|
On August 09 2020 05:31 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2020 02:49 QOGQOG wrote:On August 09 2020 02:34 Tyrhanius wrote:
They killed roach long time ago, they killed infestors, they killed Zerg T3.
Strange how all of those keep winning games then. Yeah, because Zerg is not allowed to win any games right? Let's nerf marines, as they often win games.
My point is that those units have in no way been "killed." They're just not quite as overwhelming powerful as they once were. If you haven't noticed, pro level Zerg is still very strong, and acting like these units were nerfed into irrelevance is dishonest.
|
Reads Z notes;
Ok, yah seems whatevs.
Reads P notes;
mmmhmm
wait no ok
wait no stop
+ Show Spoiler +
|
The most busted part about the Baneling is the 2.2 radius splash. Like it's actually so much bigger than everything else in the game besides Fungal Growth. But lets be real here, I want to see Burrowed Banelings, I want to see mass Baneling Overlord drops on armies. The Baneling SHOULD be busted, because it's perhaps the coolest unit in SC2.
So I've come up with something else we could nerf instead, so we could perhaps revert the Baneling damage back to 20/35 damage. If you really wanna help Protoss nerf the Cocoon build time of Ravagers. It's so ridiculously small, it's 9 seconds. Not to mention they have 5 armour during this time, I think though this is the case because the design team loves the BW micro you can do to cancel damage by doing Cocoon micro, so I can let that live. Though realistically I'd say both Lurker and Ravager cocoon should be 2 armour, just like the rest of the Cocoons. For those that don't know. Lurker have 1 armour in Cocoon form.
It happens quite often that Zergs just morph Ravagers in the face of Protoss, because it's never worth it for Protoss to try and target down these Cocoons, because a few seconds after, they pop with full health.
Overseer morph time is 12, Baneling: 14, Lurker is 15.
So I suggest you put Ravager on 13 so it's easy to remember 12, 13, 14, 15.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
I agree that Ravagers morp too quickly, I think that could be good.
I think I would reduce baneling health again. Also In TvZ I would increase Thor's AA atack ( they are so slow that when they do catch mutas they should do much more damge).
And I think I would change the Hellbat to make it better agaisn't banelings, they are really underutilized and they just die as easy as bio and I don't think that's intented.
|
Even though it is not being used as much these days we should not forget that Swarm Hosts are just a very bad unit and it should be removed from the game. It's not even about balance, it's just bad.
|
Some people really hate Zerg. I really hope Blizz doesn't listen to those ideas or Zerg will never win anything again. Reduce baneling health AND increase ravager morph time AND make hellbats better? On top of all the nerfs we already got recently? How the heck is Zerg supposed to defend 2 base all ins then? Do you guys even play Zerg or just take ideas out of your ass? :D
|
If the problem is that banelings are too strong in situations where they aren't expected to do well, I think the easiest solution is to nerf the range for the non-light damages. Eg, reduce range very slightly for normal damage and reduce range for structure damage by a lot. When you roll in 20 banelings into a planetary, you will forced to choose either the planetary or the SCV's.
I agree that Protoss doesn't have a good tool for these since Terran can float a backup CC into place. Perhaps we give Protoss a global spell across Nexus that requires 150 energy, using energy from up to 3 nexus, and lets them build a new Nexus at increased warp-in (similar to the chrono boost but only applies for Nexus).
|
There s no problem for Banes in term of positionning among the Z units. Blizzard should be more Uniform in the design of his units. Widow mines shoots automatically, why Banes don t (playing devil s advocate) ? Terran must micro heavily in fight, why Zerg hasn t so much to do ? simple ideas are the best, your idea is good on paper but it s already too complex.
Roachs could gain a little bit armor when they are burrowed in order to promote micro / Banelings could have a part of centrifugal hooks which has to be activated to reach contact against marines (while marines are useless without stimpack).
Uniform is simplicity. And simplicity makes good game.
Then, it wouldn t say features of units must overlap themselves. To me, Zergling advantage is his supply cost and in a certain way i think that low supply cost of a baneling overlap with zergling supply cost.
Of course as race, Zerg have been designed since SC:BW with the idea to overwhelm his ennemy, a baneling supply cost up could be balanced by an upgrade to increase the max population... why not ? and even if there are other balance consequences, a thought change will always impact some others ennemy units (while Blizzard has decided to only make small changes).
|
|
|
All this talk about Zergi being imba, can someone tell me why do i not see Hydralisks anymore even tough its supposed to be a "core unit" ?
|
It's good to see that Blizzard at least acknowledges Protoss is really weak at the moment.
