scarlett` wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr Does it make sense for you to play a longer game against a quite lower MMR? Perhaps it is not that bad to be cheesed and play shorter games vs lower-level players, after all. It gives you more time to play against your pairs.
|
On November 27 2019 07:25 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 06:48 Scarlett` wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr Does it make sense for you to play a longer game against a quite lower MMR? Perhaps it is not that bad to be cheesed and play shorter games vs lower-level players, after all. It gives you more time to play against your pairs. i don't think any of that effects whether it's fun or productive to be repeatedly cheesed though
|
On November 27 2019 07:07 Obamarauder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 06:48 Scarlett` wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr new meta is to leave league every match. its what maru does doesnt help
|
On November 27 2019 06:06 Legan wrote:There seem to be following issues least on NA. - Textures just look weird. Stretched.
- Ramps are missing textures and are blocked preventing moving.
- Sometimes game just freezes and you disconnect receiving win or lose.
Lillekanin is currently having all of the issues, but Beastyqt is playing fine.
I'm also having these issues. Does anyone know how to fix this?
|
as SC2 ages... is it possible the level of support for Co-op will become more substantial than the level of support provided to competitive multiplayer ?
On November 27 2019 07:38 Scarlett` wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 07:07 Obamarauder wrote:On November 27 2019 06:48 Scarlett` wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr new meta is to leave league every match. its what maru does doesnt help thanks for taking the time to post in here.
|
This town hall guy has to be doing this on purpose.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
Mule change reversion is terrible and gamebreaking, what was David Kim thinking?
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Patch broke EU. 9 times out of 10 when you load into map the game almost immediately hangs and then drops a bunch of people a few seconds later.
|
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/rwv12zhui3141.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/6qsbuyrqb3141.jpg)
Why does Blizzard need to mess with the maps?
|
Most of the time Blizzard just introduces cannon rush spots, breaks a few geysers, and sloppily re-texture some areas to make them look worse, so they've really surpassed themselves this time.
|
this is what blizzard meant by "major" balance changes
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
I think they snuck in some late engine changes without QA (several hints towards that) and it blew up in their faces. Game is literally unplayable, i have 15 replays that are a quarter second long because it kicked everyone out
Edit: They've disabled all 1v1 queues but the issues persist in 2v2+, co-op etc
|
It is pure tragic-comedy how fast Blizzard went to hell after Morhaime left. I thought Blizzard's decline would be more slow and more gradual. Silly me.
|
There's also a bug on Nightshade too. For the bottom player's natural, it's possible for a worker to become trapped after leaving one of the gas geysers if it exits on the side adjacent to the main.
|
I really like the creep change. Terran and Toss should be able to play a macro/defensive game without losing the entire map forever.
I am worried about z V lategame air armies of both T and P but ... I think it makes perfect sense for a toss or terran deathball to be somewhat OP. Their armies advanced technologies are the peak of their civilizations abilities, it makes sense (to me) that zerg should be an underdog whenever T or P are able to build their dream army.
I do not think this will balance things at the top level in any way. Nydus and swarmhost and the potential of them are the problem. Nydus delay? Build 2.
I really thought zealots were going to be fast like in bw, I think it is unfortunate blizzard didn't commit to it fully.
Overall, my biggest hope is that T and P players enjoy playing the game more. All the toxic balance issues seems to have demoralized a lot of players. I hope if anything, Protoss players can feel good knowing, that if they get to superlategame they have an edge vs any zerg who isn't a spell caster-master.
Happy experimenting gamers.
|
Why not show MMR for team games on initial screen as well? Show the actual portrait borders for team games on loading screen instead of borders taken from solo.
|
On November 27 2019 16:07 Bomzj wrote: Why not show MMR for team games on initial screen as well? Show the actual portrait borders for team games on loading screen instead of borders taken from solo.
The portrait border thing has been done (unless it is a bug.) I'm really happy about this, since I only play 2v2 ^ ^
|
On November 27 2019 09:45 Wombat_NI wrote: Mule change reversion is terrible and gamebreaking, what was David Kim thinking?
David Kim hasn't been working on SC2 for the past 2.5 years... He's now the lead for Diablo4...
|
Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/
|
On November 27 2019 12:16 geokilla wrote:
Why does Blizzard need to mess with the maps?
That looks more like the result of you jumping into play IMMEDIATELY instead of having patience and allowing the whole game to download.
But if the minerals is true that suckss!
...Unless it's like that on both sides, in which case I like it!
|
On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA.
|
On November 27 2019 17:36 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA.
Unranked, bitch please.
|
I tried to play 4v4 last night, but rage quit because the lag and ping were so bad...
|
hey guys.
i have a problem with hotkeys, does anyone experiencing this:
i use core ~5.0 with some changes. whenever i start a game, i would get the hotkey conflict detected warning. in the infestation pit i can not set different hotkeys for the neural and the shroud researches. whenever i click neural and set it to P, shroud automatically gets P as well. i can reset the neural to default, this way i get E for neural and C i believe for shroud. if i do it in the game, the warning message seems to go away, but this is not an optimal solution -.-
|
On November 27 2019 20:48 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 17:36 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA. Unranked, bitch please. I play mostly unranked games. Sometimes I am just not interested in getting crushed. Started playing in April for the first time ever. =)
|
On November 27 2019 22:26 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 20:48 kajtarp wrote:On November 27 2019 17:36 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA. Unranked, bitch please. I play mostly unranked games. Sometimes I am just not interested in getting crushed. Started playing in April for the first time ever. =)
He was saying that ranked works fine for most of us, for some reason, and ranked do not.
|
On November 27 2019 22:48 JanDe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 22:26 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 20:48 kajtarp wrote:On November 27 2019 17:36 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA. Unranked, bitch please. I play mostly unranked games. Sometimes I am just not interested in getting crushed. Started playing in April for the first time ever. =) He was saying that ranked works fine for most of us, for some reason, and ranked do not. I don't know how to read his words to mean that, but sure.
I thought he was calling me out for being chicken.
|
On November 27 2019 07:07 Obamarauder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 06:48 Scarlett` wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr new meta is to leave league every match. its what maru does
We have reached new levels of 'just play like maru'!
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Unbelievable, 13 hours after the patch and we still can't play any game mode because it drops most players half a second into the map. 1v1 is disabled, co-op fails 9 times out of 10 and 2v2+ is almost guaranteed to fail.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Ya8pVj9.png)
|
On November 27 2019 22:26 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 20:48 kajtarp wrote:On November 27 2019 17:36 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA. Unranked, bitch please. I play mostly unranked games. Sometimes I am just not interested in getting crushed. Started playing in April for the first time ever. =)
Bit offtopic but here it goes anyway:
Isn't in unranked all kinds of MMR's play versus each other? I think the chance of getting crushed is higher in unranked than in ranked where you actually play vs people with your skill level. Or maybe I'm just wrong
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Unranked is the same as the 1v1 queue but it doesn't show you your MMR. You still have one.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 28 2019 00:25 Cyro wrote: Unranked is the same as the 1v1 queue but it doesn't show you your MMR. You still have one. Also unranked uses wider range to find the opponent, although it tries to be as close as possible. So waiting times are usually shorter. AT least that's how it works for me and based on who I have faced in the past
|
On November 28 2019 00:20 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 22:26 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 20:48 kajtarp wrote:On November 27 2019 17:36 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA. Unranked, bitch please. I play mostly unranked games. Sometimes I am just not interested in getting crushed. Started playing in April for the first time ever. =) Bit offtopic but here it goes anyway: Isn't in unranked all kinds of MMR's play versus each other? I think the chance of getting crushed is higher in unranked than in ranked where you actually play vs people with your skill level. Or maybe I'm just wrong
I played unranked a lot for the past few weeks and have a feeling that mmr either increases very slowly or stays in place. I am winning like 80% of my unranked games because most of the time it matches me with people 200-300 mmr points below my ranked mmr.
|
I love how after 20 hours of publishing the post there is still a typo in the title. Really fits the broken patch :D The Mengk Patch is how it should be remembered.
|
Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think?
|
On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think?
I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massiing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind.
|
On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massiing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind.
This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much.
|
|
They should add Scourges in large patch: +1 unit per race and nerf/limit queens.
|
On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massiing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much.
Yeah and on top of that it just looks and feels plain stupid. Why would a small Zerg brood need 6-8 queens to manage 2-3 hatcheries and a pack of zerglings? It is nothing else than duct taping balance issues with terrible, terrible design choices.
I always get so triggered when I think about it too much. It is so dumb... For instance, if you look at an ant colony (which somehow always reminds me of a Zerg brood), there is usually one queen per colony, sometimes more, but usually just one, as the name, __queen__, implies.
|
What are the odds of Blizzard rolling back to the previous patch?
|
On November 28 2019 03:23 BaneRiders wrote: What are the odds of Blizzard rolling back to the previous patch? 0% chance
|
On November 28 2019 03:27 91matt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 03:23 BaneRiders wrote: What are the odds of Blizzard rolling back to the previous patch? 0% chance
So we are stuck with these ramps then, until they find a solution? Like patch 4.11.1?
|
On November 28 2019 03:37 BaneRiders wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 03:27 91matt wrote:On November 28 2019 03:23 BaneRiders wrote: What are the odds of Blizzard rolling back to the previous patch? 0% chance So we are stuck with these ramps then, until they find a solution? Like patch 4.11.1? 
gotta wait it out, i imagine they will fix ladder pretty soon though.
|
Queens should be 4 supply and Zerg supply limit should be increased to 210. That way if you have more than 5 queens it will decrease your potential army supply.
Zergs being able to defeat all early attacks by going mas Queens seems a bit absurd in my opinion.
|
On November 28 2019 03:37 BaneRiders wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 03:27 91matt wrote:On November 28 2019 03:23 BaneRiders wrote: What are the odds of Blizzard rolling back to the previous patch? 0% chance So we are stuck with these ramps then, until they find a solution? Like patch 4.11.1?  They are currently testing whether island maps could be a thing. Who knows, might even stay like that.
|
On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much.
I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. In todays game, if you dont mass queen you die against half the meta builds out there.
|
On November 28 2019 04:02 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much. I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. In todays game, if you dont mass queen you die against half the meta builds out there.
That's exactly what I was talking about when complaining about queens. As a Zerg I hate that I have to build them. It feels so lame but still you have no choice for the reasons you mentioned. It's the same with massing spellcasters in the late game. Zerg race design was butchered because Blizz added units to other races that were unbeatable without bullshit like mass queens or infestors.
|
On November 28 2019 04:02 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much. I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. First it was lib and tankivac added to the already present hellion/banshee play, but now theres super tanky shoot while moving battle cruisers teleporting anywhere in any of your base instantly without vision before the 6minute mark. In low numbers hydras get completely destroyed by BC+hellions and you cannot get enough spire unit in time. So then, zerg needs 1 queen per hatch to keep inject, and a pack of 4-6+ queens to defend all those air harass but really, you want more queens so you have room for error and dont autodie to 2 bcs. Im all for nerfing queens, but for the love of god, give us earlier AA unit(ravager should attack air, at 100/100 3 supply its not much to ask). Alternatively, send BCs back where they belong, as a late game main army unit, not a freaking early game harass tool... Tankivacs were stupid, but current harass bc builds might be even more stupid, design wise. Sorry for the rant, but it gets triggering to see ppl complain about mass queen yet on the ladder, almost every game i play against a terran they open up with a BC... Zergs didnt always mass queens, but its kind of hard to defend air harass with lings and roaches. It takes a lot of ling and roaches to kill a battle cruiser. And if you dont have enough AA to kill it fast enough, they kill all your drones while moving/kiting your queen back and teleport home before dying. You NEED mass queens, and its not something you can mass up reactively after scouting BCs... I promise you if the meta was always straight up bio openings and mass gateway units openings from protoss, zerg would almost never mass queen. It would be 1 per hatch, and 2-3 for creep spread/ AA. Queens are not really good against ground. You can nerf queens, and zerg will still mass them because its all they have to defend early game stuff from protoss and terran.
Also agree on this, espacialy the ealierer need AA. I feel like the patch did not dealt with the problematic units. It tried to buff underused units tough...
|
On November 28 2019 04:02 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much. I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. In todays game, if you dont mass queen you die against half the meta builds out there.
Nerf queen and just remove BC teleport completely. its such a dumb gimmick and takes away any strategic aspect. Even terran players dont like BC teleport
|
On November 28 2019 04:15 Obamarauder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 04:02 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much. I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. In todays game, if you dont mass queen you die against half the meta builds out there. Nerf queen and just remove BC teleport completely. its such a dumb gimmick and takes away any strategic aspect. Even terran players dont like BC teleport
It's not only BC that forces you into massing queens early. So many other flying units that can come and kill you. Also hellions, adepts, early tank pushes cannot be defended cost efficiently without queens. Then you have to constantly inject and spread creep as well. If you remove BC teleport, Zergs will still mass queens because they can (and have to).
|
Bisutopia19213 Posts
On November 28 2019 04:30 Majick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 04:15 Obamarauder wrote:On November 28 2019 04:02 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much. I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. In todays game, if you dont mass queen you die against half the meta builds out there. Nerf queen and just remove BC teleport completely. its such a dumb gimmick and takes away any strategic aspect. Even terran players dont like BC teleport It's not only BC that forces you into massing queens early. So many other flying units that can come and kill you. Also hellions, adepts, early tank pushes cannot be defended cost efficiently without queens. Then you have to constantly inject and spread creep as well. If you remove BC teleport, Zergs will still mass queens because they can (and have to). I'd be down with nerfing queens range and moving hydras to tier one units. Upgrades for hydra would still require a lair. To clarify how this will work effectively, hydras are still speedy on creep for defense and would still be too slow off creep to be effective on offense prior to lair.
|
Post above.. But then the liberator problem comes back. Hydras have less range than queens. Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Also current hydras at t1 would still not work because for how much they cost you cant get enough and get them overwhelmed by hellions/bcs.
They would also create super hydra/ling all ins against protoss that would be almost unstoppable.
|
On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps.
Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified.
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
IDD i think queen power creep is a real issue
|
On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified.
Another great relic of Zerg's struggles in dealing with Liberators is the faster root speed of Spore Crawlers. This is helping us get highly entertaining Zerg late game where creep is all over the map and Spores run around like units and "siege up" almost as fast as Liberators...
disclaimer: sarcasm may have been used
|
well from a balance point of view. zealots are now officially awful units...
|
On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified.
True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal.
Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark.
Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao.
Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit.
Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design...
|
On November 28 2019 00:20 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2019 22:26 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 20:48 kajtarp wrote:On November 27 2019 17:36 AttackZerg wrote:On November 27 2019 16:44 NExt wrote: Why is everyones SC2 bugging out?? Mine is fine :/ After reading all of the comments, I logged in and played 2 games (got trashed) just fine. They were unranked 1vs1 on NA. Unranked, bitch please. I play mostly unranked games. Sometimes I am just not interested in getting crushed. Started playing in April for the first time ever. =) Bit offtopic but here it goes anyway: Isn't in unranked all kinds of MMR's play versus each other? I think the chance of getting crushed is higher in unranked than in ranked where you actually play vs people with your skill level. Or maybe I'm just wrong
I am newer to this game, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
When I played ranked, I get m3 or d1 almost exclusively (my rank). When I play unranked I get d3-d2 90% of the time.
When I am playing a few fun games, I find unranked way easier to play.
|
Bisutopia19213 Posts
On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit. Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design... This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier.
|
[/QUOTE] This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier. [/QUOTE] zerg might only get 1 unit per building, but they only have to build 1 of them.... I wouldn't mind hydras coming out earlier from a design perspective, but it would still need to require a hydra den IMO
|
On November 28 2019 10:59 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit. Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design... This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier.
Not to nitpick but a roach warren unlocks 2 units right - roach and ravagers?
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 28 2019 13:42 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 10:59 BisuDagger wrote:On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit. Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design... This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier. Not to nitpick but a roach warren unlocks 2 units right - roach and ravagers? You can't make ravagers without making roaches though
|
Summary:
Zerg: Queens -1 range Hydralisk Den moved to Hatchery Hydralisk move speed off creep -20% Hydralisk upgrade Muscular Augment move speed aditional 20% off creep
Terran: Fusion Core build time +20 secs
Thoughts?
Alternative route could be one Queen per Hatchery but buff their damage and maybe give them an energy upgrade. This could bring back the macro hatch (which I always loved)
|
On November 28 2019 17:47 Harris1st wrote: Summary:
Zerg: Queens -1 range Hydralisk Den moved to Hatchery Hydralisk move speed off creep -20% Hydralisk upgrade Muscular Augment move speed aditional 20% off creep
Terran: Fusion Core build time +20 secs
Thoughts?
