|
On May 20 2020 17:14 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 17:09 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ. That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs. That's exactly my thinking. As it stands, who on earth would ever want to make a tempest, carrier or void ray lategame (not mentioning mothership; remove the thing!) unless they're forced to? The better choice is almost always to just add gates and have at them before they get their army up whenever there's a midgame advantage. But I'd really like being able to play lategame too.
so in other words , feedback s range buff is nowhere near enough right ?
|
Italy12247 Posts
On May 20 2020 17:31 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 17:14 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 17:09 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ. That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs. That's exactly my thinking. As it stands, who on earth would ever want to make a tempest, carrier or void ray lategame (not mentioning mothership; remove the thing!) unless they're forced to? The better choice is almost always to just add gates and have at them before they get their army up whenever there's a midgame advantage. But I'd really like being able to play lategame too. so in other words , feedback s range buff is nowhere near enough right ?
I mean, in principle it helps, but the thing with the mothership is it only takes 1-2 seconds of not paying attention to lose it to an abduct. Feedback could have 12 range and that interaction would still be onesided and down to player attention rather than spell range.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
To all the '4T in RO8' people:
It is not an impossible prediction to have Trap, Dear, Dark and Maru in the RO4 and if Parting is the real bane of Maru, it can end with no T in RO4. What will you say then?
(I admit that this requires Parting to play ridiculously well and Trap finding his 2019 PvT)
|
One more hit to kill marauders, wtf I rather take the hp reduction.
|
I mean tvz appears to be pretty even recently going from results (like inno going 3-2 vs dark in next, reynor not doing so hot vs terrans like clem/gabe/uthermal or clem beating serral) also terrans currently are performing pretty decent overall, i don't get why they think the old bane nerf should have gone through, if it didn't rly affect pvz and helps terran alot in tvz, equally all the zergs that are talking about a 4 terran ro4 or zerg being the weakest race right now are as hillarious or more, i mean seriously? 
|
Overall, I'm just really happy that the balance team is working again. And it seems to me that these changes, while not perfect, are going in the right direction, which was also generally the case for the 2017 and 2018 seasons, before the disastrous (lack of) changes in 2019.
Let's see how it plays out, at least now we can be somewhat confident that further changes will be made if necessary.
|
Austria24422 Posts
The thing with this baneling change is also that it's not just +1 hits to kill a marauder. Medivac healing forces you to burst units down. If marauders survive the extra hit, they may not even die from the next one, they might survive and get healed up, then potentially survive the next hit after too. It's pretty huge.
|
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season.
|
Italy12247 Posts
On May 20 2020 18:04 xelnaga_empire wrote:
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season.
Protoss wins 3/19 (15%) Premier tournaments since the last major balance update (4.8.2) in 2019. It's very easy to cherry pick statistics to prove one's point.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 20 2020 18:10 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:04 xelnaga_empire wrote:
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season. Protoss wins 3/19 (15%) Premier tournaments since the last major balance update (4.8.2) in 2019. It's very easy to cherry pick statistics to prove one's point.
if were basing this on the tourney wins, nerf zergs into oblivion
|
This new change should impact PvZ more so than TvZ as a much greater proportion of the typical mid game Protoss army is non-light compared to the typical mid game Terran bio army. After this change, smaller non-light units such as Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, and Siege Tanks will generally take one additional hit from Banelings while beefier units such as Thor, Archons, and Immortals will generally take more.
Really ? A maraudeur has 125 hit points
7*20-7 = 133
7*18-7 = 119
No need to an additional baneling...
Anyway this is a good change direction.. The shift of 2 damage seems very little but it can be enought.
|
On May 20 2020 17:36 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 17:31 seemsgood wrote:On May 20 2020 17:14 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 17:09 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ. That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs. That's exactly my thinking. As it stands, who on earth would ever want to make a tempest, carrier or void ray lategame (not mentioning mothership; remove the thing!) unless they're forced to? The better choice is almost always to just add gates and have at them before they get their army up whenever there's a midgame advantage. But I'd really like being able to play lategame too. so in other words , feedback s range buff is nowhere near enough right ? I mean, in principle it helps, but the thing with the mothership is it only takes 1-2 seconds of not paying attention to lose it to an abduct. Feedback could have 12 range and that interaction would still be onesided and down to player attention rather than spell range.
how blizzard still lets fucking vipers hard counter mothership is beyond me...
thing like "mothership not being yoink'd by vipers" can go through without testing but any further buffs must be put on hold until blizzcon patch tho
On May 20 2020 18:04 xelnaga_empire wrote:
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season.
they are buffing where its weak not where its strong so i think those changes are fine
|
As always the Zerg and Terran stuff looks like nice little balance tweaking while the Protoss stuff is mostly just weirdo crap (the feedback change is the exception). Blizzard never knew what to do with the race and they are still clueless. Somewhere in LotV they were on the right track when they finetuned unit stats, but it seems like they are back to experimenting with changes to break some deeply flawed XvP metagame (in this case PvP).