Protoss has not been competitive in the late game in both PVT or PVZ for a long time now.
The Protoss race right now has been all about choosing a single build that has to do critical damage or kill the opponent and even then that is sometimes only enough to make it a even game when Protoss deserves to be ahead by a large margin considering the damage they have done.
Mules and mass drones in a single production cycle are comeback mechanics Protoss do not have, chronoboosted probes takes a considerable amount of time to pay off while the Terran and Zerg can maintain more stable economies if they take heavy economic damage.
On the protoss side of things losing worker amounts that Terran and Zerg can "live with" is a game ender for Protoss and if you have knowledge of Starcraft you already know the game is pretty much over already.
So Protoss is the most fickle race when it comes to taking economic damage yet they have the worst defense capabilities of all three races.
This is problem number one.
Problem number two:
Protoss is an expensive race, units are expensive, techpaths are expensive, take a long time to get and you can not just change your techtree as you see fit since the investments are huge.
This makes reactive play very difficult because it is to expensive and takes to long to make reliable tech that can counter your opponents army.
Pro players know Protoss are locked to the decisions they made early in the game (techpaths) and for players who know how to scout and know how protoss works, Protoss is the most predictable race in the game, the only unpredictable thing about protoss is how hard are they going to commit to an attack causing a defensive overreaction the opposite.
So you would assume the downside of having expensive units, supply expensive units, expensive slow tech paths to more powerful units would be balanced out by the strength of the units.
Well this is where Blizzard dropped the ball,
They want Zerg to by "Zergy" mass amounts of units overwhelm you fast teching, tech switches living true to Brood war game play and lore for those who care about that. They carried this over into SC2 it's still their key strengths
Terran also has its core elements from Brood war, extremely strong defensively, parade pushes, good at sieging bases using terrain to their advantage even acquired new strengths with the medivac mobility.
Now for Protoss, this is where I want you to think a bit and reflect see if you come to the same conclusion as me.
We still have the expensive buildings, upgrades, and units.
We are still locked into techpaths for longer because of this.
Now this is supposed to be compensated by the strength of the units you make, but this is not the case, protoss units are not very versatile and easily countered by a scouting opponent because of how predictable Protoss techpaths are.
You do not pay more for stronger units as a protoss, you pay more to hardcounter a specific unit of the enemy, which the enemy in turn Zerg and Terran can make easily obsolete because of how quick and how easy access they have to whatever tech they need.
Which means protoss units only perform when the opponent is not prepared for them.
So you are in fact not paying more for anything other then hoping your enemy was not prepared for that specific unit.
Which again reinforces the fact that protoss must play based on deception and outsmarting your opponent, there is no brute force like Terran and Zerg playstyles.
Now I know most people well say well this is not Brood war so what is my point?
My point is why do you give Protoss the core mechanics of expensive supply demanding armies with slow techfrom brood war, and then expect us to use deception to beat the opponent when they have even better tools of deception then Protoss have.
You have the most predictable easily read race in the game and you want us to rely on deception to win games?
All of these things contradict themselves and is the core reason why Protoss has been a poorly designed race and it needs some heavy reworking if its ever going to fit into this game and make for fun matchups like TVZ is getting closer too.
|
On August 11 2020 03:21 kajtarp wrote:
All this talk about Zergi being imba, can someone tell me why do i not see Hydralisks anymore even tough its supposed to be a "core unit" ?
I definitely think that after they are done figuring out the bane nerfs, hydras need their nerfs reverted. Both the dps nerf and remerge the upgrades.
Hydras are total trash right now and with new shield battery overcharge i doubt hydra all ins would be OP, especially if banes get nerfed.
|
Looking at tournament results, i dont think such a drastic change in the balance is needed. Protoss air buff is OK, but the baneling nerf is just too much, especially since it will screw with ZvZ. Loosing banes on marauders, ghosts, thors, immos or archons is super ineffective already and happens really often. The only time you can really pull that off is if you came through early and mid game unscathed, and if that happens, you should be ahead since it is so hard to do that as a zerg (unless you are Serral or Reynor)
|
There's a bug from last patch. If someone writes in chat during 3-sec countdown when a game starts, it's not shown in replay.
|
United States5225 Posts
On August 08 2020 12:52 [Phantom] wrote:
The core issue is zerg by desing is too strong.