Alternative route could be one Queen per Hatchery but buff their damage and maybe give them an energy upgrade. This could bring back the macro hatch (which I always loved)
Good ideas but then Spore crawler root speed should also be increased.
|
On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit.
Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design...
Your last sentence is kind of funny. You realize that Terran economy is terrible early game. All things equal: Protoss will have 25% more workers in the first 5 minutes without disruption; Zerg will have even more. This is why Terran's are not winning. There are maps that take almost a minute to cross and Zerg units that trade evenly AND have a better economy...similar with Protoss.
I would enjoy games where Terran does not have to kill 10+ workers to be even.
|
Now show me some S H R O U D zergbois, you'll only have to evolve through the entire tech tree to get it!
|
Bisutopia19213 Posts
On November 28 2019 13:42 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 10:59 BisuDagger wrote:On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit. Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design... This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier. Not to nitpick but a roach warren unlocks 2 units right - roach and ravagers? I didn't list Roach Warren as I agree with you, even though you need lair to get to the second unit. I only mention roach warren as an option for where the hydra could come out.
|
On November 28 2019 19:42 Penev wrote: Now show me some S H R O U D zergbois, you'll only have to evolve through the entire tech tree to get it!
Hmmm ... since we have that ability now anyway and nobody uses it. How about some early game harass defense vs Protoss / Terran air?
Like Queens can cast shroud (upgradable in Hatcheries?) now and we move Transfuse to Infestors and buff it slightly. Would help vs all sorts of air harass, be it Lib, Banshee, BC, Oracle, VR. Situation with Phoenix is different since they lift above the shroud. Or they can't lift things under shroud period.
|
On November 28 2019 20:17 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 13:42 AttackZerg wrote:On November 28 2019 10:59 BisuDagger wrote:On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit. Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design... This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier. Not to nitpick but a roach warren unlocks 2 units right - roach and ravagers? I didn't list Roach Warren as I agree with you, even though you need lair to get to the second unit. I only mention roach warren as an option for where the hydra could come out.
You don’t need Lair to unlock Ravagers...
|
Bisutopia19213 Posts
On November 28 2019 21:03 Majick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 20:17 BisuDagger wrote:On November 28 2019 13:42 AttackZerg wrote:On November 28 2019 10:59 BisuDagger wrote:On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit. Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design... This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier. Not to nitpick but a roach warren unlocks 2 units right - roach and ravagers? I didn't list Roach Warren as I agree with you, even though you need lair to get to the second unit. I only mention roach warren as an option for where the hydra could come out. You don’t need Lair to unlock Ravagers... *facepalm* Can I blame my two year old for my brain deadness? To explain where my head was, I've always thought ravagers would be a better lair unit and hydras a tier 1. It's part of the SC1 in me that wants hydras available sooner.
|
i wish hydra to be a 1 supply unit on hatch level, probably ~50 hp until the lair level research is done (speed+hp like banes, or hp distributed to the 2 upgrades, like each gives +20 hp so hopefully there would not be too sharp spikes in hydra power level, and no unstoppable early allins with hydra). hmm this looks like a zerg marine
|
On November 28 2019 22:12 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 21:03 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 20:17 BisuDagger wrote:On November 28 2019 13:42 AttackZerg wrote:On November 28 2019 10:59 BisuDagger wrote:On November 28 2019 07:12 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 05:14 Elentos wrote:On November 28 2019 04:54 Snakestyle11 wrote: Queen were giving extra range so libs cant deny mining til spire unit.
Queens were given extra range primarily for this, but also the strength of tankivacs and possibly 2-1-1 back in 2016. 2-1-1 is a dead build, tankivacs were removed a few months after the queen buff and liberators no longer have the range they used to. On top of that, mapmakers in this day and age are very aware that liberators exist and have that in their mind when they set up their maps. Functionally, the 8 range anti-air queen is a relic from a time where Zerg had it a lot worse. It has outlived every reason it was implemented for. So I think the question of whether it's still necessary to have that +1 extra range that snipes air units in the middle of the map from the natural is at the very least justified. True,It could maybe be reverted to 7 range, especially with WP pick up nerf, lib range nerf, and tankivacs removal. Too bad they had to break the game even more by adding free teleport battlecruisers that can shoot while moving and be in your main base at the 5minute mark. Now if you remove 1 range from queens, BCs can just kite them away and kill everything on their path while moving away. Lmao. Its kind of ridiculous that its viable way to open is with a BC as your first gas unit, and harass workers with it. Why does every damn terran unit has to be a worker harass unit. Dont mean to offend anyone, but this is what happen when our game is balanced by the ppl in charge of coop commander. I really think they are the same ppl, and probably dont have the resources they need to properly balance this game or change the design... This is just theory crafting: I'm not opposed to going a step further to make hydras attainable. Zergs get the least units unlocked per structure built. Pool, hydra den, lurker den, ultra etc... All are buildings that unlock one unit. I would be okay if the roach warren (renamed?) also unlocked hydras that way they can be built without the extra building investment and provide the extra has for more just as earlier. Not to nitpick but a roach warren unlocks 2 units right - roach and ravagers? I didn't list Roach Warren as I agree with you, even though you need lair to get to the second unit. I only mention roach warren as an option for where the hydra could come out. You don’t need Lair to unlock Ravagers... *facepalm* Can I blame my two year old for my brain deadness? To explain where my head was, I've always thought ravagers would be a better lair unit and hydras a tier 1. It's part of the SC1 in me that wants hydras available sooner.
This.
Queens+creep and no early hydras have been the strangest adjustments for me. That and muta control being way, way less dangerous.
|
On November 28 2019 23:26 bela.mervado wrote: i wish hydra to be a 1 supply unit on hatch level, probably ~50 hp until the lair level research is done (speed+hp like banes, or hp distributed to the 2 upgrades, like each gives +20 hp so hopefully there would not be too sharp spikes in hydra power level, and no unstoppable early allins with hydra). hmm this looks like a zerg marine
Exactly. Makes it boring and generic. I'm against it 
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On November 28 2019 19:42 Penev wrote: Now show me some S H R O U D zergbois, you'll only have to evolve through the entire tech tree to get it! Have. To. Resist. The. Urge. To. Link. The. SWTOR. Videos. Where. I. Used. The. Shroud.
Nghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
Fine, I made it. (I simply love the fact I used shroud so many times, although in a different Star* game )
I just don't get the usage, like at all. What was the intention? That you group your hydras and f2 them under carriers? While they don't melt to storms, big boom balls, archons or colossi? With a radius 3? (IIRC) Even on lair it's useless as the issue of airtoss strength always was the splash damage melting your units not the airtoss itself.
Fine, it will help lower league players against "airtoss" players, but this is usually decided with +2/+2 hydra push on lair before they can mass the critical mass(or get splash to it). So, uh. Yeah, then we return to the hive reminder :D
|
On November 29 2019 00:14 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 19:42 Penev wrote: Now show me some S H R O U D zergbois, you'll only have to evolve through the entire tech tree to get it! Have. To. Resist. The. Urge. To. Link. The. SWTOR. Videos. Where. I. Used. The. Shroud. Nghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Fine, I made it. (I simply love the fact I used shroud so many times, although in a different Star* game  ) I just don't get the usage, like at all. What was the intention? That you group your hydras and f2 them under carriers? While they don't melt to storms, big boom balls, archons or colossi? With a radius 3? (IIRC) Even on lair it's useless as the issue of airtoss strength always was the splash damage melting your units not the airtoss itself. Fine, it will help lower league players against "airtoss" players, but this is usually decided with +2/+2 hydra push on lair before they can mass the critical mass(or get splash to it). So, uh. Yeah, then we return to the hive reminder :D
Well so far it seems like Zerg is still the strongest race. So until Zerg starts to stuggle in the late game I see no reason to improve the shroud ability.
Maybe a switch could be made where Vipers can not abduct massive units, then I could see an improved shroud ability. It would also be a design improvement.
|
On November 28 2019 23:34 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 23:26 bela.mervado wrote: i wish hydra to be a 1 supply unit on hatch level, probably ~50 hp until the lair level research is done (speed+hp like banes, or hp distributed to the 2 upgrades, like each gives +20 hp so hopefully there would not be too sharp spikes in hydra power level, and no unstoppable early allins with hydra). hmm this looks like a zerg marine Exactly. Makes it boring and generic. I'm against it 
hehe good point there
|
liberators dont hit burrowed lurkers. is that intended?
|
On November 29 2019 00:26 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2019 00:14 deacon.frost wrote:On November 28 2019 19:42 Penev wrote: Now show me some S H R O U D zergbois, you'll only have to evolve through the entire tech tree to get it! Have. To. Resist. The. Urge. To. Link. The. SWTOR. Videos. Where. I. Used. The. Shroud. Nghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Fine, I made it. (I simply love the fact I used shroud so many times, although in a different Star* game  ) I just don't get the usage, like at all. What was the intention? That you group your hydras and f2 them under carriers? While they don't melt to storms, big boom balls, archons or colossi? With a radius 3? (IIRC) Even on lair it's useless as the issue of airtoss strength always was the splash damage melting your units not the airtoss itself. Fine, it will help lower league players against "airtoss" players, but this is usually decided with +2/+2 hydra push on lair before they can mass the critical mass(or get splash to it). So, uh. Yeah, then we return to the hive reminder :D Well so far it seems like Zerg is still the strongest race. So until Zerg starts to stuggle in the late game I see no reason to improve the shroud ability. Maybe a switch could be made where Vipers can not abduct massive units, then I could see an improved shroud ability. It would also be a design improvement. having a uselss ability is a design flaw,not a balance problem. if you're claiming that design flaws should not be dealt with until balance is resolved i can't agree with you. also, declaring zerg is still the strongest race only 2 days after the patch was released is rather doubtful, even when considering the tournament played on it prior to it's release (olimo weekly, HSC).
|
Not a fan of what they did to Protoss. Chargelots are awful now, Adepts may as well not be a unit and Flux Void Rays are kinda silly. You can juggle your opponent using 2 squads of them the same way Terran juggles their opponents with alternating drops...
Blizzard. If I want fast, disposable units, I'll play Zerg. If I want to harass the entire game and piss my opponent off with juggling drops, I'll play Terran. Why the heck are you screwing with racial identity and making weird changes nobody asked for? Charge wasn't overpowered and if your intent was for the Zealot to be a front line meat shield instead of a front line damage dealer, you failed because you didn't understand that the reason the +8 damage Chargelot tanked well wasn't because it actually tanked. It was because it killed stuff fast enough to reduce the damage it had to tank. And that was a variable you didn't think through. I am a little disappointed in you. Do better please.
|
On November 29 2019 04:26 BabelFish1 wrote: Adepts may as well not be a unit. They're shockingly bad now. You used to at least be able to get glaives and do a bit of harass against zerg while also being able to use them defensively afterward if the zerg countered with a bunch of lings or even a few roaches, but now that upgrade is basically useful for that one first surprise shot of harass then the adepts are useless afterward. It's turned the adept into this crappy all-or-nothing unit where either the zerg is unprepared for the harass and they lose all their drones and the game since 4-6 adepts can basically wipe out a mineral line in that 6 seconds, or the zerg defends the adepts and then the protoss is at a big disadvantage because the upgrade isn't really useful defensively. I can only really see adepts being used offensively in all-ins now and that's about it. If the time with boosted attack speed was longer they might be more useful in other scenarios, but as is they're not.
As is, when attacking, the opponent can bait out a shade from the adepts, retreat until either the shade is cancelled and put on cooldown or until the adepts shade, then attack a second or two later and at most deal with a couple seconds of adepts at boosted attack speed before they're on cooldown and back to attacking super slowly until the next shade completes. At best, an adept can be in their boosted attack speed around 6 of every 18 seconds, but that requires perfectly timed shades and for the adepts to be able to be utilized for the entire 6 seconds. I just don't see how it's a worthwhile upgrade to consider anymore outside of all-in timings.
I can't really judge charge zealots yet. They definitely seem better against zerg off-creep and for running into mineral lines. Terran is a different story. From what I've seen so far, charge zealots seem much worse when used how we used old zealots against Terran, but there are likely to be other ways of using them that we haven't fully figured out yet. Trapping armies with flanks and things like that will likely become much more common I expect.
|
On November 29 2019 06:21 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2019 04:26 BabelFish1 wrote: Adepts may as well not be a unit. They're shockingly bad now. You used to at least be able to get glaives and do a bit of harass against zerg while also being able to use them defensively afterward if the zerg countered with a bunch of lings or even a few roaches, but now that upgrade is basically useful for that one first surprise shot of harass then the adepts are useless afterward. It's turned the adept into this crappy all-or-nothing unit where either the zerg is unprepared for the harass and they lose all their drones and the game since 4-6 adepts can basically wipe out a mineral line in that 6 seconds, or the zerg defends the adepts and then the protoss is at a big disadvantage because the upgrade isn't really useful defensively. I can only really see adepts being used offensively in all-ins now and that's about it. If the time with boosted attack speed was longer they might be more useful in other scenarios, but as is they're not. As is, when attacking, the opponent can bait out a shade from the adepts, retreat until either the shade is cancelled and put on cooldown or until the adepts shade, then attack a second or two later and at most deal with a couple seconds of adepts at boosted attack speed before they're on cooldown and back to attacking super slowly until the next shade completes. At best, an adept can be in their boosted attack speed around 6 of every 18 seconds, but that requires perfectly timed shades and for the adepts to be able to be utilized for the entire 6 seconds. I just don't see how it's a worthwhile upgrade to consider anymore outside of all-in timings. I can't really judge charge zealots yet. They definitely seem better against zerg off-creep and for running into mineral lines. Terran is a different story. From what I've seen so far, charge zealots seem much worse when used how we used old zealots against Terran, but there are likely to be other ways of using them that we haven't fully figured out yet. Trapping armies with flanks and things like that will likely become much more common I expect.
My issue with the chargelot in TvP is sure, we can flank with them but they just evaporate to everything now. The front loaded damage on charge reduced the amount of units the chargelot had to tank.
And with Tanks, Mines, Liberators and PFs...where's the runby potential? Terran is uniquely designed to be nigh immune to runbys.
As for Zerg, sure they're good at chasing down zerg units off creep but the old chargelots already did that and actually killed what they chased. You kited or you lost all your Roaches during the retreat. Now you can just stand still and force the chargelots to run away.
It was a very poorly thought through change...which is kinda par for all the Protoss changes. Poorly thought through.
|
Bisutopia19213 Posts
Adepts and zealots need synergy in the late game. What if you could shade onto a unit and the shade would absorb damage as if it were a d-matrix for the duration of the shade attached to the unit/zealot. Adepts would then be useful in equal numbers with zealots, but frail damage dealers left alone.
|
On November 29 2019 06:48 BisuDagger wrote: Adepts and zealots need synergy in the late game. What if you could shade onto a unit and the shade would absorb damage as if it were a d-matrix for the duration of the shade attached to the unit/zealot. Adepts would then be useful in equal numbers with zealots, but frail damage dealers left alone.
Sounds complicated. Why doesn't the balance team just follow through and make the Adept actually deal damage and the Zealot actually tank damage?
Charge giving +30 or 40 shields and take away some of that meme worthy Zealot speed currently on charge and Adepts dealing bonus damage to targets they consecutively attack with Shade active would be enough, along with reverting that Glavies change they did.
|
On November 28 2019 06:25 Allred wrote: well from a balance point of view. zealots are now officially awful units...
"These were the kind of bold balance changes Protoss needed to have chance in PvZ." - Random Terran Player
I called it when I saw the notes, these changes hurt Protoss more than they help.
|
Completely random thought here... but Terran mech is pretty good vs protoss now. Tanks+libs counter ground and Thors beat protoss air. It's kinda weird but lowkey really really strong.
|
Have people actually played with the new chargelots? Soo good roaches cant kite them off creep them. Harstem even said in one of his pre hsc streams that he told the balance team they are a bit too good now. People really like to overreact
|
On November 29 2019 10:41 ilax30 wrote: Have people actually played with the new chargelots? Soo good roaches cant kite them off creep them. Harstem even said in one of his pre hsc streams that he told the balance team they are a bit too good now. People really like to overreact
yes they are good in those cases, but in other cases they have gotten seriously nerfed, like later in the game when the zealots die very fast after they hit their "charge" +damage boost vs. terran.
