|
On January 22 2022 01:05 Vision_ wrote:Dear Microsoft, Could you please look at Lurkers because actually specifities of tanks are overlaped hard by that.... In other terms, Lurkers do better than tanks in most of the cases.... sick Consider this as my next gift for 2022 christmas. 
Adaptive Talons imo are 100% of the reason that Lurkers are so dominant, especially vs. Protoss. There is no reason for a unit that holds space to be nimble, it defies the unit arch type for no real reason. If Lurkers did substantially less damage I think it would be interesting, but then they wouldn't hold space as well and they would just be fast which is kind of like 95 % of the units in SC2 already.
I think tanks are like the colossus, in a decent spot strength wise they just aren't the end all ground control units that they used to be. Alot of people don't remember how absurdly dominant tank play was against Zerg before the Viper was introduced. I don't care for abduct, but Blinding Cloud really is a necessity against high tank counts even to this day.
We need to temper our expectations with MS and balance changes though. I also want balance patches, but it's going to take time for MS to do anything of substance regarding SC2 even if it's on their agenda to do so. If they put the AoE4 RTS team on SC2 right this minute, I think it would be a minimum of 4 months before a hint of a patch would even be announced. The amount of games that they balance team would have to watch to get a grasp of high level balance and unit interactions will be daunting to say the least.
Lastly on this note, I think they should really listen to the pro's of all races and the community streamer leaders who DO sit down and watch SC2 all day. Trap last night said that Protoss would really benefit from even rolling back some of the prior nerfs that happened to Protoss which I believe was this
"Level 1 upgrade times increased by 15 seconds.
Level 2 upgrade times increased by 18 seconds.
Level 3 upgrade times increased by 22 seconds"
I think a removal of Talons combined with removing this increase might be the little boost that Protoss needs to be on more even footing against Zergs. To be fair though, what alot of Protoss players seem to forget is that the last few recent balance patches (2 years) actually had a pretty decent amount of Protoss buffs.
Patch 5.0.2 was a baneling nerf with Oracle/Void/Carrier/Tempest buffs and Patch 4.12.0 was a substantial Queen AA nerf coupled with creep tumor and baneling nerfs, with Protoss getting buffs to the Oracle, HT and Overcharge being added to the game.
So to say Blizzard wasn't giving Protoss a pretty decent amount of love is kind of disingenuous, I think Zerg nerfs might be a bit more appropriate at this point though. The current mechanics that top players have just really allow Zerg to take a lead and run away with it.
edited for clean up and spelling
|
On January 22 2022 03:44 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 01:05 Vision_ wrote:Dear Microsoft, Could you please look at Lurkers because actually specifities of tanks are overlaped hard by that.... In other terms, Lurkers do better than tanks in most of the cases.... sick Consider this as my next gift for 2022 christmas. Alot of people don't remember how absurdly dominant tank play was against Zerg before the Viper was introduced
Tanks really never were absurdly dominant vs zerg lol
|
On January 22 2022 04:15 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 03:44 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 22 2022 01:05 Vision_ wrote:Dear Microsoft, Could you please look at Lurkers because actually specifities of tanks are overlaped hard by that.... In other terms, Lurkers do better than tanks in most of the cases.... sick Consider this as my next gift for 2022 christmas. Alot of people don't remember how absurdly dominant tank play was against Zerg before the Viper was introduced Tanks really never were absurdly dominant vs zerg lol
Tanks and mech play in general was very strong vs. Zerg, I was there bro, playing Zerg, watching all the OG pro games since 2010. To be fair, Terran was just overtuned in the beginning and bad maps absolutely contributed to tanks being strong as hell.
I could have probably not wrote "absurdly" but still, tanks and colossus were very strong vs, Zerg, so strong that Blizzard decided that a specific anti-tank/anti-colossus unit was introduced in the next expansion lol
Not really the point of my post though which is Lurker power so I'll respectfully request that you not derail the topic by taking 1 line out of 5 paragraphs.
|
On January 22 2022 04:38 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 04:15 Luolis wrote:On January 22 2022 03:44 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 22 2022 01:05 Vision_ wrote:Dear Microsoft, Could you please look at Lurkers because actually specifities of tanks are overlaped hard by that.... In other terms, Lurkers do better than tanks in most of the cases.... sick Consider this as my next gift for 2022 christmas. Alot of people don't remember how absurdly dominant tank play was against Zerg before the Viper was introduced Tanks really never were absurdly dominant vs zerg lol Tanks and mech play in general was very strong vs. Zerg, I was there bro, playing Zerg, watching all the OG pro games since 2010. To be fair, Terran was just overtuned in the beginning and bad maps absolutely contributed to tanks being strong as hell. I could have probably not wrote "absurdly" but still, tanks and colossus were very strong vs, Zerg, so strong that Blizzard decided that a specific anti-tank/anti-colossus unit was introduced in the next expansion lol Not really the point of my post though which is Lurker power so I'll respectfully request that you not derail the topic by taking 1 line out of 5 paragraphs.