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +This new change should impact PvZ more so than TvZ as a much greater proportion of the typical mid game Protoss army is non-light compared to the typical mid game Terran bio army. After this change, smaller non-light units such as Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, and Siege Tanks will generally take one additional hit from Banelings while beefier units such as Thor, Archons, and Immortals will generally take more. Really ? A maraudeur has 125 hit points 7*20-7 = 133 7*18-7 = 119 No need to an additional baneling...Anyway this is a good change direction.. The shift of 2 damage seems very little but it can be enought.
so my Nestea style of playing will be harder? damn  (a-move them banelings and let their god decide who's gonna live)
On May 20 2020 18:23 Big J wrote:
As always the Zerg and Terran stuff looks like nice little balance tweaking while the Protoss stuff is mostly just weirdo crap (the feedback change is the exception). Blizzard never knew what to do with the race and they are still clueless. Somewhere in LotV they were on the right track when they finetuned unit stats, but it seems like they are back to experimenting with changes to break some deeply flawed XvP metagame (in this case PvP).
Remove warpgate, move it to the lategame, re-balance gateway units around that. THERE. Now you have defenders advantage in PvP and generally in every vP 
Also now you can most probably remove the shield battery as gateway units are stronger
|
On May 20 2020 18:23 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote:This new change should impact PvZ more so than TvZ as a much greater proportion of the typical mid game Protoss army is non-light compared to the typical mid game Terran bio army. After this change, smaller non-light units such as Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, and Siege Tanks will generally take one additional hit from Banelings while beefier units such as Thor, Archons, and Immortals will generally take more. Really ? A maraudeur has 125 hit points 7*20-7 = 133 7*18-7 = 119 No need to an additional baneling...Anyway this is a good change direction.. The shift of 2 damage seems very little but it can be enought. so my Nestea style of playing will be harder? damn (a-move them banelings and let their god decide who's gonna live)
I can t say, I ve stopped playing before the WM style defence was in meta.
I was convinced about a bunker buff and for now but what we see from Clem in many maps is a push with bunker in front of opponent base. I wasn t so far from the solution even if i was thinking in a way to protect around your base with marines (inside a bunker),..
Deseperate situations needs deseperate moves.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 20 2020 18:29 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:23 deacon.frost wrote:On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote:This new change should impact PvZ more so than TvZ as a much greater proportion of the typical mid game Protoss army is non-light compared to the typical mid game Terran bio army. After this change, smaller non-light units such as Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, and Siege Tanks will generally take one additional hit from Banelings while beefier units such as Thor, Archons, and Immortals will generally take more. Really ? A maraudeur has 125 hit points 7*20-7 = 133 7*18-7 = 119 No need to an additional baneling...Anyway this is a good change direction.. The shift of 2 damage seems very little but it can be enought. so my Nestea style of playing will be harder? damn (a-move them banelings and let their god decide who's gonna live) I can t say, I ve stopped playing since the WM style defence was in meta. I was convinced about a bunker buff and for now but what we see from Clem in many maps is a push with bunker in front of opponent base. I wasn t so far from the solution even if i was thinking in a way to protect around your base with marines (inside a bunker),.. Deseperate situations needs deseperate moves.
when you make mostly banelings and they kill less the answer is yes. OTOH because I play random and leave mirrors I play bellow my actual MMR so it probably doesn't matter that much(if I can play mass baneling style there's somethign wrong anyway)
|
Yeah i was wrong cause marines are garbage without stimpack
|
As Zerg you are just forced to use banelings vs everything. Just because every other option is shit. So if they want to nerf banelings they shoud give sth back. They didn't. Zerg is fucked. Again.
|
ZvT is totally fucked.
The mine is a stupid and infuriating unit to buff, and this just makes it easier to take terrible early damage cus your observer got hit by a mine or something.
Shield battery thing is a bandaid.
Original patch was awful, this one is not really any better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