I would say it's still a nerf.
|
I was really excited to face protoss with units fast enough to tri-quad split late middlegame to give protoss a second opportunity to get to a advantageous lategame.
Instead, they made zealots just slow enough to be bad and just weak enough to call it a nerf.
I hope they increase the lot speed a little more. Or give it more damage.
The adept is a great concept unit ... but it is a gimmick unit and ... protoss deserve better. Imo.
I play zerg, I just want my opponents to have a good, fair and enjoyable opportunity to win games.
|
On November 29 2019 10:41 ilax30 wrote: Have people actually played with the new chargelots? Soo good roaches cant kite them off creep them. Harstem even said in one of his pre hsc streams that he told the balance team they are a bit too good now. People really like to overreact Yeah, that's what I meant when I said they seemed good versus zerg from the bit I've seen on stream and played. If roaches aren't on creep the zerg has to stutter step micro them now to kill the zealots or the roaches will just die as they try to retreat. Just retreating doesn't cut it because the zealots are faster now, even with roach speed when off creep.They're also quite good against ravagers since ravagers are slower. They certainly seem to make roach/ravager busts on the third much bigger of a risk that they previously were as retreating is much harder, especially with the ravagers. I've already had a game where the zerg did a ravager bust, lost everything but the ravagers, tried to retreat with their ravagers, and lost all of the ravagers to zealots. It was pretty satisfying.
They also are significantly better against hydras with or without speed off creep. The zerg player now has to be way more careful with their banelings when doing a hydra/ling/bane all-in because of the banelings gets wasted on an archons or immortals, the zealots will be much more likely to clean up the rest of the units before the zerg can retreat back to creep. If there isn't a critical mass of hydras, they're borderline bad against zealots now if they don't have other units with them to keep the zealots away.
But then against terran it's a completely different story so it's hard to say overall at this point if they're too good or not.
|
On November 29 2019 12:03 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2019 10:41 ilax30 wrote: Have people actually played with the new chargelots? Soo good roaches cant kite them off creep them. Harstem even said in one of his pre hsc streams that he told the balance team they are a bit too good now. People really like to overreact yes they are good in those cases, but in other cases they have gotten seriously nerfed, like later in the game when the zealots die very fast after they hit their "charge" +damage boost vs. terran. I would say it's still a nerf.
What changes make zealots less tanky vs terran? Your statement is grammatically chaotic so I'm not quite sure what you mean with all the "they's", but I'm assuming you are making a joke about stim since zealot's have no damage boost. Are you referencing the 21 second reduction in stim upgrade time (from Patch 4.10.1) as "seriously nerf[ing]" zealots specifically?
A valid complaint is zealots not being able to deal extra burst damage with charge, but they still fulfill their role as a front line tank.
|
On November 29 2019 15:39 papapanda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2019 12:03 youngjiddle wrote:On November 29 2019 10:41 ilax30 wrote: Have people actually played with the new chargelots? Soo good roaches cant kite them off creep them. Harstem even said in one of his pre hsc streams that he told the balance team they are a bit too good now. People really like to overreact yes they are good in those cases, but in other cases they have gotten seriously nerfed, like later in the game when the zealots die very fast after they hit their "charge" +damage boost vs. terran. I would say it's still a nerf. What changes make zealots less tanky vs terran? Your statement is grammatically chaotic so I'm not quite sure what you mean with all the "they's", but I'm assuming you are making a joke about stim since zealot's have no damage boost. Are you referencing the 21 second reduction in stim upgrade time (from Patch 4.10.1) as "seriously nerf[ing]" zealots specifically? A valid complaint is zealots not being able to deal extra burst damage with charge, but they still fulfill their role as a front line tank.
They are not less tanky, but I think he meant they initially off kill less bio quickly now to reduce the DPS of the bioball. I guess you could consider lategame zealots one-hit-wonders lategame, as they would often not survive after their initial charge attack.
Speed of units is very important in SC2. My feeling is that the charge change will be considered a fair trade or buff when everything is said and done.
|
On November 29 2019 17:52 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2019 15:39 papapanda wrote:On November 29 2019 12:03 youngjiddle wrote:On November 29 2019 10:41 ilax30 wrote: Have people actually played with the new chargelots? Soo good roaches cant kite them off creep them. Harstem even said in one of his pre hsc streams that he told the balance team they are a bit too good now. People really like to overreact yes they are good in those cases, but in other cases they have gotten seriously nerfed, like later in the game when the zealots die very fast after they hit their "charge" +damage boost vs. terran. I would say it's still a nerf. What changes make zealots less tanky vs terran? Your statement is grammatically chaotic so I'm not quite sure what you mean with all the "they's", but I'm assuming you are making a joke about stim since zealot's have no damage boost. Are you referencing the 21 second reduction in stim upgrade time (from Patch 4.10.1) as "seriously nerf[ing]" zealots specifically? A valid complaint is zealots not being able to deal extra burst damage with charge, but they still fulfill their role as a front line tank. They are not less tanky, but I think he meant they initially off kill less bio quickly now to reduce the DPS of the bioball. I guess you could consider lategame zealots one-hit-wonders lategame, as they would often not survive after their initial charge attack. Speed of units is very important in SC2. My feeling is that the charge change will be considered a fair trade or buff when everything is said and done.
I believe they want the goal of Zealots to be more similar to BW - where more surface area = more damage. Splitting / Flanking etc being necessary to maximize the unit. Where before, the charge in would kill say 5% of the bio-ball on engage (cos insta-gibbing marines), now in order to get value you have to have surface area and/or flanking similar to lings. Will it work in practice? Not super sure on that, but that to me seems like the goal.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On November 29 2019 18:06 LHK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 29 2019 17:52 Slydie wrote:On November 29 2019 15:39 papapanda wrote:On November 29 2019 12:03 youngjiddle wrote:On November 29 2019 10:41 ilax30 wrote: Have people actually played with the new chargelots? Soo good roaches cant kite them off creep them. Harstem even said in one of his pre hsc streams that he told the balance team they are a bit too good now. People really like to overreact yes they are good in those cases, but in other cases they have gotten seriously nerfed, like later in the game when the zealots die very fast after they hit their "charge" +damage boost vs. terran. I would say it's still a nerf. What changes make zealots less tanky vs terran? Your statement is grammatically chaotic so I'm not quite sure what you mean with all the "they's", but I'm assuming you are making a joke about stim since zealot's have no damage boost. Are you referencing the 21 second reduction in stim upgrade time (from Patch 4.10.1) as "seriously nerf[ing]" zealots specifically? A valid complaint is zealots not being able to deal extra burst damage with charge, but they still fulfill their role as a front line tank. They are not less tanky, but I think he meant they initially off kill less bio quickly now to reduce the DPS of the bioball. I guess you could consider lategame zealots one-hit-wonders lategame, as they would often not survive after their initial charge attack. Speed of units is very important in SC2. My feeling is that the charge change will be considered a fair trade or buff when everything is said and done. I believe they want the goal of Zealots to be more similar to BW - where more surface area = more damage. Splitting / Flanking etc being necessary to maximize the unit. Where before, the charge in would kill say 5% of the bio-ball on engage (cos insta-gibbing marines), now in order to get value you have to have surface area and/or flanking similar to lings. Will it work in practice? Not super sure on that, but that to me seems like the goal.
Problem with this idea is that Terran bio has waaaaay too much dps density for that to ever work. You'd have to buff the crap out of Zealot health or shields, like by 50, for that dynamic to work and I'm pretty sure that would break PvZ. Z wouldn't be able to trade with those Zealots early on.
I really, really think the balance team should revert their Zealot and Adept ideas. They're poorly thought through and have hilarious implementation. I also hope that they really, really consider the impacts of their changes going forward because these changes indicate to me that they've no clue what they're doing when it comes to Protoss.
|
On November 30 2019 02:57 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
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.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On November 30 2019 04:12 Slydie 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. 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. Which pros said that?
While not absolute consensus most of what I’ve heard (from P) is that new Zealot is pretty bad for vT in certain aspects, although runbys are good and that the extra mobility is a good tool vZ
We’ll see how it settles down. My instinct would be that the loss of the bonus damage will be bad for the vT matchup, but good for the vZ (looking at it as a neutral not as a P here as before)
vT I think the burst damage is really important and even with the extra speed Zealots aren’t fast enough to compensate entirely via increased micro ability. vZ, while certainly nice the unit and composition interactions mean I don’t think the bonus damage is as critical, and the increased mobility helps P in other ways like sharking around and clearing creep. Plus the nerf neuters some of the sillier early chargelot Immortal timings too which I’m not really a fan of as a player or a viewer
|
Not sure how i feel about the chargelot nerf even as a terran. Protoss players arent doing gateway heavy style anymore and going to colossus/stalker centric builds. It almost feels like a faster paced Hots TvP atm
|
On November 30 2019 04:12 Slydie 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. 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.
|
On November 30 2019 05:09 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
New Zealot is superstrong now. The -8 damage dont do much. Even 20 Zealots charging will do 160 dmg = 1 marine 1 marauder...but them being able to runby a lot faster, pull back faster means stronger lategame zealots and also forcing out just 1 more stim out of Terran because stimmed bio is only slightly faster now is WAY more damage than the +8.
Overall more speedy zealots ist just insane vs any Z unit offcreep and vs stimmed bio and lategame vs all races. Lets see if it stays as speedy in the next months.
|
On November 30 2019 05:52 Decendos 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. New Zealot is superstrong now. The -8 damage dont do much. Even 20 Zealots charging will do 160 dmg = 1 marine 1 marauder...but them being able to runby a lot faster, pull back faster means stronger lategame zealots and also forcing out just 1 more stim out of Terran because stimmed bio is only slightly faster now is WAY more damage than the +8. Overall more speedy zealots ist just insane vs any Z unit offcreep and vs stimmed bio and lategame vs all races. Lets see if it stays as speedy in the next months.
I'll give it more of a try later on, maybe I'm just not doing something right but for my preferred opener, which is fast charge on 1 gas and a fast 3rd before grabbing 3 additional gas, it's nowhere near as good. Terran 2 base allins just shred the chargelots without that +8 damage during that timing window. Especially if it involves bio.
|
On November 30 2019 05:09 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
The last game I saw on stream, a slightly distracted Heromarine got owned by a charge/warp prism plays right as he was about to move out for his 2-base push. Maybe try that instead (just not vs me, plz!)
|
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 Kingdom20282 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.
|
On November 30 2019 18:34 Doko wrote: 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. Perhaps a change where abduction doesn't work on MASSIVE units ?
|
On December 01 2019 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 18:34 Doko wrote: 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. Perhaps a change where abduction doesn't work on MASSIVE units ?
It would certainly make the mothership a lot stronger but you would have to suggest some other kind of Zerg counterplay, then.
Lategame tosses should eventually be very good at revelations and feedbacks to counter vipers in a dance of deathballs.
|
On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 disagreeThe 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?
This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down.
When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick.
Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2?
Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least.
|
On December 01 2019 03:04 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 02:45 youngjiddle wrote: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.
When charge is off cooldown, you can move command your chargelots away, then tell them to attack again, to deal with charge damage. If you do it right, it matters. A lot.
|
After dunking on heavy mech- thor-tank-hellion- compositions with ling-lurker-ultra-viper with a handful of corrupters... I am sure they are going to weaken lurkers.
A few blinding clouds, a few ultras to tank and woah, the +10 range lurkers just destroy heavy mech.
Armies that would require multiple remakes to eliminate before (without IT abuse) now are totally fightable.
Also, most of the maps are too big for mech.
ZvP.... is way harder now. I am not good or gosu but toss is alot more threatening now. The new void Ray's can eliminate a defended base in seconds. You can no longer ignore the early phase of sky toss.
Lurkers are sooo good thou. Leave a few at the fourth, wait for probe transfer and bam.
Anyone else using dropper lords more now?
Roach-ling drops really force protoss to decided between attack and defense more.
So strange that temps and dts aren't used in small numbers to defend bases ala bw. Sometimes I see a temp or 2 but I rarely see dts used to stymie ling-roach psuedo counters.
|
When charge is off cooldown, you can move command your chargelots away, then tell them to attack again, to deal with charge damage. If you do it right, it matters. A lot.
No. It doesn't. Zealot base dps: 18.6 Charge additional dps: 8/7 sec = 1.14
That's a 6% increase in dps with the impact damage if you bother micro-ing your zealots like this (which no pro actually does).
|
On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least.
I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process.
Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot.
Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack...
|
On December 01 2019 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 18:34 Doko wrote: 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. Perhaps a change where abduction doesn't work on MASSIVE units ?
I don't see why people keep suggesting this for a 200gas hive tech caster that can at most cast the spell twice at full mana. It's an anti-massive spell. Of course it should be possible to abduct a mothership.
|
On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack...
I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts.
I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar.
It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf.
|
I cannot believe someone think new zealots aren't trash
|
Having had a few days to play the new map pool, I gotta say it's really bad. It's as bad as last season's in some ways. Some of the maps aren't as big but expansions are still quite hard for terran and protoss to take compared to zerg. The trend of thirds being quite far away and open from multiple angles to attack is not a great one nor is the trend of having no ramps at thirds and double/triple-wide ramps everywhere on the map. Zen has multiple places you have to defend against baneling/ravager busts at the natural and every expansion past the third is out in wide open with no chokes or ramps at all. Not to mention that map has a ton of places for hiding overlords. Nightshade is similarly quite open with difficult expansions. Combine the issues of these two maps with Ephemeron, Triton, and World of Sleepers being kept over from last season and we're left with what seems to be another fairly zerg-favoured map pool like the last one. I think Nathanias said it best yesterday on stream when he said he hopes this map pool isn't used for tournaments at the start of next year.
The only maps in this pool I like are Simulacrum and Eternal Empire. Both at least have ramps at the third and actual chokes in different areas around the map.
|
bio is near unplayable on these maps except triton. like how do you actually attack on maps like eternal empire and simulacrum playing bio
|
On December 01 2019 10:36 Obamarauder wrote: bio is near unplayable on these maps except triton. like how do you actually attack on maps like eternal empire and simulacrum playing bio I am garbage but.... m+medivac+wmine pushes while taking bases have been effective against me at d1.
|
On December 01 2019 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2019 18:34 Doko wrote: 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. Perhaps a change where abduction doesn't work on MASSIVE units ? if abduct won't work on massive units what's there to abduct? massive units in the game: T- thor, BC Z- BL, ultralisk P- archon, colossus, carrier, mothership we're left with immortal, tempest, siege tank and liberator, and the occasional medivac/warp prism. i don't think branding all the high priority units in the game immune to abduct is a good move.
|
On December 01 2019 04:56 AttackZerg wrote: After dunking on heavy mech- thor-tank-hellion- compositions with ling-lurker-ultra-viper with a handful of corrupters... I am sure they are going to weaken lurkers.
A few blinding clouds, a few ultras to tank and woah, the +10 range lurkers just destroy heavy mech.
Armies that would require multiple remakes to eliminate before (without IT abuse) now are totally fightable.
Also, most of the maps are too big for mech.
ZvP.... is way harder now. I am not good or gosu but toss is alot more threatening now. The new void Ray's can eliminate a defended base in seconds. You can no longer ignore the early phase of sky toss.
Lurkers are sooo good thou. Leave a few at the fourth, wait for probe transfer and bam.
Anyone else using dropper lords more now?
Roach-ling drops really force protoss to decided between attack and defense more.
So strange that temps and dts aren't used in small numbers to defend bases ala bw. Sometimes I see a temp or 2 but I rarely see dts used to stymie ling-roach psuedo counters.
Been having a LOT of problem with heavy mech so I would love to see a replay of how you use that composition. Because of how tanks outrange lurkers I didn't think that would be viable, do you use the blinding clouds to dive in with the lurkers? sounds super risky. What happens if the tanks aren't clumped enough to cloud?
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 01 2019 17:26 batatm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 03:44 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 30 2019 18:34 Doko wrote: 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. Perhaps a change where abduction doesn't work on MASSIVE units ? if abduct won't work on massive units what's there to abduct? massive units in the game: T- thor, BC Z- BL, ultralisk P- archon, colossus, carrier, mothership we're left with immortal, tempest, siege tank and liberator, and the occasional medivac/warp prism. i don't think branding all the high priority units in the game immune to abduct is a good move. Yeah I think it’s an important part of the Zerg toolset currently
With the exception of the Mommaship I’m ok with abduct working on all units really, that particular interaction is a bit silly considering the 400/400 can only make one unit is basically a meme
|
On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf.
I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same.
In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important.
Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears.
|
On December 01 2019 07:50 Ben... wrote: Having had a few days to play the new map pool, I gotta say it's really bad. It's as bad as last season's in some ways. Some of the maps aren't as big but expansions are still quite hard for terran and protoss to take compared to zerg. The trend of thirds being quite far away and open from multiple angles to attack is not a great one nor is the trend of having no ramps at thirds and double/triple-wide ramps everywhere on the map. Zen has multiple places you have to defend against baneling/ravager busts at the natural and every expansion past the third is out in wide open with no chokes or ramps at all. Not to mention that map has a ton of places for hiding overlords. Nightshade is similarly quite open with difficult expansions. Combine the issues of these two maps with Ephemeron, Triton, and World of Sleepers being kept over from last season and we're left with what seems to be another fairly zerg-favoured map pool like the last one. I think Nathanias said it best yesterday on stream when he said he hopes this map pool isn't used for tournaments at the start of next year.
The only maps in this pool I like are Simulacrum and Eternal Empire. Both at least have ramps at the third and actual chokes in different areas around the map.
I don't play, just watch. But I watch a lot.
I saw people playing the new maps. I couldn't believe it. These maps are even more zerg favored than last season's maps. What the hell is going on?
|
On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears.
Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step.
So yeah, I disagree with you entirely.
Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down.
|
On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down.
Where do you see hellbats and bio-balls together? Please stop your fantasy theorycrafting.
Protoss does not need help vs Terran bio. They have multiple answers to bio balls.
|
|
On December 01 2019 18:20 Highrock1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 04:56 AttackZerg wrote: After dunking on heavy mech- thor-tank-hellion- compositions with ling-lurker-ultra-viper with a handful of corrupters... I am sure they are going to weaken lurkers.
A few blinding clouds, a few ultras to tank and woah, the +10 range lurkers just destroy heavy mech.
Armies that would require multiple remakes to eliminate before (without IT abuse) now are totally fightable.
Also, most of the maps are too big for mech.
ZvP.... is way harder now. I am not good or gosu but toss is alot more threatening now. The new void Ray's can eliminate a defended base in seconds. You can no longer ignore the early phase of sky toss.
Lurkers are sooo good thou. Leave a few at the fourth, wait for probe transfer and bam.
Anyone else using dropper lords more now?
Roach-ling drops really force protoss to decided between attack and defense more.
So strange that temps and dts aren't used in small numbers to defend bases ala bw. Sometimes I see a temp or 2 but I rarely see dts used to stymie ling-roach psuedo counters. Been having a LOT of problem with heavy mech so I would love to see a replay of how you use that composition. Because of how tanks outrange lurkers I didn't think that would be viable, do you use the blinding clouds to dive in with the lurkers? sounds super risky. What happens if the tanks aren't clumped enough to cloud?
I focus the blinding clouds on the thors, not tanks. When I get home, later today (pst) I will pm you a link when I can upload a rep.
(Note: am not gosu at this game)
|
On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down.
Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup.
Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines.
|
On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines.
Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc.
This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units.
|
On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units.
Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play?
Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat.
Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots.
|
On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: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 disagreeThe 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? This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots.
Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such.
Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots.
I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up.
As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions.
|
Canada195 Posts
On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: [quote] So pros experience and opinion doesn't matter, got it.
[quote] 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?
This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions.
There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 01:21 Shuffleblade wrote: [quote] So pros experience and opinion doesn't matter, got it.
[quote] 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?
This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down. When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick. Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2? Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. I just don’t think they’re very good for a variety of reasons.
Protoss pump chronoed upgrades in that matchup from 2 forges often-times so those leads are huge on a second upgrade tree.
Trades are pretty common, if you’re constantly trying to rebuild hellbats it just feels a bit awkward. They’re terrible against a lot of other Protoss stuff so you don’t want too many, you want an optimal amount to counter charge lots, no more and no less.
I could certainly see hellbats being good when built into a timing attack, or preparing for a Protoss timing for sure and you squeeze out a certain number as a buffer. I’m just not sure how good they would be in a more back-and-forth game when you’re trading, especially when directly compared to widow mines where 1-2 can still be useful and they have other uses such as in base defence too.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 02 2019 18:49 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote: [quote]
This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down.
When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick.
Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2?
Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. I just don’t think they’re very good for a variety of reasons. Protoss pump chronoed upgrades in that matchup from 2 forges often-times so those leads are huge on a second upgrade tree. Trades are pretty common, if you’re constantly trying to rebuild hellbats it just feels a bit awkward. They’re terrible against a lot of other Protoss stuff so you don’t want too many, you want an optimal amount to counter charge lots, no more and no less. I could certainly see hellbats being good when built into a timing attack, or preparing for a Protoss timing for sure and you squeeze out a certain number as a buffer. I’m just not sure how good they would be in a more back-and-forth game when you’re trading, especially when directly compared to widow mines where 1-2 can still be useful and they have other uses such as in base defence too. The worst thing about hellbats is they're slow AF. Give them the stimpack upgrade and we can talk. Or, you know, return firebatmans? (or add flame upgrade on the marauder and ability to switch their mode from slow to firebats)
|
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Protoss pump chronoed upgrades in that matchup from 2 forges often-times so those leads are huge on a second upgrade tree.
That was a common complaint a while back, but Protoss upgrades now take a lot longer than T/Z upgrades. It takes a substantial percentage of chronoboost to equalize them and focusing even more still on chrono upgrades to pull ahead means making major investment&sacrifices.
If you look at games closely you'll usually see that P with an upgrade lead got there because they put forge/s down before engineering bays or evo's, not because the upgrades were faster.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 02 2019 19:21 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Protoss pump chronoed upgrades in that matchup from 2 forges often-times so those leads are huge on a second upgrade tree. That was a common complaint a while back, but Protoss upgrades now take a lot longer than T/Z upgrades. It takes a substantial percentage of chronoboost to equalize them and focusing even more still on chrono upgrades to pull ahead means making major investment&sacrifices. If you look at games closely you'll usually see that P with an upgrade lead got there because they put forge/s down before engineering bays or evo's, not because the upgrades were faster. Yes that is true, but I mean that’s more what Protoss do in the matchup, so any splitting of your own upgrades is that much more of a factor.
There probably isn’t a matchup focused strategically quite so much on upgrades as Protoss play vs Terran out of all the matchups. Indeed that’s why the nerfs occurred in the first place, because Protoss put so much focus on it and have the chronoboost mechanic to help further.
|
On December 02 2019 19:21 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Protoss pump chronoed upgrades in that matchup from 2 forges often-times so those leads are huge on a second upgrade tree. That was a common complaint a while back, but Protoss upgrades now take a lot longer than T/Z upgrades. It takes a substantial percentage of chronoboost to equalize them and focusing even more still on chrono upgrades to pull ahead means making major investment&sacrifices. If you look at games closely you'll usually see that P with an upgrade lead got there because they put forge/s down before engineering bays or evo's, not because the upgrades were faster.
I think this is prity much right often it’s easier for p to squeeze in 1 forge earlier but they can’t get the upgrade lead they used to. In TvP I tend to see toss have the faster +1 attack but Terran with a faster 1/1 upgrade. I think it’s a good interplay just because of how tvp functions the match is at its best when these kind of swings exist where Terran is strong then toss is strong then Terran is strong ect.
I’m not sure how ballance is yet but there’s a lot better interplay and timing windows now with the changes that have been made so games are more back and fourth which is more interesting at least.
|
On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 04:24 BabelFish1 wrote: [quote]
This shows that you've no concept of StarCraft 2 mate. I'll break it down.
When a unit loses 1/3rd of it's damage and gains a bunch of movement speed instead...that's a huge nerf. Movement speed doesn't make up for 33% damage loss and we have examples of this in TvP; bio vs chargelots already. They are no longer a front line unit, they are too fast to keep together with supporting units, they can't tank worth a damn now and they kill stuff in 33% more time, provided you actively use the charge micro trick.
Zerglings and Chargelots are not even close to comparable...Zerglings have Zerg production to swarm with them and you get 2 for the price of 1. Zealots to be comparable need a TON of gateways which only happens late game. Zealots are also twice the cost, twice the supply, etc...perhaps it's you who lacks understanding of StarCraft 2?
Chargelots didn't counter bio, they contested it when the Terran moved out onto the map at 5 minutes with a 2 base allin... Just a thought here, maybe you shouldn't take such a rude tone when your understanding of the situation is...lacking to say the least. I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process. Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot. Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack... I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame.
This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build.
If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this.
So again, less excuses, more adapting!
|
On December 02 2019 19:21 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +Protoss pump chronoed upgrades in that matchup from 2 forges often-times so those leads are huge on a second upgrade tree. That was a common complaint a while back, but Protoss upgrades now take a lot longer than T/Z upgrades. It takes a substantial percentage of chronoboost to equalize them and focusing even more still on chrono upgrades to pull ahead means making major investment&sacrifices. If you look at games closely you'll usually see that P with an upgrade lead got there because they put forge/s down before engineering bays or evo's, not because the upgrades were faster.
That's a very good point.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 03 2019 03:28 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote: [quote]
I am not sure if you are trolling but I really think you are wrong here. First, you have to show how you calculate that loss of dps.. I suspect you count only the first attack, but if the unit attacks more than once it looks very different, with the DPS drop being smaller for each hit. This is even if you used your double charge trick, which might lose out on a normal attack in the process.
Also, if you have ever seen slowling vs speedling fights you would know that the time it takes for a unit to surround, retreat, chase or go from one target to the next matters a lot.
Calculating actual damage output during a fight is much more complicated than just adding up the impact of the first attack...
I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts. I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar. It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf. I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame. This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build. If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this. So again, less excuses, more adapting! Perhaps it does work well up to a point on ladder for sure, I don’t refer to pros as evidence anything is bad, I don’t see how they’re better than the other factory options for supporting bio though. Mines do pretty brutal splash and also are useful defensively, tanks give long range zoning splash and this is useful both defensively or in gradually pushing. Neither of these really cares hugely for armoury upgrades either which is nice.
Hellbats are slow and get zoned by other Protoss units, although they’re good against Zealots specifically.
They would situationally be really good I’m just not sure you can force a game to fit those situations.
|
On December 03 2019 04:09 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 03:28 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote:On December 01 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote: [quote]
I don't troll here, I just have a very short patience span when it comes to elitism and hubris. Very, very short and if I see it, I will call a person out for it without getting into name calling or other silly childish acts.
I counted the second attack, that's why it's a 33% damage nerf and not a 50% damage nerf. A lot of the time, Zeralots don't get more than 2 attacks off, they end up dying after throwing out 24 total damage, before upgrades are factored in that's why I don't count a Zeralot staying alive to deal more damage than charge+2 attacks, it's not realistic outside of specific low supply scenarios. Like Charge at 4:30 to counter a Marine Tank 2 base allin or something similar.
It doesn't matter if chargelots can surround when they are too expensive to throw away and when they do get a surround, they just end up dying in a terribly inefficient trade anyhow. Especially since the speed means they'll end up auto engaging ahead of the army. You're constantly fighting your Zealots if you want to use them as a meat shield and not a runby skirmisher unit. So unless Zealots start costing 50 minerals and earl game, can be warped in sets of 2, there's no real comparison between the zealot and a zergling, even with the charge nerf.
I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same. In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important. Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame. This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build. If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this. So again, less excuses, more adapting! Perhaps it does work well up to a point on ladder for sure, I don’t refer to pros as evidence anything is bad, I don’t see how they’re better than the other factory options for supporting bio though. Mines do pretty brutal splash and also are useful defensively, tanks give long range zoning splash and this is useful both defensively or in gradually pushing. Neither of these really cares hugely for armoury upgrades either which is nice. Hellbats are slow and get zoned by other Protoss units, although they’re good against Zealots specifically. They would situationally be really good I’m just not sure you can force a game to fit those situations.
The amount of times I've seen a Terran get rekt by their own Widow Mines because they thought going bio mine vs chargelots was a good idea is mind numbing. If the Protoss has a brain, they will use that friendly fire to gib your own units regularly. I'd argue that outside of a few stray mines in chokes around the map, mines are one of the worst units to use vs Protoss right now (in battle, they still rock for harass). Especially with new charge.
Very specifically vs chargelots, you're better off getting 8 Hellbats. If it's not mass chargelots or if they transitioned, then the 8 Hellbats aren't going to do anything because as you pointed out, they get rekt by splash damage and basically everything not named Zealot or Adept.
It's just a very strong counter to charge allins. Be in ones on the current patch or the previous one.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 03 2019 07:08 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 04:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 03:28 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 01 2019 21:40 Slydie wrote: [quote]
I mentioned Zerglings because the importance of the speed of melee units should be obvious in that scenario, not because I think they are the same.
In ranged vs melee fights, one could argue that speed is even more important.
Zealots alone are actually supposed to be mediocre vs stimmed bio with medivac support. Otherwise, there would be no incentive for protoss to tech up. Next time you see a dense marine ball, land a storm in the middle of it, have your faster zealots chase down the red bio and collect some Terran tears. Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step. So yeah, I disagree with you entirely. Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame. This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build. If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this. So again, less excuses, more adapting! Perhaps it does work well up to a point on ladder for sure, I don’t refer to pros as evidence anything is bad, I don’t see how they’re better than the other factory options for supporting bio though. Mines do pretty brutal splash and also are useful defensively, tanks give long range zoning splash and this is useful both defensively or in gradually pushing. Neither of these really cares hugely for armoury upgrades either which is nice. Hellbats are slow and get zoned by other Protoss units, although they’re good against Zealots specifically. They would situationally be really good I’m just not sure you can force a game to fit those situations. The amount of times I've seen a Terran get rekt by their own Widow Mines because they thought going bio mine vs chargelots was a good idea is mind numbing. If the Protoss has a brain, they will use that friendly fire to gib your own units regularly. I'd argue that outside of a few stray mines in chokes around the map, mines are one of the worst units to use vs Protoss right now (in battle, they still rock for harass). Especially with new charge. Very specifically vs chargelots, you're better off getting 8 Hellbats. If it's not mass chargelots or if they transitioned, then the 8 Hellbats aren't going to do anything because as you pointed out, they get rekt by splash damage and basically everything not named Zealot or Adept. It's just a very strong counter to charge allins. Be in ones on the current patch or the previous one. I could see it working really well against charge allins defensively for sure because the Hellbat’s relative slowness isn’t a factor when the Zealots are charging into your position.
|
On December 03 2019 07:18 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 07:08 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 03 2019 04:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 03:28 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote:On December 02 2019 04:13 BabelFish1 wrote: [quote]
Doesn't work like that. At all. Bio doesn't stand in storms until it's red unless the Terran is afk. Chargelots never countered MMM unless you had an upgrade lead, it was early and it was a low supply battle. When there is no upgrade lead, MMM can now stand still and kill chargelots whereas before, it had to stutter step.
So yeah, I disagree with you entirely.
Also, massing MMM vs things that do well against it is idiotic and a bad game mechanic. We don't need the days of every Terran going bio vs their counters back. That was brain dead muscle memory play and was very bad for sc2. Get 8 Hellions or Hellbats, replace them when they soak the chargelot charge and laugh as the chargelots all die as they pile into Hellbat AoE while bio stims them down. Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup. Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame. This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build. If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this. So again, less excuses, more adapting! Perhaps it does work well up to a point on ladder for sure, I don’t refer to pros as evidence anything is bad, I don’t see how they’re better than the other factory options for supporting bio though. Mines do pretty brutal splash and also are useful defensively, tanks give long range zoning splash and this is useful both defensively or in gradually pushing. Neither of these really cares hugely for armoury upgrades either which is nice. Hellbats are slow and get zoned by other Protoss units, although they’re good against Zealots specifically. They would situationally be really good I’m just not sure you can force a game to fit those situations. The amount of times I've seen a Terran get rekt by their own Widow Mines because they thought going bio mine vs chargelots was a good idea is mind numbing. If the Protoss has a brain, they will use that friendly fire to gib your own units regularly. I'd argue that outside of a few stray mines in chokes around the map, mines are one of the worst units to use vs Protoss right now (in battle, they still rock for harass). Especially with new charge. Very specifically vs chargelots, you're better off getting 8 Hellbats. If it's not mass chargelots or if they transitioned, then the 8 Hellbats aren't going to do anything because as you pointed out, they get rekt by splash damage and basically everything not named Zealot or Adept. It's just a very strong counter to charge allins. Be in ones on the current patch or the previous one. I could see it working really well against charge allins defensively for sure because the Hellbat’s relative slowness isn’t a factor when the Zealots are charging into your position.
