| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KenZo-
Faroe Islands190 Posts
After a while he switched to playing Zerg instead of Terran, so then I stopped watching. Sad how frustrated Pro Terran players are with TvP, but I guess thats how it has to be since it's all ballanced according to you guys. I for one do not enjoy the state of the game right now. Glhf. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1338 Posts
On September 04 2020 01:00 Drfilip wrote: Your link to balance says that the game is more balanced now compared to the average throughout SC2 history. It kind of negates your narrative. Add to that your comment of buffing underused units. That is something that the balance team has been doing continuously. Most recent was the void ray. We've had tweaks to reapers, ultralisk, carriers, battlecruisers, hydralisks. + Show Spoiler + Notice how every race has had changes to underused units? More unit comps are viable now than almost all of SC2. More different units are used than ever before, incorporated in games with different "standard" compositions. guess you didnt get the irony i put in my post. Obviously the game is in a really good state right now and blizz is basically going in the right direction of buffing underused units. we got PvZ and TvZ as close to 50% as it gets with TvP slightly going a bit too far in P favor. but overall its awesome to see, never have we had such a long balanced time with so many different strats possible. if blizz keeps going (there are still 2-3 units/upgrades per race that need some love) sc2 keeps staying awesome :-) | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
| ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On September 04 2020 10:24 AssyrianKing wrote: Another thing I noticed, when a ravager shoots a Bike, even if there are two forcefields on top of each other, they Bile shoots both of them down? Bile acts as a massive unit. If a forcefield is touched by a massive unit it dissipates. | ||
|
jinjin5000
United States1397 Posts
https://streamable.com/02tkjo Parting says this in this clip exactly. I haven't looked at other part. Honestly, I think PvT ballance will be bit ruined. Well....tsk....I believe that protoss will be advantageous in both early and mid game. As the game goes on to late game, protoss is better so... Terran players will try to end before this happens in early game. Since terran players know this, they will try to end it early-mid game. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On September 03 2020 23:41 Beelzebub1 wrote: As a Zerg player it's kind of unenjoyable to see Terran in such a weak state at the moment, this isn't too unexpected considering Protoss has been receiving quite a few minor buffs while Zerg is suffering from a few minor nerfs, but for Zerg to be nerfed and TvZ to still be so in Zerg's favor is really a testament to the problem. Probably time to lay on the buffs for Terran, I wouldn't mind the balance team revisiting things like merging vehicle/aerial weapons and armor again to maybe open up some more synergy between the compositions. Something kind of on the small side wouldn't hurt, and if that doesn't push the win rates up, something small again. Balance is close but now we are bearing the full brunt of the games economy and macro mechanics coming back to haunt us. Things like MULE, Inject and Warp Gate have fundamentally made balance a serious challenge, and with the faster economy start has only exasperated the issue. Personally I wouldn't mind a more global change like reverting the starting worker count to 10. It's been made clearly obvious that Zerg benefits the most heavily, since that change is huge and probably won't happen, lets focus on some cost/numbers/upgrade buffs for Terran, lets focus on things that can be done. Yeah this is the key Don t forget the change of the number of larva by injection (4 to 3)... I enjoy your comments cause it s very near from my opinion and i haven t enought ease to read every comments here and explain clearly how the game drastically change since the start of LotV | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On September 05 2020 01:43 Vision_ wrote: Yeah this is the key Don t forget the change of the number of larva by injection (4 to 3)... I enjoy your comments cause it s very near from my opinion and i haven t enought ease to read every comments here and explain clearly how the game drastically change since the start of LotV What about the change from 4 larvae to 3 larvae per inject? I remember the change, but why does it matter here? It doesn't fall under the recent changes, so it isn't part of the first paragraph of Beelzebub1. A reversal of this change would be a buff to Zerg, so it isn't part of the fourth paragraph either. The second paragraph talks exclusively about Terran, so that's not it at all. By process of elimination, you are talking about this old nerf in regards to the third paragraph. I fail to see what you mean by that comment. Paraphrasing: Beelzebub1: Macro mechanics are a thing that has a negative impact on balance changes, especially when there are more workers. Vision: When the amount of workers increased, Zerg got a huge nerf to compensate. What is it that you are trying to convey, Vision? | ||
|
skdsk
138 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20278 Posts