You participated in derailing the entire topic of the thread though so anything goes lmao
|
Phil Spencer confirmed that titles like Call of Duty will remain on all possible platforms from Xbox and PlayStation to PC (and probably mobile in whatever form that takes).
It makes sense business-wise to keep it on as many platforms as possible because that's how it got and stayed so massive, and that lets it reach as many potential microtransaction buyers as possible (although he didn't talk about mtx, so who knows if him and other people at Microsoft Gaming are wanting to continue that trend for that or any other IP after the acquisition). And people at Microsoft Gaming could also see the instrinsic value of those big titles being widely available and/or some value in how it boosts their reputation among people/gamers.
This might also show that, if they have plans to bring formerly PC-exclusive Blizzard titles to console, they might also plan to make those titles available on PlayStation (albeit without Game Pass). Maybe that could also continue pushing full-on crossplay between Xbox, PlayStation, and PC if Sony is still wanting to go back on it; who knows, just speculation.
Just a little "huh, good news" moment.
|
Wow that's a bit sad, after all the bullshit exclusivity forced on seemingly every PS game, I was hoping someone would kick Sony right back in the teeth for years of doing that.
|
On January 22 2022 07:21 blunderfulguy wrote:Phil Spencer confirmed that titles like Call of Duty will remain on all possible platforms from Xbox and PlayStation to PC (and probably mobile in whatever form that takes). https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/1484273335139651585It makes sense business-wise to keep it on as many platforms as possible because that's how it got and stayed so massive, and that lets it reach as many potential microtransaction buyers as possible (although he didn't talk about mtx, so who knows if him and other people at Microsoft Gaming are wanting to continue that trend for that or any other IP after the acquisition). And people at Microsoft Gaming could also see the instrinsic value of those big titles being widely available and/or some value in how it boosts their reputation among people/gamers. This might also show that, if they have plans to bring formerly PC-exclusive Blizzard titles to console, they might also plan to make those titles available on PlayStation (albeit without Game Pass). Maybe that could also continue pushing full-on crossplay between Xbox, PlayStation, and PC if Sony is still wanting to go back on it; who knows, just speculation. Just a little "huh, good news" moment.
I don't believe for a second that will be the case long term
|
On January 22 2022 07:21 blunderfulguy wrote:Phil Spencer confirmed that titles like Call of Duty will remain on all possible platforms from Xbox and PlayStation to PC (and probably mobile in whatever form that takes). https://twitter.com/XboxP3/status/1484273335139651585It makes sense business-wise to keep it on as many platforms as possible because that's how it got and stayed so massive, and that lets it reach as many potential microtransaction buyers as possible (although he didn't talk about mtx, so who knows if him and other people at Microsoft Gaming are wanting to continue that trend for that or any other IP after the acquisition). And people at Microsoft Gaming could also see the instrinsic value of those big titles being widely available and/or some value in how it boosts their reputation among people/gamers. This might also show that, if they have plans to bring formerly PC-exclusive Blizzard titles to console, they might also plan to make those titles available on PlayStation (albeit without Game Pass). Maybe that could also continue pushing full-on crossplay between Xbox, PlayStation, and PC if Sony is still wanting to go back on it; who knows, just speculation. Just a little "huh, good news" moment.
They'll honor the agreements. I doubt Sony and Activision had any agreement about CoD in perpetuity, so it's probably just the next 1, maybe 2 installments. And then they'll squeeze Sony out of the console market.
|
Czech Republic12107 Posts
On January 22 2022 08:16 Latham wrote:
Wow that's a bit sad, after all the bullshit exclusivity forced on seemingly every PS game, I was hoping someone would kick Sony right back in the teeth for years of doing that.
Exclusivity is always bad for players, so wishing somebody will exclusive SONY for exclusivity is bad. It's like chosing if you wanna die with a bullet or by hanging. You're dead either way. I would rather prefer something else.
Edit> It was the same case with the Epic Store shit. Everybody celebrated competition - it was just the worst case of it. Exclusivity competition. Not by services, better interface, better pricing, better ... byt exclusivity.