Who would have an armory in time for a charge all-in? It usually goes down in time for 2-2 to start, and quick armories is only used in BC or BFH builds, mostly against zerg. Even tvt mech usually has late upgrades as it is so important to get factories up and gas is hard to come by.
I believe helbats vs toss was actually meta at some point, but others have pointed out why that is not the case anymore, disruptors being one of them.
Imo, Widowmines are stupid units in how they can punish small attention mistakes with major damage, but balance wise they are needed for Terran to keep their opponents on their toes and counter mass melee. That players have to avoid/abuse both mine and siegetank friendly fire is a part of the game I have accepted.
#BabelFish1: Have you laddered some more after the patch? Is your PvT doing ok?
|
feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr
I agree with scarlett...
how is supposed to be ladder training with that xxx "feature"?
I think fore tournaments featur its fine (or maybe grandmaster)
|
On December 03 2019 08:07 Kertorak wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr
I agree with scarlett...
how is supposed to be ladder training with that xxx "feature"?
I think fore tournaments featur its fine (or maybe grandmaster)
If you are masters playing vs a diamond, does the diamond get to see your mmr? I ask from a masters perspective.
It's not very fair that they get to see mine and I don't get to see theirs. When I play with my main I don't get this problem because I only play masters players. But when I play random it's annoying and diamonds only cheese me.
|
On November 28 2019 04:15 Obamarauder wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 04:02 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much. I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. In todays game, if you dont mass queen you die against half the meta builds out there. Nerf queen and just remove BC teleport completely. its such a dumb gimmick and takes away any strategic aspect. Even terran players dont like BC teleport
I dont agree with nerfing queens after voidrays got buffed. my original idea is having them cost some gas (i.e. 25), but not the initial one per base.
|
On December 03 2019 10:51 Kertorak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2019 04:15 Obamarauder wrote:On November 28 2019 04:02 Snakestyle11 wrote:On November 28 2019 03:03 Big-t wrote:On November 28 2019 02:44 Majick wrote:On November 28 2019 02:40 norlock wrote: Why don't they nerf the range of the queen? I don't know why such a unit should have such a huge range, when libs, warp prism, etc all get nerfed in range. I think it should be a t1 unit to just survive air at the opening phase of the game. It's role is too generic like the infestor was/is in my opinion, what do you think? I think the queen should be even stronger but there should be a limit of 1 queen per hatch so that massing is not an option. I hate it that I have to build so many queens to survive early game without falling behind. This. I hate watching mass queens and I think it is the real reason zerg was / is so strong. One queen per hatch could solve this. Maybe buff the queen a bit, but I think it is not Ok that Zergs just mass queens the whole time. But yeah, anti air range feals to be too much. I mean they keep adding units and strategies that forces zerg to mass more queens. In todays game, if you dont mass queen you die against half the meta builds out there. Nerf queen and just remove BC teleport completely. its such a dumb gimmick and takes away any strategic aspect. Even terran players dont like BC teleport I dont agree with nerfing queens after voidrays got buffed. my original idea is having them cost some gas (i.e. 25), but not the initial one per base.
Voids got a late game upgrade along with a Nerf (bug fix).
That has nothing to do with nerfing queens.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 03 2019 08:28 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 08:07 Kertorak wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr
I agree with scarlett...
how is supposed to be ladder training with that xxx "feature"?
I think fore tournaments featur its fine (or maybe grandmaster) If you are masters playing vs a diamond, does the diamond get to see your mmr? I ask from a masters perspective. It's not very fair that they get to see mine and I don't get to see theirs. When I play with my main I don't get this problem because I only play masters players. But when I play random it's annoying and diamonds only cheese me. I play unranked and I don't see anyones MMR. I wonder if they see mine.
|
France12761 Posts
On December 03 2019 17:03 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 08:28 youngjiddle wrote:On December 03 2019 08:07 Kertorak wrote: feels bad getting cheesed every game since they started showing mmr
I agree with scarlett...
how is supposed to be ladder training with that xxx "feature"?
I think fore tournaments featur its fine (or maybe grandmaster) If you are masters playing vs a diamond, does the diamond get to see your mmr? I ask from a masters perspective. It's not very fair that they get to see mine and I don't get to see theirs. When I play with my main I don't get this problem because I only play masters players. But when I play random it's annoying and diamonds only cheese me. I play unranked and I don't see anyones MMR. I wonder if they see mine. I think ranked players actually see your ranked MMR if you play unranked. I faced a zerg with 5100+ in the loading screen but only 4800 after his loss, so that’s my guess.
|
On December 03 2019 08:02 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 07:18 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 07:08 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 03 2019 04:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 03:28 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 05:11 Slydie wrote: [quote]
Viable mech play would be very interesting but your post does not really make sense. Terrans usually go some reaper/tech opening into some stim/medivac push with or without tanks. From that point, protoss has some very scary 3base timings, and Terran can NOT rely on "massing bio vs things that counter it" as you say. Mines, Ghosts, Vikings or liberators need to be added, depending on the toss composition. I honestly think the dynamic of the matchup is fine, although I feel Protoss has more options to find something fitting their style in the matchup.
Helbats melt to any protoss aoe, can't escape and only counters zealots. There are good reasons why they are only seen in mech tvp. The best chargelots counter which is actually used is mines. Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc. This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units. Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame. This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build. If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this. So again, less excuses, more adapting! Perhaps it does work well up to a point on ladder for sure, I don’t refer to pros as evidence anything is bad, I don’t see how they’re better than the other factory options for supporting bio though. Mines do pretty brutal splash and also are useful defensively, tanks give long range zoning splash and this is useful both defensively or in gradually pushing. Neither of these really cares hugely for armoury upgrades either which is nice. Hellbats are slow and get zoned by other Protoss units, although they’re good against Zealots specifically. They would situationally be really good I’m just not sure you can force a game to fit those situations. The amount of times I've seen a Terran get rekt by their own Widow Mines because they thought going bio mine vs chargelots was a good idea is mind numbing. If the Protoss has a brain, they will use that friendly fire to gib your own units regularly. I'd argue that outside of a few stray mines in chokes around the map, mines are one of the worst units to use vs Protoss right now (in battle, they still rock for harass). Especially with new charge. Very specifically vs chargelots, you're better off getting 8 Hellbats. If it's not mass chargelots or if they transitioned, then the 8 Hellbats aren't going to do anything because as you pointed out, they get rekt by splash damage and basically everything not named Zealot or Adept. It's just a very strong counter to charge allins. Be in ones on the current patch or the previous one. I could see it working really well against charge allins defensively for sure because the Hellbat’s relative slowness isn’t a factor when the Zealots are charging into your position. Who would have an armory in time for a charge all-in? It usually goes down in time for 2-2 to start, and quick armories is only used in BC or BFH builds, mostly against zerg. Even tvt mech usually has late upgrades as it is so important to get factories up and gas is hard to come by. I believe helbats vs toss was actually meta at some point, but others have pointed out why that is not the case anymore, disruptors being one of them. Imo, Widowmines are stupid units in how they can punish small attention mistakes with major damage, but balance wise they are needed for Terran to keep their opponents on their toes and counter mass melee. That players have to avoid/abuse both mine and siegetank friendly fire is a part of the game I have accepted. #BabelFish1: Have you laddered some more after the patch? Is your PvT doing ok?
Hate PvT right now. It's sacky, unfun and full of abuses on both sides. Most games are just cheese or a 1 base allin because Protoss can't hold early game aggression without charge. So you end up having to get 4 shield batteries just to stay alive and that aint cheap.
And nevermind the imbalance of drilling claw widow mines running into battle and burrowing. That crap is so unfair. WMs should not be able to run into battle and burrow. 1st off, that's not what a mine does and 2nd, with how their attack priority works, how tanky they are, how cheap they are and how damaging they are...not okay. You can't give a unit like that nigh instant burrow...
So I switched to Terran. If the balance team is going to be biased then I'll pick their favorite race. And ever since I've been having fun again.
Did I mention how I think the balance team is biased and is kinda crappy at their jobs? I haven't seen a balance patch this bad since David Kim was in charge.
But hey, KeEp GiViNg PrOtOsS UnItS MoRE MoVeMeNt SpEeD, because rushing toothless units into battle totally makes up for their damage being gutted or being countered by everything and their mother!
Arg needed to get that out of my system. I haven't been this unimpressed with sc2 since early LotV when Tankivacs were a thing.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 04 2019 05:24 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 08:02 Slydie wrote:On December 03 2019 07:18 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 07:08 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 03 2019 04:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 03:28 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote:On December 02 2019 07:01 BabelFish1 wrote: [quote]
Well, if you refuse to use the tools given to you that can help with things like chargelots, then that's a you problem. Getting 8 Hellbats isn't mech. That's 800 minerals to nullify 800+minerals of chargelots and if it's late enough where splash is a big deal, then you should have several options to handle chargelots. Like mines, Liberators, EMP, etc.
This is what literally pisses me off about the Terran playerbase. Instead of adapting, there's always some excuse. Always a reason why you're incapable of using counter units.
Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play? Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat. Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots. Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame. This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build. If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this. So again, less excuses, more adapting! Perhaps it does work well up to a point on ladder for sure, I don’t refer to pros as evidence anything is bad, I don’t see how they’re better than the other factory options for supporting bio though. Mines do pretty brutal splash and also are useful defensively, tanks give long range zoning splash and this is useful both defensively or in gradually pushing. Neither of these really cares hugely for armoury upgrades either which is nice. Hellbats are slow and get zoned by other Protoss units, although they’re good against Zealots specifically. They would situationally be really good I’m just not sure you can force a game to fit those situations. The amount of times I've seen a Terran get rekt by their own Widow Mines because they thought going bio mine vs chargelots was a good idea is mind numbing. If the Protoss has a brain, they will use that friendly fire to gib your own units regularly. I'd argue that outside of a few stray mines in chokes around the map, mines are one of the worst units to use vs Protoss right now (in battle, they still rock for harass). Especially with new charge. Very specifically vs chargelots, you're better off getting 8 Hellbats. If it's not mass chargelots or if they transitioned, then the 8 Hellbats aren't going to do anything because as you pointed out, they get rekt by splash damage and basically everything not named Zealot or Adept. It's just a very strong counter to charge allins. Be in ones on the current patch or the previous one. I could see it working really well against charge allins defensively for sure because the Hellbat’s relative slowness isn’t a factor when the Zealots are charging into your position. Who would have an armory in time for a charge all-in? It usually goes down in time for 2-2 to start, and quick armories is only used in BC or BFH builds, mostly against zerg. Even tvt mech usually has late upgrades as it is so important to get factories up and gas is hard to come by. I believe helbats vs toss was actually meta at some point, but others have pointed out why that is not the case anymore, disruptors being one of them. Imo, Widowmines are stupid units in how they can punish small attention mistakes with major damage, but balance wise they are needed for Terran to keep their opponents on their toes and counter mass melee. That players have to avoid/abuse both mine and siegetank friendly fire is a part of the game I have accepted. #BabelFish1: Have you laddered some more after the patch? Is your PvT doing ok? Hate PvT right now. It's sacky, unfun and full of abuses on both sides. Most games are just cheese or a 1 base allin because Protoss can't hold early game aggression without charge. So you end up having to get 4 shield batteries just to stay alive and that aint cheap. And nevermind the imbalance of drilling claw widow mines running into battle and burrowing. That crap is so unfair. WMs should not be able to run into battle and burrow. 1st off, that's not what a mine does and 2nd, with how their attack priority works, how tanky they are, how cheap they are and how damaging they are...not okay. You can't give a unit like that nigh instant burrow... So I switched to Terran. If the balance team is going to be biased then I'll pick their favorite race. And ever since I've been having fun again. Did I mention how I think the balance team is biased and is kinda crappy at their jobs? I haven't seen a balance patch this bad since David Kim was in charge. But hey, KeEp GiViNg PrOtOsS UnItS MoRE MoVeMeNt SpEeD, because rushing toothless units into battle totally makes up for their damage being gutted or being countered by everything and their mother! Arg needed to get that out of my system. I haven't been this unimpressed with sc2 since early LotV when Tankivacs were a thing.
Welcome to the Terran club, then! I hope you stick around. TvT is a bitch to learn, though. Players tend to love it or hate it. Good luck!
That all the matchups feel very different and are fun and challenging is my main reason for sticking with the race since WoL.
It would be fun to explore the trickery and incredible deathballs of Protoss and the swarming, tech switches and easier unit production of Zerg too at some point.
|
On December 04 2019 17:56 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2019 05:24 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 03 2019 08:02 Slydie wrote:On December 03 2019 07:18 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 07:08 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 03 2019 04:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 03 2019 03:28 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 16:09 serendipitous wrote:On December 02 2019 11:25 BabelFish1 wrote:On December 02 2019 09:24 washikie wrote: [quote]
Have you ever played Terran at a reasonable level of of play?
Mixing in hellbats with bio outside of a few niche tvz allins is just not that viable. Primarily due to economics. Terran going bio has excess gas and almost no excess minerals. Trying to make a mineral only support unit that gets no benifit from your upgrades is just bad. There are very good reasons why you don’t see this happen. I’m curious what level of play you are at if you actually think this would be a good strat.
Widow mines on the other hand work prity well vs zealots so sometime you see Terran make them but with the stealth behind an upgrade nerf they got awhile back they prity much only help vs zealots and for drops so you don’t really see them as a support unit unless Terran knows thier opponent is very committed to chargelots.
Define decent. I top out at M2 when I bring my A game. Usually I sit at around D1 or M3, depending on the meta and such. Mines are very risky vs Chargelots if you keep mines by bio. Chargelots drag mine fire into your bio and that hurts so much more than throwing away 3 Zealots to ensure the dragging happens. People severely underestimate how good Hellbats are vs Chargelots. I know bio is somewhat starved for minerals...but if you refuse to build counter units, then I don't know man. It's crazy that you think 800 minerals over 90-120 seconds is going to somehow make bio bad...and I really think it's a problem a lot of Terran mains share, too many excuses, not enough building the appropriate units and then pushback when someone suggests they slightly change things up. As you can tell, I'm a big fan of Neuro's attitude; less excuses, more finding solutions. There's a reason not a single terran pro goes hellbats, it's not like they're busy making excuses. It's just inefficient, and they die too easily to other units. Pull back your zealots for 5 seconds and every hellbat will be melted by collosi or disruptors or storm or stalkers or immortals and then they're gone. Mines go off in an instant, and start off invisible, they're a great way to fight against mass chargelots and are used until you start transitioning to lategame. This is where you need to think things through. Why would you field hellbats when it isn't a chargelot heavy composition? If there's Colossus, it's either late game or it's a fast colossus build. If you scout mass chargelots,you adapt. If you don't, if you think 8 hellbats is going to make bio somehow bad, that's on you. The point of the hellbat isn't to trade efficiently, it's to soak the initial hit, deal a bunch of damage and then die so your bio can live...if Colossus or any type of splash got out, then your window for smashing chargelots has probably closed if you insist on using bio and you'll need to siege up with libs, emp blanket and all that fun stuff. But until then, if you scout mass chargelot and you don't get some Hellbats, you screwed up. And yes, a lot of Terran pros need to learn this. So again, less excuses, more adapting! Perhaps it does work well up to a point on ladder for sure, I don’t refer to pros as evidence anything is bad, I don’t see how they’re better than the other factory options for supporting bio though. Mines do pretty brutal splash and also are useful defensively, tanks give long range zoning splash and this is useful both defensively or in gradually pushing. Neither of these really cares hugely for armoury upgrades either which is nice. Hellbats are slow and get zoned by other Protoss units, although they’re good against Zealots specifically. They would situationally be really good I’m just not sure you can force a game to fit those situations. The amount of times I've seen a Terran get rekt by their own Widow Mines because they thought going bio mine vs chargelots was a good idea is mind numbing. If the Protoss has a brain, they will use that friendly fire to gib your own units regularly. I'd argue that outside of a few stray mines in chokes around the map, mines are one of the worst units to use vs Protoss right now (in battle, they still rock for harass). Especially with new charge. Very specifically vs chargelots, you're better off getting 8 Hellbats. If it's not mass chargelots or if they transitioned, then the 8 Hellbats aren't going to do anything because as you pointed out, they get rekt by splash damage and basically everything not named Zealot or Adept. It's just a very strong counter to charge allins. Be in ones on the current patch or the previous one. I could see it working really well against charge allins defensively for sure because the Hellbat’s relative slowness isn’t a factor when the Zealots are charging into your position. Who would have an armory in time for a charge all-in? It usually goes down in time for 2-2 to start, and quick armories is only used in BC or BFH builds, mostly against zerg. Even tvt mech usually has late upgrades as it is so important to get factories up and gas is hard to come by. I believe helbats vs toss was actually meta at some point, but others have pointed out why that is not the case anymore, disruptors being one of them. Imo, Widowmines are stupid units in how they can punish small attention mistakes with major damage, but balance wise they are needed for Terran to keep their opponents on their toes and counter mass melee. That players have to avoid/abuse both mine and siegetank friendly fire is a part of the game I have accepted. #BabelFish1: Have you laddered some more after the patch? Is your PvT doing ok? Hate PvT right now. It's sacky, unfun and full of abuses on both sides. Most games are just cheese or a 1 base allin because Protoss can't hold early game aggression without charge. So you end up having to get 4 shield batteries just to stay alive and that aint cheap. And nevermind the imbalance of drilling claw widow mines running into battle and burrowing. That crap is so unfair. WMs should not be able to run into battle and burrow. 1st off, that's not what a mine does and 2nd, with how their attack priority works, how tanky they are, how cheap they are and how damaging they are...not okay. You can't give a unit like that nigh instant burrow... So I switched to Terran. If the balance team is going to be biased then I'll pick their favorite race. And ever since I've been having fun again. Did I mention how I think the balance team is biased and is kinda crappy at their jobs? I haven't seen a balance patch this bad since David Kim was in charge. But hey, KeEp GiViNg PrOtOsS UnItS MoRE MoVeMeNt SpEeD, because rushing toothless units into battle totally makes up for their damage being gutted or being countered by everything and their mother! Arg needed to get that out of my system. I haven't been this unimpressed with sc2 since early LotV when Tankivacs were a thing. Welcome to the Terran club, then! I hope you stick around. TvT is a bitch to learn, though. Players tend to love it or hate it. Good luck! That all the matchups feel very different and are fun and challenging is my main reason for sticking with the race since WoL. It would be fun to explore the trickery and incredible deathballs of Protoss and the swarming, tech switches and easier unit production of Zerg too at some point.