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree. Remove the Viper and see what happens. No other races depends so heavily on a single unit in late game.
|
On August 11 2020 09:00 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 12:52 [Phantom] wrote:
The core issue is zerg by desing is too strong.
Hmm... I'm not sure I agree. Remove the Viper and see what happens. No other races depends so heavily on a single unit in late game.
I disagree with the that statement. I have seen zerg play passable late game without vipers vs various compsitions, but I have no recollection of ever seeing protoss late game being successful without psionic storm. Colossus and disruptor can help in the early stages of late game, but the protoss loses if they do not get the storms to dissuade mass surrounds. PvP being an exception to this.
I do agree with the viper being a hugely impactful unit. It is a near necessity.
|
Northern Ireland27235 Posts
On August 11 2020 03:38 Dedraterllaerau wrote:
Which again reinforces the fact that protoss must play based on deception and outsmarting your opponent, there is no brute force like Terran and Zerg playstyles.
Now I know most people well say well this is not Brood war so what is my point?
My point is why do you give Protoss the core mechanics of expensive supply demanding armies with slow techfrom brood war, and then expect us to use deception to beat the opponent when they have even better tools of deception then Protoss have.
You have the most predictable easily read race in the game and you want us to rely on deception to win games?
All of these things contradict themselves and is the core reason why Protoss has been a poorly designed race and it needs some heavy reworking if its ever going to fit into this game and make for fun matchups like TVZ is getting closer too.
I’d largely consider that to be a PvZ issue over a PvT or even PvP issue. Protoss is still vulnerable in being very reliant on tech units vT yeah, on the other hand they have the remax speed, reinforcement speed, and generally a map vision advantage. Plus gateway armies, specifically chargelots with upgrade advantages are better in that matchup too. Plus especially lately in terms of trends Protoss are out-expanding Terrans in the lategame, sometimes by 2-3 bases so they can even trade cost-inefficiently and it still be strategically sound.
Plus Terran have similar vulnerabilities if they choose to over counter your tech units as well. Less pronounced now as ghosts are more generally really good with the EMP radius upgrade buff.
All in all I think you see pretty good back-and-forth macro games in that matchup with good options and variety from both sides, although Terran are a little hamstrung into timing atttacks and pushes.
Versus Zerg Protoss keep that tech reliance but lose basically all of the other advantages they have vT. Slower remaxes, fewer bases/resources and you’re generally less mobile and pure gate armies end up being bad. Zerg have a big vision advantage if they’re good at spreading creep etc. You see much less splitting of the Protoss army and sharking as you’re considerably slower than many Zerg units especially if creep is a factor and can’t afford to get surrounded and haemorrhage units, especially robo units.
I still think warp gate being implemented was a mistake and that so much of these problems come from balancing around it but in 2020 the game’s in a decent shape, very much despite it.
Cut some of your post to prevent this being a huge wall of text.
|
i tried playing ZvP without banes for a week now...macro games are basically unwinnable...no matter the unit comp but Z just sucks without banes.
Banes arent even a problem in low eco or even eco games....banes are a problem when Z has a huge eco advantage. On the other hand without banes every unit comp Z has sucks in late midgame. roach ravager etc. is all fine in early midgame but later on without banes...nope.
So if blizz really wants banes to become less effective in ZvP...go for it but compensate Z with some buffs on useless units like hydras or lurkers or infestors...
|
On August 11 2020 04:26 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2020 03:21 kajtarp wrote:
All this talk about Zergi being imba, can someone tell me why do i not see Hydralisks anymore even tough its supposed to be a "core unit" ? I definitely think that after they are done figuring out the bane nerfs, hydras need their nerfs reverted. Both the dps nerf and remerge the upgrades. Hydras are total trash right now and with new shield battery overcharge i doubt hydra all ins would be OP, especially if banes get nerfed.
Even if all the changes in this update go through, we are still one more round of Zerg nerfs away from balance. Zerg buffs cannot even be discussed until we have time to adjust to those future changes. Design team had been much to conservative with fixing balance - something which they admitted to in the notes.
|
I'm not a fan of void rays that fast. But PvZ looks pretty bad so something is warranted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.myinstants.com/media/instants_images/hqdefault_70.jpg)