Also I would like to remind people that MS has pretty bad gaming servers(and yes, there are companies which are worse than them :D ). So funny thing is that the acquisition may bring worse services 
|
On January 22 2022 03:44 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 01:05 Vision_ wrote:Dear Microsoft, Could you please look at Lurkers because actually specifities of tanks are overlaped hard by that.... In other terms, Lurkers do better than tanks in most of the cases.... sick Consider this as my next gift for 2022 christmas. Adaptive Talons imo are 100% of the reason that Lurkers are so dominant, especially vs. Protoss. There is no reason for a unit that holds space to be nimble, it defies the unit arch type for no real reason. If Lurkers did substantially less damage I think it would be interesting, but then they wouldn't hold space as well and they would just be fast which is kind of like 95 % of the units in SC2 already. (...) edited for clean up and spelling
I fear tanks staying only usefull at the start of the game. (TvZ from last Clem matchups)
Mainly for defend Big All-ins or make a strong push.
If the game was slower and more strategic, you could use tanks oftenly on climbs.
|
Czech Republic12107 Posts
On January 22 2022 19:14 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 03:44 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 22 2022 01:05 Vision_ wrote:Dear Microsoft, Could you please look at Lurkers because actually specifities of tanks are overlaped hard by that.... In other terms, Lurkers do better than tanks in most of the cases.... sick Consider this as my next gift for 2022 christmas. Adaptive Talons imo are 100% of the reason that Lurkers are so dominant, especially vs. Protoss. There is no reason for a unit that holds space to be nimble, it defies the unit arch type for no real reason. If Lurkers did substantially less damage I think it would be interesting, but then they wouldn't hold space as well and they would just be fast which is kind of like 95 % of the units in SC2 already. (...) edited for clean up and spelling I fear tanks staying only usefull at the start of the game.
Can you take the balance into one of the balance threads? Or better, to reddit/bnet forums/MS equivalent? Thanks!
|
On January 22 2022 04:15 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2022 03:44 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 22 2022 01:05 Vision_ wrote:Dear Microsoft, Could you please look at Lurkers because actually specifities of tanks are overlaped hard by that.... In other terms, Lurkers do better than tanks in most of the cases.... sick Consider this as my next gift for 2022 christmas. Alot of people don't remember how absurdly dominant tank play was against Zerg before the Viper was introduced Tanks really never were absurdly dominant vs zerg lol
The were when the maps were like jungle basin in early wol.
|
ATVI trading at 75. Microsoft wanted it at 94 a share. In other words, the masses seem to believe this deal will not happen, in the very least not in its current form.
|
|
|
On May 01 2022 15:38 CicadaSC wrote:
didnt it already happen?
No. Corporate mergers of this type don't get approved overnight. The shareholders and the U.S. Government give the final approval.
The issue is that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and some ATVI shareholders have "concerns" about the acquisition, which could delay Microsoft's takeover.
|
Shareholders have approved the deal last Thursday. www.reuters.com
If I have understood correctly, FTC can still stop the deal later, but currently it is to happen.
|
On May 01 2022 21:22 Legan wrote:Shareholders have approved the deal last Thursday. www.reuters.comIf I have understood correctly, FTC can still stop the deal later, but currently it is to happen.
The market is telling us they don't expect the deal to go through. But if you do, you can make a free $20 per share right now by buying the stock.
|
Microsoft would be dumb to buy ATVI at that price right now tbh. All mergers and acquisitions at the previous highs of the stock market look dumb.
Even if the deal would get regulatory approval from the people who think this is somehow worsening the competitive landscape, they might want to revalue the deal and then that will open up new opportunities for people to disagree with it again. They said it could take over a year to close. Microsoft is only on the hook for a few billion if they cancel the bid versus the big decline in market values of most tech companies we have seen in past weeks and months.
If Microsoft really pays the original price I would be surprised since it seems against their shareholders' interests at this point.
Keep in mind if it weren't for the MSFT bid for ATVI, its stock would probably be trading much much lower than even the discount to the bid price it is currently at. Nothing has gotten better for ATVI, in fact, their own results have gotten much worse as the market in general is tending towards lower valuations for tech companies.
![[image loading]](https://graphics.reuters.com/BRV-BRV/byvrjbemxve/chart.png)
ATVI just revealed that they lost a third of their monthly active users YoY. https://investor.activision.com/static-files/91e3b7bc-5d74-4be4-903c-7f25c9c1b3a1 Their EPS cratered by 75% from last quarter (less than half of the consensus estimate), and the P/E ratio of the NASDAQ has also gone down from about 30x at the time of the announcement of the bid vs 22x now. If you take that all into consideration on top of the revised lower estimates for ATVI's future earnings, that original MSFT bid looks overpriced by a large enough margin MSFT would be better off losing $3bn up front than actually closing the deal.