Oh, I'm no stranger to Terran. I played random for quite some time. TvT, outside of LAWL DOOM DROPZ is actually not bad...though the games can last too long...had one TvT 2 days ago that was 65 minutes long. Over 300 turrets were made, BC Thor vs Hellion Viking Tank Cyclone. Hellions eventually had to get sent out to clear turrets like they were creep tumors just so the Vikings could fight the BCs but due to the mass BCs he had to dedicate almost his entire army into Vikings..so when the Vikings landed to kill a PF or some Thors, I'd warp on top of them, rapid cast Yamato and take a massively efficient trade as he ran away with 1/2 his Vikings dead.
Was pretty interesting and shockingly full of action for such a long game.
|
Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf.
|
On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf.
It s a good idea,
Blizz had always tried to setup the roach in the zerg army (back to the Beta), maybe he hasn t his place..
Approve your idea
+1
This is the kind of change we need, and something more with speedy gonza creep tumors...
|
I've been having a lot of fun with this patch with PvZ. Lots of zergs at my level have suddenly been trying mass muta or muta switches so I've been opening stargate/twilight council into 2 stargate into fleet beacon. If they go muta, I make phoenixes and get range, if they don't I go for what is now my favourite dumb, probably bad composition of turbo voidrays, charge zealots, and archons. It's such a fun, fast composition to play. Whether it's actually good is to be debated, but it's a lot of fun. Combine that fast composition with zealot harass at other bases and protoss is now suddenly able to force zerg to multitask in a way they couldn't previously, or at least couldn't nearly as well. The turbo voidrays are great for catching greedy zergs who try to mass expand on the bigger maps without adequate defence.
|
Don't know if it's technically possible but maybe creep tumors should become worse the longer they are from a hatchery. Creep is important for zerg defense but makes everything imba when in play for offense. If creep tumors were much slower when used to spread creap all over the map, it could maybe give a better balance to late game.
|
On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf.
How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame?
|
On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? or Has style Mass oracles?
|
On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? hydras are not the counter to bcs or hellion/cyclone though...
|
On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame?
Yes, it is a question of power creep. Even pre patch, Zerg was not THAT op!
Zerg is balanced around stupidly good queens and production mechanics. Protoss around warp gate and Chrono boost. IMO, Terran imo has gotten bandaid OP stuff to compensate, notably mules and widow mines.
By doing major changes to one race, all races needs tweaks. A theoretic example from the Hydra change:
-By moving Hydras to T1, some all-ins vs Protoss are almost impossible to stop, even if scouted. -Protoss received some significant buffs to their gateway units to compensate. -As a result, PvP becomes gateway wars and Terran loses the slight advantage they have with the Stim/Medivac timing so Protoss can go to 3 bases with even more greed or just gateway all-in. -Terran recieves buffs to tanks, mines and liberators to keep toss at bay, causing new problems in all matchups. Etc...
|
Does it make sense for you to play a longer game against a quite lower MMR? Perhaps it is not that bad to be cheesed and play shorter games vs lower-level players, after all. It gives you more time to play against your pairs.
|
On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame?
It's not a perfect solution, but at this point I don't think there even is one.
But the way you react to this just shows how much of a role the queen fills currently. Ideally it wouldn't have any attack, much like how orbitals can't attack, but would just act as a support unit to whatever else you have around. At least, I find that a more interesting design than a good-vs-everything mineral unit that runs around on creep. Also since you can't rally them, they're annoying to mass produce to begin with.
Hydra needs to be t1 if you remove the attacks from queen. I think removing queen anti-air is a good start, but my opinion is that it would be more interesting if it didn't have any attacks at all.
Yes, anti-light units would be very powerful after this change, and hydras are far from ideal against bc unless you make hydras cheaper. Making hydra super slow off-creep until research makes them less rushable, but limiting them in this way isn't necessarily the best way, either.
Moving things off from the queen will make zerg a more interesting race, and it'd need to start somewhere.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 09 2019 21:43 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? + Show Spoiler + It's not a perfect solution, but at this point I don't think there even is one.
But the way you react to this just shows how much of a role the queen fills currently. Ideally it wouldn't have any attack, much like how orbitals can't attack, but would just act as a support unit to whatever else you have around. At least, I find that a more interesting design than a good-vs-everything mineral unit that runs around on creep. Also since you can't rally them, they're annoying to mass produce to begin with.
Hydra needs to be t1 if you remove the attacks from queen. I think removing queen anti-air is a good start, but my opinion is that it would be more interesting if it didn't have any attacks at all.
Yes, anti-light units would be very powerful after this change, and hydras are far from ideal against bc unless you make hydras cheaper. Making hydra super slow off-creep until research makes them less rushable, but limiting them in this way isn't necessarily the best way, either.
Moving things off from the queen will make zerg a more interesting race, and it'd need to start somewhere. YES! YES! I fully support this. But that's a big redesign and I don't think that Blizzard is capable of doing so in this time with how old the game is. (no offense to Blizzard, I get it, it would require many people and monies)
|
On December 09 2019 22:24 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 21:43 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? + Show Spoiler + It's not a perfect solution, but at this point I don't think there even is one.
But the way you react to this just shows how much of a role the queen fills currently. Ideally it wouldn't have any attack, much like how orbitals can't attack, but would just act as a support unit to whatever else you have around. At least, I find that a more interesting design than a good-vs-everything mineral unit that runs around on creep. Also since you can't rally them, they're annoying to mass produce to begin with.
Hydra needs to be t1 if you remove the attacks from queen. I think removing queen anti-air is a good start, but my opinion is that it would be more interesting if it didn't have any attacks at all.
Yes, anti-light units would be very powerful after this change, and hydras are far from ideal against bc unless you make hydras cheaper. Making hydra super slow off-creep until research makes them less rushable, but limiting them in this way isn't necessarily the best way, either.
Moving things off from the queen will make zerg a more interesting race, and it'd need to start somewhere. YES! YES! I fully support this. But that's a big redesign and I don't think that Blizzard is capable of doing so in this time with how old the game is. (no offense to Blizzard, I get it, it would require many people and monies)
How about we just leave both roaches and hydras on T1? You have both roaches to defend against things like protoss Adept all-ins and you can have hydras to defend against air harass instead of queens. You as a Zerg would need to scout properly and adjust your unit comp. Also if T1 would happen to be to weak in later stages of the game you can have upgrades which could prolong its utility.
|
Canada8988 Posts
On December 10 2019 00:57 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2019 22:24 deacon.frost wrote:On December 09 2019 21:43 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? + Show Spoiler + It's not a perfect solution, but at this point I don't think there even is one.
But the way you react to this just shows how much of a role the queen fills currently. Ideally it wouldn't have any attack, much like how orbitals can't attack, but would just act as a support unit to whatever else you have around. At least, I find that a more interesting design than a good-vs-everything mineral unit that runs around on creep. Also since you can't rally them, they're annoying to mass produce to begin with.
Hydra needs to be t1 if you remove the attacks from queen. I think removing queen anti-air is a good start, but my opinion is that it would be more interesting if it didn't have any attacks at all.
Yes, anti-light units would be very powerful after this change, and hydras are far from ideal against bc unless you make hydras cheaper. Making hydra super slow off-creep until research makes them less rushable, but limiting them in this way isn't necessarily the best way, either.
Moving things off from the queen will make zerg a more interesting race, and it'd need to start somewhere. YES! YES! I fully support this. But that's a big redesign and I don't think that Blizzard is capable of doing so in this time with how old the game is. (no offense to Blizzard, I get it, it would require many people and monies) How about we just leave both roaches and hydras on T1? You have both roaches to defend against things like protoss Adept all-ins and you can have hydras to defend against air harass instead of queens. You as a Zerg would need to scout properly and adjust your unit comp. Also if T1 would happen to be to weak in later stages of the game you can have upgrades which could prolong its utility.
It still dosen't fix the problem of proxy stargate or starport, or even proxy robo immortal. Aproxy oracle can be into your base way quicker than you can go roaches (or what would be hydra in that case), you would basicly need to cut every single lings to have hydra out the fastest you can or just get the risk of beeing obliterate by air. (Uncontested oracles can kill the hydra den anyway even if you have two spores in each mineral lines.
But keeping the idea, how about we gave queen an air attack, but no ground attack? Maybe force zerg to make more units in the early-mid game? You could also make building queens take larva that could fix a few things
|
On December 10 2019 01:12 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 00:57 egrimm wrote:On December 09 2019 22:24 deacon.frost wrote:On December 09 2019 21:43 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? + Show Spoiler + It's not a perfect solution, but at this point I don't think there even is one.
But the way you react to this just shows how much of a role the queen fills currently. Ideally it wouldn't have any attack, much like how orbitals can't attack, but would just act as a support unit to whatever else you have around. At least, I find that a more interesting design than a good-vs-everything mineral unit that runs around on creep. Also since you can't rally them, they're annoying to mass produce to begin with.
Hydra needs to be t1 if you remove the attacks from queen. I think removing queen anti-air is a good start, but my opinion is that it would be more interesting if it didn't have any attacks at all.
Yes, anti-light units would be very powerful after this change, and hydras are far from ideal against bc unless you make hydras cheaper. Making hydra super slow off-creep until research makes them less rushable, but limiting them in this way isn't necessarily the best way, either.
Moving things off from the queen will make zerg a more interesting race, and it'd need to start somewhere. YES! YES! I fully support this. But that's a big redesign and I don't think that Blizzard is capable of doing so in this time with how old the game is. (no offense to Blizzard, I get it, it would require many people and monies) How about we just leave both roaches and hydras on T1? You have both roaches to defend against things like protoss Adept all-ins and you can have hydras to defend against air harass instead of queens. You as a Zerg would need to scout properly and adjust your unit comp. Also if T1 would happen to be to weak in later stages of the game you can have upgrades which could prolong its utility. It still dosen't fix the problem of proxy stargate or starport, or even proxy robo immortal. Aproxy oracle can be into your base way quicker than you can go roaches (or what would be hydra in that case), you would basicly need to cut every single lings to have hydra out the fastest you can or just get the risk of beeing obliterate by air. (Uncontested oracles can kill the hydra den anyway even if you have two spores in each mineral lines. But keeping the idea, how about we gave queen an air attack, but no ground attack? Maybe force zerg to make more units in the early-mid game? You could also make building queens take larva that could fix a few things
You are right about the proxy issue. I wonder if we just tone down queen AA so the proxy would be still reasonably holdable but at the same time mass queen play would be the play. Maybe nerfs to proxy air plays shouldn't be taken out of the consideration?
|
On December 10 2019 01:50 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 01:12 Nakajin wrote:On December 10 2019 00:57 egrimm wrote:On December 09 2019 22:24 deacon.frost wrote:On December 09 2019 21:43 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? + Show Spoiler + It's not a perfect solution, but at this point I don't think there even is one.
But the way you react to this just shows how much of a role the queen fills currently. Ideally it wouldn't have any attack, much like how orbitals can't attack, but would just act as a support unit to whatever else you have around. At least, I find that a more interesting design than a good-vs-everything mineral unit that runs around on creep. Also since you can't rally them, they're annoying to mass produce to begin with.
Hydra needs to be t1 if you remove the attacks from queen. I think removing queen anti-air is a good start, but my opinion is that it would be more interesting if it didn't have any attacks at all.
Yes, anti-light units would be very powerful after this change, and hydras are far from ideal against bc unless you make hydras cheaper. Making hydra super slow off-creep until research makes them less rushable, but limiting them in this way isn't necessarily the best way, either.
Moving things off from the queen will make zerg a more interesting race, and it'd need to start somewhere. YES! YES! I fully support this. But that's a big redesign and I don't think that Blizzard is capable of doing so in this time with how old the game is. (no offense to Blizzard, I get it, it would require many people and monies) How about we just leave both roaches and hydras on T1? You have both roaches to defend against things like protoss Adept all-ins and you can have hydras to defend against air harass instead of queens. You as a Zerg would need to scout properly and adjust your unit comp. Also if T1 would happen to be to weak in later stages of the game you can have upgrades which could prolong its utility. It still dosen't fix the problem of proxy stargate or starport, or even proxy robo immortal. Aproxy oracle can be into your base way quicker than you can go roaches (or what would be hydra in that case), you would basicly need to cut every single lings to have hydra out the fastest you can or just get the risk of beeing obliterate by air. (Uncontested oracles can kill the hydra den anyway even if you have two spores in each mineral lines. But keeping the idea, how about we gave queen an air attack, but no ground attack? Maybe force zerg to make more units in the early-mid game? You could also make building queens take larva that could fix a few things You are right about the proxy issue. I wonder if we just tone down queen AA so the proxy would be still reasonably holdable but at the same time mass queen play would be the play. Maybe nerfs to proxy air plays shouldn't be taken out of the consideration?
That was my point. By changing something that fundamental you would essentially have to redesign the whole game.
Another place to look is the 3 attack range queens had way back in time, and it kind of worked. Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins.
|
On December 10 2019 04:28 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 01:50 egrimm wrote:On December 10 2019 01:12 Nakajin wrote:On December 10 2019 00:57 egrimm wrote:On December 09 2019 22:24 deacon.frost wrote:On December 09 2019 21:43 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 09 2019 07:55 Snakestyle11 wrote:On December 07 2019 20:47 WaesumNinja wrote: Switch hydra/roach to be hatch/lair instead,respectively, and rebalance the units to accommodate this (weaker hydra, tankier and burstier roach. Maybe 1 supply hydra) Take away some more range from hydra and slap it back on the lair upgrade, do the same with speed. Remove queen anti-air. Bc doesn't need nerf. How would zerg not lose versus hellion / bcs everygame? + Show Spoiler + It's not a perfect solution, but at this point I don't think there even is one.
But the way you react to this just shows how much of a role the queen fills currently. Ideally it wouldn't have any attack, much like how orbitals can't attack, but would just act as a support unit to whatever else you have around. At least, I find that a more interesting design than a good-vs-everything mineral unit that runs around on creep. Also since you can't rally them, they're annoying to mass produce to begin with.
Hydra needs to be t1 if you remove the attacks from queen. I think removing queen anti-air is a good start, but my opinion is that it would be more interesting if it didn't have any attacks at all.
Yes, anti-light units would be very powerful after this change, and hydras are far from ideal against bc unless you make hydras cheaper. Making hydra super slow off-creep until research makes them less rushable, but limiting them in this way isn't necessarily the best way, either.