On September 10 2020 13:01 skdsk wrote: Is blizzard planning to fix tvp? Void opening forces terran to go upgraded Cyclone and mass turrets in main. Is it really how sc2 should be played with mass batteries and mass turrets at 3mins in the game? Any particular pro games? | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On September 05 2020 20:18 Drfilip wrote: What about the change from 4 larvae to 3 larvae per inject? I remember the change, but why does it matter here? It doesn't fall under the recent changes, so it isn't part of the first paragraph of Beelzebub1. A reversal of this change would be a buff to Zerg, so it isn't part of the fourth paragraph either. The second paragraph talks exclusively about Terran, so that's not it at all. By process of elimination, you are talking about this old nerf in regards to the third paragraph. I fail to see what you mean by that comment. Paraphrasing: Beelzebub1: Macro mechanics are a thing that has a negative impact on balance changes, especially when there are more workers. Vision: When the amount of workers increased, Zerg got a huge nerf to compensate. What is it that you are trying to convey, Vision? It s probably harder for a zerg to inject periodically when the timer goes bigger. Then, i didn t check it but the developpement of a zerg is smoother in the build order process with 3 inject per hatch (i mean less sequenced, i do mention that there s no problem with the amount of larva by inject cause it s proportional PS : anyway it s always hard to modify core parameters without big consequences on the game. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
Hatchery spawns one larva every 15 game seconds in HotS and 11 game seconds in LotV A SCV has always been done in 12 game seconds, so With the factor speed, it represents (15-12)/1.4 = 2.14 So with 6 workers of difference, Zerg approximatively won 2.14 x 6 = 13 seconds. This 13 seconds has a huge impact at pro AND casual level, whatever stim, warp gate and bunker time reduction (into scouting, build order, gas harvesting,etc...) (check my old post date 2020/03/14 : https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/557533-the-beginning-of-an-answer) Do Blizzard explain us these changes ? I think not.. Why ? Everybody knows.. It s like if Blizzard has never admitted his mistake. If they had been fair with us, they would have applied modification on stim and warp gate directly while they only modified in consequence the bunker time construction (to avoid proxy) | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
(17-15) x 6 = 12 game seconds i.e 12 / 1.4 = 8.5 seconds (real time) so i don t know exactly the other reason for an eventually bigger delay between HotS and LotV.. But in definitive there s about 10 seconds (maybe more..) which have disappeared after HotS in favor of Z And even nobody cares cause the game wasn t so good at this time, it will always be reminded as a treatise. | ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States669 Posts
Specifically, I think that Ravagers should require Lair and Hydras should be able to be made at Hatchery tech. I say this because Ravagers limit protoss and terran defensive options in the early game: Forcefield-based sentry builds are not viable anymore, and Terran NEEDS a high ground to defend the roach ravager allin so the tanks don't get biled down. This severely limits map design choices. Also, zerg can't really be aggressive at T1 if either T or P opens early air because they have no T1 AA besides the queen. WIth the newly buffed voidray, it seems like the right time to give zergs earlier access to hydras. Switching those two unit requirements around wouldn't change any of the zergling / baneling / muta strategies at all, which are a really fun part of the game - and what people seem to think is so good about TvZ in general. Also, non-range-upgraded lurkers would be available at earlier timings. We currently never get to see lurkers or hydras in small numbers in any matchup, and that's unfortunate. ___ Terran is in a great spot design-wise. I say this because TvT is an excellent and dynamic matchup. Protoss is in a great spot design-wise too. PvP has never been more interesting. TvP is problematic because a maxed-out protoss army is very dense, and generally has enough disruptors to force terran to retreat and take damage in the process. Just add +1 collision radius to the disruptor so lategame micro against deathballs is slightly less horrible. I think people would be amazed how much difference that would make in the matchup without affecting other matchups. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2623 Posts
On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote: NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/ PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1338 Posts
On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote: http://aligulac.com/periods/275/ PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler + all zergs out except the two best players in the world... | ||
|
Elentos
55458 Posts
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote: Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler + all zergs out except the two best players in the world... It's not really one week cause you can pretty clearly see from the link you had in your first post that PvT win rates have been 53-54% since June. And 53-54 is generally the range where people start to consider a match-up statistically imbalanced. Although player quality in the samples is extremely diverse so I wouldn't think of these winrates as more than a trend. | ||
|
darklycid
3373 Posts
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote: Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler + all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10306 Posts
Throwing some suggestions out for PvZ again. Lurkers and Vipers seem to be 2 units that are very strong in ZvP, while not being core units in ZvT. So I feel looking at these to help Protoss makes sense. First off, Lurkers seem very good vs Protoss, niche/bad vs Bio, and fine vs Mech. 1) What if Lurker base/bonus dps was adjusted to be less niche vs Bio, less powerful vs Protoss? And keep the same total damage per hit to keep its burst which is important for positioning, while slightly decreasing attack speed so it's less massable for big fights due to overkill? This would emphasize its positional strength. Currently Lurkers do 20+10 damage. What if it was reworked to 22+8 for example, and nerf attack speed by 10%. It now does the same initial burst damage, which is important for dissuading pushes and slowing movement. It does the same dps vs Bio, but now it does less dps vs Protoss. The slightly lower DPS also makes it less massable vs Protoss. I've seen Serral just mass an army of mostly Lurkers and a few Hydras, and just run at a Protoss army and burrow... pretty sure that is not how they're meant to be used. You could push these changes harder and make it like 24+6 and nerf attack speed by 10-15% if you want to make it even better vs Bio and even worse vs Protoss. The Lurker seems too good as a massable army unit vs Protoss, and wouldn't hurt making them more useful vs Bio, so I think this is the logical direction to go. Keep same damage per hit vs Armored, slightly buff base damage, and decrease attack speed a little. 