Given the regulatory and PR backdrop on ATVI, I'd bet that its parts are worth more than the whole at this point. They should just slice it up and sell it off. Although, given Micosoft's immense size and cash hoards, it might not even matter to them if they think Candy Crush is enough of a strategic imperative. They are doing this to compete with Meta on mobile, after all.
|
On May 02 2022 01:10 honorablemacroterran wrote:Microsoft would be dumb to buy ATVI at that price right now tbh. All mergers and acquisitions at the previous highs of the stock market look dumb. Even if the deal would get regulatory approval from the people who think this is somehow worsening the competitive landscape, they might want to revalue the deal and then that will open up new opportunities for people to disagree with it again. They said it could take over a year to close. Microsoft is only on the hook for a few billion if they cancel the bid versus the big decline in market values of most tech companies we have seen in past weeks and months. If Microsoft really pays the original price I would be surprised since it seems against their shareholders' interests at this point. Keep in mind if it weren't for the MSFT bid for ATVI, its stock would probably be trading much much lower than even the discount to the bid price it is currently at. Nothing has gotten better for ATVI, in fact, their own results have gotten much worse as the market in general is tending towards lower valuations for tech companies. ATVI just revealed that they lost a third of their monthly active users YoY. https://investor.activision.com/static-files/91e3b7bc-5d74-4be4-903c-7f25c9c1b3a1 Their EPS cratered by 75% from last quarter (less than half of the consensus estimate), and the P/E ratio of the NASDAQ has also gone down from about 30x at the time of the announcement of the bid vs 22x now. If you take that all into consideration on top of the revised lower estimates for ATVI's future earnings, that original MSFT bid looks overpriced by a large enough margin MSFT would be better off losing $3bn up front than actually closing the deal. Given the regulatory and PR backdrop on ATVI, I'd bet that its parts are worth more than the whole at this point. They should just slice it up and sell it off. Although, given Micosoft's immense size and cash hoards, it might not even matter to them if they think Candy Crush is enough of a strategic imperative. They are doing this to compete with Meta on mobile, after all.
To be fair the market has been absolute shit since printers are off. Obviously I aint defending the ATVI numbers at all but you will always have to offer the premium. I am not sure it actually looks overpriced and for as much as people not buying it. The big players that would actually profit big time when they buy surely don't take that buy on the risk the deal doesn't go through and they can use the money to work somewhere else.
There are 2 conditions you need to be "sure of".
a) you think the deal goes through
b) you cant make more money with your investment in the meantime
If you say yes to both, IMO you should buy it. If you have slightest doubts, I'd probably stay out.
|
On May 02 2022 03:19 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2022 01:10 honorablemacroterran wrote:Microsoft would be dumb to buy ATVI at that price right now tbh. All mergers and acquisitions at the previous highs of the stock market look dumb. Even if the deal would get regulatory approval from the people who think this is somehow worsening the competitive landscape, they might want to revalue the deal and then that will open up new opportunities for people to disagree with it again. They said it could take over a year to close. Microsoft is only on the hook for a few billion if they cancel the bid versus the big decline in market values of most tech companies we have seen in past weeks and months. If Microsoft really pays the original price I would be surprised since it seems against their shareholders' interests at this point. Keep in mind if it weren't for the MSFT bid for ATVI, its stock would probably be trading much much lower than even the discount to the bid price it is currently at. Nothing has gotten better for ATVI, in fact, their own results have gotten much worse as the market in general is tending towards lower valuations for tech companies. ATVI just revealed that they lost a third of their monthly active users YoY. https://investor.activision.com/static-files/91e3b7bc-5d74-4be4-903c-7f25c9c1b3a1 Their EPS cratered by 75% from last quarter (less than half of the consensus estimate), and the P/E ratio of the NASDAQ has also gone down from about 30x at the time of the announcement of the bid vs 22x now. If you take that all into consideration on top of the revised lower estimates for ATVI's future earnings, that original MSFT bid looks overpriced by a large enough margin MSFT would be better off losing $3bn up front than actually closing the deal. Given the regulatory and PR backdrop on ATVI, I'd bet that its parts are worth more than the whole at this point. They should just slice it up and sell it off. Although, given Micosoft's immense size and cash hoards, it might not even matter to them if they think Candy Crush is enough of a strategic imperative. They are doing this to compete with Meta on mobile, after all. To be fair the market has been absolute shit since printers are off. Obviously I aint defending the ATVI numbers at all but you will always have to offer the premium. I am not sure it actually looks overpriced and for as much as people not buying it. The big players that would actually profit big time when they buy surely don't take that buy on the risk the deal doesn't go through and they can use the money to work somewhere else. There are 2 conditions you need to be "sure of". a) you think the deal goes through b) you cant make more money with your investment in the meantime If you say yes to both, IMO you should buy it. If you have slightest doubts, I'd probably stay out.
If you look at the Microsoft bid as a form of a call option, it seems likely to have moved out of the money, that's all I was saying. There may still be strategic reasons Microsoft wants to acquire even if the revenues and users are declining and they end up overpaying quite a bit. On the other hand, this is their potential largest acquisition to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