Moving things off from the queen will make zerg a more interesting race, and it'd need to start somewhere. YES! YES! I fully support this. But that's a big redesign and I don't think that Blizzard is capable of doing so in this time with how old the game is. (no offense to Blizzard, I get it, it would require many people and monies) How about we just leave both roaches and hydras on T1? You have both roaches to defend against things like protoss Adept all-ins and you can have hydras to defend against air harass instead of queens. You as a Zerg would need to scout properly and adjust your unit comp. Also if T1 would happen to be to weak in later stages of the game you can have upgrades which could prolong its utility. It still dosen't fix the problem of proxy stargate or starport, or even proxy robo immortal. Aproxy oracle can be into your base way quicker than you can go roaches (or what would be hydra in that case), you would basicly need to cut every single lings to have hydra out the fastest you can or just get the risk of beeing obliterate by air. (Uncontested oracles can kill the hydra den anyway even if you have two spores in each mineral lines. But keeping the idea, how about we gave queen an air attack, but no ground attack? Maybe force zerg to make more units in the early-mid game? You could also make building queens take larva that could fix a few things You are right about the proxy issue. I wonder if we just tone down queen AA so the proxy would be still reasonably holdable but at the same time mass queen play would be the play. Maybe nerfs to proxy air plays shouldn't be taken out of the consideration? That was my point. By changing something that fundamental you would essentially have to redesign the whole game. Another place to look is the 3 attack range queens had way back in time, and it kind of worked. Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins.
Issue with nerfing the Queen GtG range is that I have a very specific build that's basically combining 2 rax reaper (non proxy) FE with Innovation's Reaper Hellion expand, that weird Reaper Hellbat KR GM allin and does stuff after, like BCs or w/e you want, really. It's a very tight build order and is already difficult to hold, even when a baddie like myself executes it imperfectly. If you nerf Queen GtG range, I can almost guarantee that some pro would pick up the build and use it to insane effect since the only real hold is 3 base constant queen production+safety spines as you ball up enough Roaches to out muscle Reaper Hellion and then Reaper Hellbat shortly after.
I think what makes Queens so capable of making Zerg eco cheese so safe is that how they're so tanky. Reduce their armor by 1 or their health by 20-30 and maybe, just maybe Zerg players will stop taking their 3rd at 1:30. We might actually see a fast nat and a roach warren before the 3rd if queens can't hold all early game aggression.
|
On December 10 2019 04:28 Slydie wrote:Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins.
Only biased terrans feel this way, it was an okay buff at the time. Zerg had to mass drones just to keep up, and hellions/reapers would make it to the base before zerg would have enough lings, or roaches. Making lings severely puts you behind since they get outtraded, you don't have speed... of course, I'm sure terrans had a great time kiting everything and picking off free drones, but for zerg that was a total chore.
Then people forgot that BL/infestor rose to prominence because zerg didn't have any other aggressive options that didn't get shut down hard, but that's a different discussion.
Since lotv we start with a ton of workers, giving us way more options than before. I believe that was the biggest change paving the way towards toning down the queen.
|
On December 10 2019 17:15 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 04:28 Slydie wrote:Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins. Only biased terrans feel this way, it was an okay buff at the time. Zerg had to mass drones just to keep up, and hellions/reapers would make it to the base before zerg would have enough lings, or roaches. Making lings severely puts you behind since they get outtraded, you don't have speed... of course, I'm sure terrans had a great time kiting everything and picking off free drones, but for zerg that was a total chore. Then people forgot that BL/infestor rose to prominence because zerg didn't have any other aggressive options that didn't get shut down hard, but that's a different discussion. Since lotv we start with a ton of workers, giving us way more options than before. I believe that was the biggest change paving the way towards toning down the queen.
No, BL Infestor rose because it was an OP comp that was too easy to get to, and even mediocre zergs (real patch zergs) became tournament winners. There were other options, but they did not need them. In the end, people massed 20+ infestors.
The only thing which could keep the zergs in check was the protoss 2bade immo sentry pushes, so the WCS was won by masters of that. Terrans were pretty much gone. The recent bl/Infestor scare was nothing in comparison. Check this tournament:
2012 Battle.net World Championship
|
On December 10 2019 17:48 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 17:15 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 10 2019 04:28 Slydie wrote:Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins. Only biased terrans feel this way, it was an okay buff at the time. Zerg had to mass drones just to keep up, and hellions/reapers would make it to the base before zerg would have enough lings, or roaches. Making lings severely puts you behind since they get outtraded, you don't have speed... of course, I'm sure terrans had a great time kiting everything and picking off free drones, but for zerg that was a total chore. Then people forgot that BL/infestor rose to prominence because zerg didn't have any other aggressive options that didn't get shut down hard, but that's a different discussion. Since lotv we start with a ton of workers, giving us way more options than before. I believe that was the biggest change paving the way towards toning down the queen. No, BL Infestor rose because it was an OP comp that was too easy to get to, and even mediocre zergs (real patch zergs) became tournament winners. There were other options, but they did not need them. In the end, people massed 20+ infestors. The only thing which could keep the zergs in check was the protoss 2bade immo sentry pushes, so the WCS was won by masters of that. Terrans were pretty much gone. The recent bl/Infestor scare was nothing in comparison. Check this tournament: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/2012_Battle.net_World_Championship
Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome
|
On December 10 2019 18:19 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 17:48 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2019 17:15 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 10 2019 04:28 Slydie wrote:Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins. Only biased terrans feel this way, it was an okay buff at the time. Zerg had to mass drones just to keep up, and hellions/reapers would make it to the base before zerg would have enough lings, or roaches. Making lings severely puts you behind since they get outtraded, you don't have speed... of course, I'm sure terrans had a great time kiting everything and picking off free drones, but for zerg that was a total chore. Then people forgot that BL/infestor rose to prominence because zerg didn't have any other aggressive options that didn't get shut down hard, but that's a different discussion. Since lotv we start with a ton of workers, giving us way more options than before. I believe that was the biggest change paving the way towards toning down the queen. No, BL Infestor rose because it was an OP comp that was too easy to get to, and even mediocre zergs (real patch zergs) became tournament winners. There were other options, but they did not need them. In the end, people massed 20+ infestors. The only thing which could keep the zergs in check was the protoss 2bade immo sentry pushes, so the WCS was won by masters of that. Terrans were pretty much gone. The recent bl/Infestor scare was nothing in comparison. Check this tournament: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/2012_Battle.net_World_Championship Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome
Before the range buff or after?
There was little point of playing anything but bl/Infestor turtle. The WCS 1 fiasco should be more than enough to prove my point.
To complain that the Zergs were "forced" to play that way does not fly imo. It warped the whole metagame around itself, so it does not even matter if Zergs were able to win in other ways or not, also because the Terrans expected drones+hiverush so anything else was considered a curve ball.
|
On December 10 2019 18:55 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 18:19 WaesumNinja wrote: Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome Before the range buff or after?
During the infestor/bl period and most importantly the period leading up to it.
Sure it "flies" to make that claim. How does it not matter if it was the only way to win? Show some replays of non-broken but winning zerg comps from the time.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 10 2019 20:03 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 18:55 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2019 18:19 WaesumNinja wrote: Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome Before the range buff or after? During the infestor/bl period and most importantly the period leading up to it. Sure it "flies" to make that claim. How does it not matter if it was the only way to win? Show some replays of non-broken but winning zerg comps from the time. What replays are we talking about? You can't launch the old replays from the game and you can search youtube yourself to have any luck with finding such. But then you're searching pro games where pro players are using the best strategy to win. Which was BL/infestor. Surprise.
Pro means professional in case you've forgotten.
Just felt it had to be mentioned.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 10 2019 17:48 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 17:15 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 10 2019 04:28 Slydie wrote:Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins. Only biased terrans feel this way, it was an okay buff at the time. Zerg had to mass drones just to keep up, and hellions/reapers would make it to the base before zerg would have enough lings, or roaches. Making lings severely puts you behind since they get outtraded, you don't have speed... of course, I'm sure terrans had a great time kiting everything and picking off free drones, but for zerg that was a total chore. Then people forgot that BL/infestor rose to prominence because zerg didn't have any other aggressive options that didn't get shut down hard, but that's a different discussion. Since lotv we start with a ton of workers, giving us way more options than before. I believe that was the biggest change paving the way towards toning down the queen. No, BL Infestor rose because it was an OP comp that was too easy to get to, and even mediocre zergs (real patch zergs) became tournament winners. There were other options, but they did not need them. In the end, people massed 20+ infestors. The only thing which could keep the zergs in check was the protoss 2bade immo sentry pushes, so the WCS was won by masters of that. Terrans were pretty much gone. The recent bl/Infestor scare was nothing in comparison. Check this tournament: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/2012_Battle.net_World_Championship Ah good times. Not for the PvZ fest but it was one of Idra’s last good runs.
|
On December 10 2019 20:35 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 20:03 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 10 2019 18:55 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2019 18:19 WaesumNinja wrote: Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome Before the range buff or after? During the infestor/bl period and most importantly the period leading up to it. Sure it "flies" to make that claim. How does it not matter if it was the only way to win? Show some replays of non-broken but winning zerg comps from the time. What replays are we talking about? You can't launch the old replays from the game and you can search youtube yourself to have any luck with finding such. But then you're searching pro games where pro players are using the best strategy to win. Which was BL/infestor. Surprise. Pro means professional in case you've forgotten. Just felt it had to be mentioned.
Of course, they'd be very old. YouTube "reps" or recorded pro games are acceptable.
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 10 2019 20:03 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 18:55 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2019 18:19 WaesumNinja wrote: Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome Before the range buff or after? During the infestor/bl period and most importantly the period leading up to it. Sure it "flies" to make that claim. How does it not matter if it was the only way to win? Show some replays of non-broken but winning zerg comps from the time. It wasn’t the only way, far from it. We saw it a lot but it was far from every game.
The Queen range change just made it much easier to be greedy and skimp units, which smoothness the transition to hive and Broods.
I’m reminded of the Mothership core. Protoss needed something defensively when speedivacs were introduced, but that wasn’t it. The one click defence was immensely frustrating to play against for opponents for being well, one click defence.
For Protoss players whose previous strength was specifically good defensive positioning in PvT (by far my best matchup for all of SC2), it was frustrating because something that gave me an edge over comparable Protoss players and what I felt was my particular style was no longer a useful thing because now a Protoss whose army movement and scouting was terrible was on a level playing field.
When it was removed I think everybody felt that it was for the better. The people who said at the time that Protoss couldn’t defend certain pushes without it have been proven wrong and more skill and good decision making is now more important again for Protoss players.
So making such changes can work, to me it feels building Queens is too much of a no-brainer, you need some anyway and they’re good against way too much. If that was retooled slightly without breaking Zerg I think it’d be a good change.
|
On December 10 2019 21:33 Wombat_NI wrote: So making such changes can work, to me it feels building Queens is too much of a no-brainer, you need some anyway and they’re good against way too much. If that was retooled slightly without breaking Zerg I think it’d be a good change. Yeah, the comentators even joke about it when casting, that there is no such thing like too many queens.. Maybe increasing their supply cost by 1 would do the trick? it would require Z to build more Overlords early on when going mass queen and would make the maxed out army smaller, if Z had to many queens. If that would be to much of a nerv, a Hatchery could give one extra supply, that for the 1st queen per hatch nothing would change at all and all further ones are more expensive.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 10 2019 21:33 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 20:03 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 10 2019 18:55 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2019 18:19 WaesumNinja wrote: Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome Before the range buff or after? During the infestor/bl period and most importantly the period leading up to it. Sure it "flies" to make that claim. How does it not matter if it was the only way to win? Show some replays of non-broken but winning zerg comps from the time. + Show Spoiler +It wasn’t the only way, far from it. We saw it a lot but it was far from every game.
The Queen range change just made it much easier to be greedy and skimp units, which smoothness the transition to hive and Broods.
I’m reminded of the Mothership core. Protoss needed something defensively when speedivacs were introduced, but that wasn’t it. The one click defence was immensely frustrating to play against for opponents for being well, one click defence.
For Protoss players whose previous strength was specifically good defensive positioning in PvT (by far my best matchup for all of SC2), it was frustrating because something that gave me an edge over comparable Protoss players and what I felt was my particular style was no longer a useful thing because now a Protoss whose army movement and scouting was terrible was on a level playing field.
When it was removed I think everybody felt that it was for the better. The people who said at the time that Protoss couldn’t defend certain pushes without it have been proven wrong and more skill and good decision making is now more important again for Protoss players. So making such changes can work, to me it feels building Queens is too much of a no-brainer, you need some anyway and they’re good against way too much. If that was retooled slightly without breaking Zerg I think it’d be a good change. The issue is that queen role is * macro booster * early game anti-air defense * early game anti-ground defense * healer * creep spread * larvae saving unit
Queen has way too many roles and on top of that she doesn't cost any larvae nor gas(I get this one). I don't get how people were annoyed by the MSC and yet they tolerate this horrible unit. Either they need to create another unit to overtake some roles of the queen(e.g. the fighting roles and Queen having pathetic fighting value - see sentry) or they need to redesign the Zerg.
Even a fighting and macro queens both created via the hatch would be a big nerf when you have to decide if you want to be safe or macro(meaning the fighting queen cannot inject).
|
Wouldve been fun if queens instead had a low-cost spell that'd buff/stim/whatever a drone, making it pretty savage but unable to mine a while
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 10 2019 22:42 WaesumNinja wrote: Wouldve been fun if queens instead had a low-cost spell that'd buff/stim/whatever a drone, making it pretty savage but unable to mine a while I rather like this idea myself.
|
On December 10 2019 21:59 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 21:33 Wombat_NI wrote:On December 10 2019 20:03 WaesumNinja wrote:On December 10 2019 18:55 Slydie wrote:On December 10 2019 18:19 WaesumNinja wrote: Name a couple of Z comps that didn't just get demolished at the time. Replays would be welcome Before the range buff or after? During the infestor/bl period and most importantly the period leading up to it. Sure it "flies" to make that claim. How does it not matter if it was the only way to win? Show some replays of non-broken but winning zerg comps from the time. + Show Spoiler +It wasn’t the only way, far from it. We saw it a lot but it was far from every game.
The Queen range change just made it much easier to be greedy and skimp units, which smoothness the transition to hive and Broods.
I’m reminded of the Mothership core. Protoss needed something defensively when speedivacs were introduced, but that wasn’t it. The one click defence was immensely frustrating to play against for opponents for being well, one click defence.
For Protoss players whose previous strength was specifically good defensive positioning in PvT (by far my best matchup for all of SC2), it was frustrating because something that gave me an edge over comparable Protoss players and what I felt was my particular style was no longer a useful thing because now a Protoss whose army movement and scouting was terrible was on a level playing field.
When it was removed I think everybody felt that it was for the better. The people who said at the time that Protoss couldn’t defend certain pushes without it have been proven wrong and more skill and good decision making is now more important again for Protoss players. So making such changes can work, to me it feels building Queens is too much of a no-brainer, you need some anyway and they’re good against way too much. If that was retooled slightly without breaking Zerg I think it’d be a good change. The issue is that queen role is * macro booster * early game anti-air defense * early game anti-ground defense * healer * creep spread * larvae saving unit Queen has way too many roles and on top of that she doesn't cost any larvae nor gas(I get this one). I don't get how people were annoyed by the MSC and yet they tolerate this horrible unit. Either they need to create another unit to overtake some roles of the queen(e.g. the fighting roles and Queen having pathetic fighting value - see sentry) or they need to redesign the Zerg. Even a fighting and macro queens both created via the hatch would be a big nerf when you have to decide if you want to be safe or macro(meaning the fighting queen cannot inject).
* macro booster - well this is the main purpose of existence of this unit and if proven too strong comparably to chrono/mules could be adjusted. However I feel it is ok right now. * early game anti-air defense - I find this the most problematic one. There is no alternative for Zerg right now. Even in midgame the AA queens provide is detrimental. That's why the proposal to move hydras to T1 would help but still could be not enough vs proxy air. * early game anti-ground defense - I don't find it as that big of an issue but slight nerf to queens tankiness might open early game a bit - like reducing base armor from 1 to 0. This potentially could be addressed with slight buffs to early game units of Zerg. * healer - after the nerf, transfusion feels ok imho although still late game big units tend to rely on this utility a bit too much. * creep spread - this is also problematic. You need queens for early game creep spread but it scales just way to good in later game. Maybe withdraw the change where having more tumors at once speeds the creep spread? * larvae saving unit - I'm fine with that also.