2) What if Lurker HP was slightly nerfed to 180? This would have to be considered in tandem with reworking its attack. It feels pretty tanky right now, if it was slightly more fragile (while having the same or slightly better attack or burst strength) it would also help emphasize its identity as a positional zoning unit. Lower HP will mean it's still good at bursting down small forces quickly, and dissuading bigger armies. While if a big army is confident and wants to commit, it will have an easier time breaking a small Lurker position. Right now as Protoss, even if you catch Lurkers pushing forward and burrowing, even if you attack before they burrow it can wreck your army, and it's hard to snipe a few as a poke and back off. So making them slightly more glass cannon-y seems like a good direction. Lurkers in BW costed 125/125 and had 125 HP, now they are 150/150 and have 200 HP. More HP is important because damage density is higher in SC2, but maybe 180-190 is enough. 3) What if Lurker Den building isn't separate anymore and you have to morph Hydra Den into it? Yes it would mean you'd need to get both Hydra upgrades, as well as Lurker Den, and then also Lurker upgrades. It would be a lot. But isn't that OK for a Zerg? You don't need to get all those upgrades at once, it's Zergy to have lots of evolution choices and pick the ones you want (I know it's balanced such that you want all of them, but still). If you want to upgrade Hydras fast and also get Lurker tech, you could just build 2 Hydra Dens and have 1 upgrade while the other morphs into Lurker Den. If you want to save money you would decide between upgrading Hydras or just upgrade to Lurker Den for Lurkers. This could slow down Lurker tech a bit which could help vs Protoss. So many games I see Zerg is able to get Viper + Lurker while Protoss still only has Colossus/Disruptor tech and no HTs, and the Zerg just wins due to that. On September 11 2020 01:35 ThunderJunk wrote: I actually kind of hold the opposite view. I think that large changes to Zerg are needed, and the matchups should be rebalanced around that. Specifically, I think that Ravagers should require Lair and Hydras should be able to be made at Hatchery tech. I say this because Ravagers limit protoss and terran defensive options in the early game: Forcefield-based sentry builds are not viable anymore, and Terran NEEDS a high ground to defend the roach ravager allin so the tanks don't get biled down. This severely limits map design choices. Also, zerg can't really be aggressive at T1 if either T or P opens early air because they have no T1 AA besides the queen. WIth the newly buffed voidray, it seems like the right time to give zergs earlier access to hydras. Switching those two unit requirements around wouldn't change any of the zergling / baneling / muta strategies at all, which are a really fun part of the game - and what people seem to think is so good about TvZ in general. Also, non-range-upgraded lurkers would be available at earlier timings. We currently never get to see lurkers or hydras in small numbers in any matchup, and that's unfortunate. ___ Terran is in a great spot design-wise. I say this because TvT is an excellent and dynamic matchup. Protoss is in a great spot design-wise too. PvP has never been more interesting. TvP is problematic because a maxed-out protoss army is very dense, and generally has enough disruptors to force terran to retreat and take damage in the process. Just add +1 collision radius to the disruptor so lategame micro against deathballs is slightly less horrible. I think people would be amazed how much difference that would make in the matchup without affecting other matchups. I feel you have good points and unless we're overlooking some things, it seems like this could be a really good change. Going even further, if Zerg can get Hydras earlier, then we can nerf Queen/Spores since they are no longer the only AA. Making Hydras as AA would make things more interesting as it would take Larvae up too, whereas Queen/Spore you only lose a few Larvae for Spores. I was surprised that Ravager didn't need Lair tech, when I first tried Zerg recently. I always thought it was Lair tech (even though I know Ravager rush exists). Being less limiting to map design and build orders (Protoss can Forge FE again!) are big plusses. It's just weird to me that you can get both Roach and its evolution at the same tech level. I mean it was like that with Hydra+Lurker in BW I guess, it feels Zergy, but I think having Ravager/Lurker tech be T2 while Roach/Hydra is T1 could be cool. It's more weird with Ravager being at T1 because you don't need a Ravager Den. Lurker Den is at least an additional tech building. Also someone mentioned, what if Bile only takes down 1 FF at a time, and can't take down multiple FF if they're overlapping? I think it could be a small but good change, but imagine what if you could protect a canon or unit with a FF as well? It probably won't be enough to make FFEs work against Ravager rushes though. | ||
|
Decendos
Germany1338 Posts
On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote: Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaNa
ByuN vs Classic
Afreeca Starleague
Jaedong vs Light
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Creator
Cure vs ShoWTimE
OSC
Replay Cast
SpeCial vs Cham
The PondCast
PiG Sty Festival
Reynor vs Bunny
Dark vs Astrea
Replay Cast
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