Overall I'd like queen to be more of macro booster and support unit and move the rest of its' utilities to other part of Zerg arsenal
|
How about limiting the number of queens to one per hatchery? That would sort of chain the queen to the bases and thereby limit its role in fights and out on the map. This would also give a much needed nerf to creep spreading.
The queen would then be limited to a defensive macro unit and using it otherwise would and should be a big gamble.
Of course, other things would need rebalancing then, including compensating partly regarding creep.
|
On December 11 2019 22:05 sneakyfox wrote: How about limiting the number of queens to one per hatchery?
Don't like the idea of arbitrarily limiting units, it's a limitation they should remove from the mothership too. Would rather they made queens 200m or something.
|
I think the game is fucked up since that stupid hydra patch that now resists siege lines. Hydra/lurker should always be countered by siege tanks but now it's fucking impossible because the hydra is too tanky. Just remove 5 hp out of it would fix a lot of balance issues in the midgame. I don't know why they just buffed the lurker, I mean zerg ground units were not the problem AA was. So explain to me how buffing the lurker changes anything to AA.
|
It's like we removed zerg of an unbeatable comp that was BL/Infestor but gave it another one that is Hydra/lurker/viper.
|
On December 12 2019 05:39 Rainbow62 wrote: I think the game is fucked up since that stupid hydra patch that now resists siege lines. Hydra/lurker should always be countered by siege tanks but now it's fucking impossible because the hydra is too tanky. Just remove 5 hp out of it would fix a lot of balance issues in the midgame. I don't know why they just buffed the lurker, I mean zerg ground units were not the problem AA was. So explain to me how buffing the lurker changes anything to AA.
I believe this could be 100% fixed by maps.
I agree that autopilot 5+ queens is not good design and wish Blizzard looked more actively for solutions. There is just not enough of a risk by making them, you are doing at least ok no matter what.
I can't say it is a balance issue either, especially as earlygame air harass from T and P is very strong as well at this point.
Maybe they missed the boat on making a scourge like airborne banelings on tier 2 or something? Or the mentioned Hydra changes, which would have to be tweaked a lot to work.
Back in the day, there were some no macro mechanic community mods around. When did they die off?
|
First of all: as long as Blizzard wants Z to not have any early game harass that is NOT all in like T and P have (especially air), Z is forced to play defensive early game, so obviously Z right now needs the queen to defend (and a lot of them in case of stuff like BCs that might come out too early right now).
T1 Hydras would only help if they lose their light TAG, otherwise helions plus air or oracles still kill them and since they cost gas and you probably couldn't use them for counter attacks without range and speed... Well Z would end up way behind to normal T and P harass.
Basically either let queen be or massively nerf T and P early game air harass (which would mean another upgrade so T and P mid and late game would be as good as now) or give Z a unit to do early game counter harass while nerfing queens so Z can do non committal damage to T and P while taking more damage with worse queen.
|
So is Zerg too strong or not? Or is it just that they happen to have the best player - Serral, which skews the results?
At low level (Diamond) I find beating Zerg very easy. At what level can you actually notice that Zerg is too strong?
In my opinion there is no Terran or Protoss player that is as skilled as Serral, so maybe Serral should be excluded when looking at pro level balance.
|
What about this
Macro Queen: 100 minerals, can transfuse, larvae, tumors, burrow without upgrade (self defense vs super fast oracle or sth). Does NOT have any fighting abilities (or maybe 5 melee dmg like a drone ^-^)
Upgrade to Micro Queen: 100 minerals, Macro can be morphed to Micro Queen (like a lurker/ ravager) Loses all Macro mechanics, becomes like a Queen now but slightly buffed in ground range and maybe air attack speed
|
First off, I've played 400 games on the new patch; M1. This is the stupidity of blizzard to nerf, THEN BUFF! WHY!! You have every Zerg in the world winning tournaments, but you simply don't nerf their units. When Terrans were winning you cut the crap out of their units, but, instead you feel with every nerf deserves a buff. Why? WHY? WHY?
Here is a perfect example:
New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10. Requirement: Hive. Research cost: 150/150. Research duration: 57 seconds.
I have a 200/200 ground mech army (3/3) losing to a 2-1 hydra lurker/viper/army. All my hellbats are dead. Landed Vikings are instantly gone without any DPS - the range is ridiculous. I've done this at least 10x 1v1. Zerg not only has BL/Infestor now its has become a stomping ground for all that is Terran. Thors are instantly abducted. An obvious transition is BL the second all the Thors are gone and there is nothing but tanks against the 12312312430 Range of lurkers. Thanks BLIZZARD!!!
PS: Yes they outrange Turrets even with the upgrade. I'm saying this is becoming a two race game if you look at the streamers left. It is sad. You have a 17 year old, Reynor, which is very talented but can you honestly tell me in all of SC history we've had a 17 yr old defeating all the top Terran and Protoss and he is just a savant? I won't even mention Serral...you get my point.
|
On December 12 2019 18:16 Harris1st wrote: What about this
Macro Queen: 100 minerals, can transfuse, larvae, tumors, burrow without upgrade (self defense vs super fast oracle or sth). Does NOT have any fighting abilities (or maybe 5 melee dmg like a drone ^-^)
Upgrade to Micro Queen: 100 minerals, Macro can be morphed to Micro Queen (like a lurker/ ravager) Loses all Macro mechanics, becomes like a Queen now but slightly buffed in ground range and maybe air attack speed This but the Micro Queen gets transfuse instead of the Macro queen. The evolution should also take some time, so Zerg isn t just sitting on only Macro queens and is fine morphing them, when Oracles allready hit. I gues Micro Queen also needs to be way faster of creep then, so it is not just a dead unit, when you attack or allways have to use nydus to get it to the other side.
|
On December 12 2019 18:07 MockHamill wrote: So is Zerg too strong or not? Or is it just that they happen to have the best player - Serral, which skews the results?
At low level (Diamond) I find beating Zerg very easy. At what level can you actually notice that Zerg is too strong?
In my opinion there is no Terran or Protoss player that is as skilled as Serral, so maybe Serral should be excluded when looking at pro level balance.
Uh SoO (GSL Champ), Reynor (a 17 Yr old kid), and Serral are all the top winners/runner up in all major tournaments in the last 2 years. Next year we can tag on the 8yr old kid who can throw a Yo-Yo at the same time as playing StarCraft. What do you want to show that something is wrong. Even the TL highlights are saying things like "similar results as expected..." Get a clue!
PS: You can "notice" if you read my thread two comments above why things need to be adjusted (and how).
|
Northern Ireland24417 Posts
On December 12 2019 19:17 pinky29 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 18:07 MockHamill wrote: So is Zerg too strong or not? Or is it just that they happen to have the best player - Serral, which skews the results?
At low level (Diamond) I find beating Zerg very easy. At what level can you actually notice that Zerg is too strong?
In my opinion there is no Terran or Protoss player that is as skilled as Serral, so maybe Serral should be excluded when looking at pro level balance. Uh SoO (GSL Champ), Reynor (a 17 Yr old kid), and Serral are all the top winners/runner up in all major tournaments in the last 2 years. Next year we can tag on the 8yr old kid who can throw a Yo-Yo at the same time as playing StarCraft. What do you want to show that something is wrong. Even the TL highlights are saying things like "similar results as expected..." Get a clue! PS: You can "notice" if you read my thread two comments above why things need to be adjusted (and how). soO hasn’t won a GSL to be pedantic.
Historically going back to Brood War there have been plenty of young players performing well, Flash being a notable example.
Reynor and Serral have been on people’s radars going back at least 5 years as huge talents, are you seriously arguing that the proof that Zerg is broken is that Reynor is a teenager?
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 12 2019 18:42 pinky29 wrote: First off, I've played 400 games on the new patch; M1. This is the stupidity of blizzard to nerf, THEN BUFF! WHY!! You have every Zerg in the world winning tournaments, but you simply don't nerf their units. When Terrans were winning you cut the crap out of their units, but, instead you feel with every nerf deserves a buff. Why? WHY? WHY?
Here is a perfect example:
New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10. Requirement: Hive. Research cost: 150/150. Research duration: 57 seconds.
I have a 200/200 ground mech army (3/3) losing to a 2-1 hydra lurker/viper/army. All my hellbats are dead. Landed Vikings are instantly gone without any DPS - the range is ridiculous. I've done this at least 10x 1v1. Zerg not only has BL/Infestor now its has become a stomping ground for all that is Terran. Thors are instantly abducted. An obvious transition is BL the second all the Thors are gone and there is nothing but tanks against the 12312312430 Range of lurkers. Thanks BLIZZARD!!!
PS: Yes they outrange Turrets even with the upgrade. I'm saying this is becoming a two race game if you look at the streamers left. It is sad. You have a 17 year old, Reynor, which is very talented but can you honestly tell me in all of SC history we've had a 17 yr old defeating all the top Terran and Protoss and he is just a savant? I won't even mention Serral...you get my point.
Life? Hello? He won his first GSL at the age of 15? IIRC
|
On December 12 2019 18:47 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 18:16 Harris1st wrote: What about this
Macro Queen: 100 minerals, can transfuse, larvae, tumors, burrow without upgrade (self defense vs super fast oracle or sth). Does NOT have any fighting abilities (or maybe 5 melee dmg like a drone ^-^)
Upgrade to Micro Queen: 100 minerals, Macro can be morphed to Micro Queen (like a lurker/ ravager) Loses all Macro mechanics, becomes like a Queen now but slightly buffed in ground range and maybe air attack speed This but the Micro Queen gets transfuse instead of the Macro queen. The evolution should also take some time, so Zerg isn t just sitting on only Macro queens and is fine morphing them, when Oracles allready hit. I gues Micro Queen also needs to be way faster of creep then, so it is not just a dead unit, when you attack or allways have to use nydus to get it to the other side.
Yes it needs morphing time, but not super much. You can do fake out attacks with all races, so Zerg panic morphs all his Queens and boom, damage done without a shot fired.
I wouldn't change off creep speed. Makes Zerg allins too powerful. It should still be a defensive unit
Transfuse switch is fine
For all I care you can even morph them back into Macro Queens. Ofc no refund
|
On December 12 2019 18:42 pinky29 wrote: First off, I've played 400 games on the new patch; M1. This is the stupidity of blizzard to nerf, THEN BUFF! WHY!! You have every Zerg in the world winning tournaments, but you simply don't nerf their units. When Terrans were winning you cut the crap out of their units, but, instead you feel with every nerf deserves a buff. Why? WHY? WHY?
Here is a perfect example:
New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10. Requirement: Hive. Research cost: 150/150. Research duration: 57 seconds.
I have a 200/200 ground mech army (3/3) losing to a 2-1 hydra lurker/viper/army. All my hellbats are dead. Landed Vikings are instantly gone without any DPS - the range is ridiculous. I've done this at least 10x 1v1. Zerg not only has BL/Infestor now its has become a stomping ground for all that is Terran. Thors are instantly abducted. An obvious transition is BL the second all the Thors are gone and there is nothing but tanks against the 12312312430 Range of lurkers. Thanks BLIZZARD!!!
PS: Yes they outrange Turrets even with the upgrade. I'm saying this is becoming a two race game if you look at the streamers left. It is sad. You have a 17 year old, Reynor, which is very talented but can you honestly tell me in all of SC history we've had a 17 yr old defeating all the top Terran and Protoss and he is just a savant? I won't even mention Serral...you get my point.
Okay
So where are your ghosts in your lategame tvz composition, or are you just going to stick to your midgame comp when your opponent is rolling out endgame and still expect to win anyway?
What's killing your hellbats that isn't inside the range of tank/thor?
Your units are cheaper than his - how is he keeping up the trades when your blueflames are roasting his mineral lines all across the map?
|
On December 10 2019 17:15 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2019 04:28 Slydie wrote:Changing the attack to 5 to help defend helions was probably the worst balance decision ever, as it essentially removed Terran from the first WCS season which was to be filled with BL/Infestor and immortal/sentry all ins. Only biased terrans feel this way, it was an okay buff at the time. Zerg had to mass drones just to keep up, and hellions/reapers would make it to the base before zerg would have enough lings, or roaches. Making lings severely puts you behind since they get outtraded, you don't have speed... of course, I'm sure terrans had a great time kiting everything and picking off free drones, but for zerg that was a total chore. Then people forgot that BL/infestor rose to prominence because zerg didn't have any other aggressive options that didn't get shut down hard, but that's a different discussion. Since lotv we start with a ton of workers, giving us way more options than before. I believe that was the biggest change paving the way towards toning down the queen.
Agree +++
Blliz said they wanna see shorter games, in fact it s just a question of 1 min less at start of the game.... Overall, games duration hadn t change imo...
|
On December 12 2019 20:13 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 18:42 pinky29 wrote: First off, I've played 400 games on the new patch; M1. This is the stupidity of blizzard to nerf, THEN BUFF! WHY!! You have every Zerg in the world winning tournaments, but you simply don't nerf their units. When Terrans were winning you cut the crap out of their units, but, instead you feel with every nerf deserves a buff. Why? WHY? WHY?
Here is a perfect example:
New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10. Requirement: Hive. Research cost: 150/150. Research duration: 57 seconds.
I have a 200/200 ground mech army (3/3) losing to a 2-1 hydra lurker/viper/army. All my hellbats are dead. Landed Vikings are instantly gone without any DPS - the range is ridiculous. I've done this at least 10x 1v1. Zerg not only has BL/Infestor now its has become a stomping ground for all that is Terran. Thors are instantly abducted. An obvious transition is BL the second all the Thors are gone and there is nothing but tanks against the 12312312430 Range of lurkers. Thanks BLIZZARD!!!
PS: Yes they outrange Turrets even with the upgrade. I'm saying this is becoming a two race game if you look at the streamers left. It is sad. You have a 17 year old, Reynor, which is very talented but can you honestly tell me in all of SC history we've had a 17 yr old defeating all the top Terran and Protoss and he is just a savant? I won't even mention Serral...you get my point.
Life? Hello? He won his first GSL at the age of 15? IIRC During BL/infestor
|
Lol, so many of these suggestions would pretty much delete Zerg from competitive play.
Such as 1 queen per hatchery.
Can you guys hold on the genius balance suggestions until maybe after GSL RO16?
|
On December 13 2019 05:27 terribleplayer1 wrote: Lol, so many of these suggestions would pretty much delete Zerg from competitive play.
Such as 1 queen per hatchery.
Can you guys hold on the genius balance suggestions until maybe after GSL RO16? Given the two year domination of Zerg, having them disappear from tourament play would be a feature not a bug.
|
I love how ppl pretend no zerg units ever get nerfed. They nerfed almost every single zerg unit in the last 3 years.
|
|
So....now that we've played it. Can we officially say Protoss is dead?
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 13 2019 05:19 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2019 20:13 deacon.frost wrote:On December 12 2019 18:42 pinky29 wrote: First off, I've played 400 games on the new patch; M1. This is the stupidity of blizzard to nerf, THEN BUFF! WHY!! You have every Zerg in the world winning tournaments, but you simply don't nerf their units. When Terrans were winning you cut the crap out of their units, but, instead you feel with every nerf deserves a buff. Why? WHY? WHY?
Here is a perfect example:
New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10. Requirement: Hive. Research cost: 150/150. Research duration: 57 seconds.
I have a 200/200 ground mech army (3/3) losing to a 2-1 hydra lurker/viper/army. All my hellbats are dead. Landed Vikings are instantly gone without any DPS - the range is ridiculous. I've done this at least 10x 1v1. Zerg not only has BL/Infestor now its has become a stomping ground for all that is Terran. Thors are instantly abducted. An obvious transition is BL the second all the Thors are gone and there is nothing but tanks against the 12312312430 Range of lurkers. Thanks BLIZZARD!!!
PS: Yes they outrange Turrets even with the upgrade. I'm saying this is becoming a two race game if you look at the streamers left. It is sad. You have a 17 year old, Reynor, which is very talented but can you honestly tell me in all of SC history we've had a 17 yr old defeating all the top Terran and Protoss and he is just a savant? I won't even mention Serral...you get my point.
Life? Hello? He won his first GSL at the age of 15? IIRC During BL/infestor  Fine, OK, it's not like he didn't win anything in the next 2 years until he's 17 as requested
|
On December 13 2019 05:27 terribleplayer1 wrote: Lol, so many of these suggestions would pretty much delete Zerg from competitive play.
Such as 1 queen per hatchery.
Can you guys hold on the genius balance suggestions until maybe after GSL RO16?
People usually also suggest giving Zerg alternative ways of dealing with bcs and oracles or nerfing other races with changes like that.
Leaving a race out is not fun, there is only 3 of them.
|
|
|
|