Balance Test Map Update - February 25
Forum Index > SC2 General |
matthy
66 Posts
| ||
Phaenoman
568 Posts
On February 27 2015 09:15 baabaa wrote: yes, let's nerf zerg because obviously they are winning everything right now!!! LOL. Where would zerg show up at top levels if you take out the superhuman play of Life? Blizzard, you want zerg to be able to deal with terran mech ? here's a thought? nerf terran mech. instead you decide to nerf something zerg needs against it and then let zerg figure it out. Makes perfect sense. you want zerg to be able to deal with protoss mass air? here's a crazy idea -- nerf protoss air!!!! any thought to maybe decreasing the completely ridiculous range of tempests? even by 1 range unit? NAH, protoss obviously needs every bit of that so that they don't lose any of their precious tempests. Of course, zerg can afford to lose entire lategame armies and they're still fine, so who cares about that. The only reason zerg was surviving against protoss lategame as it is was using mass swarm hosts!!! so you decided to remove that, now toss beats zerg for sure in lategame. oh well,, just reason 76 (every single one related to new units and balance) to not buy LoTV. tempest nerf is at least something that makes sense (I guess someone at blizzard DID happen to notice that protoss were making tons of tempests lategame and winning easily against zerg, something so bloody obvious with the design of the unit that no testing is even necessary). At times I think rolling dice to decide how to design new units would stand a better chance of balance than what is being done. So zerg needs to be prevented from basing armies around swarmhosts... logically, here's some other armies that need to be nerfed: bio mine, terran mech, hellbats, immortal sentry stalker, colossus voidray stalker, forcefields, right? nah, seeing these armies melt zerg armies with nearly no losses is just part of the game. Calm down. Take a step back and think without ur Zerg-eyes. We do not want any race to be underpowered or overpowered so we can win ezly. We want a fun game, not frustrating 2h games. If the SH change (nerf/ buff,up to u how u wanna call it) is healthy for the game, but makes Zerg weak, they will tweak other things. And even if u say that mech is the issue that is causing all this, then I can assure u 99% of all mech players would appreciate to be able to move out much earlier than 200/200. We could continue the same way with Protoss etc. etc. Try to improve the game as a whole.. not only ur race. | ||
404AlphaSquad
838 Posts
On February 27 2015 08:56 sagefreke wrote: Swarm Host sounds like a really expensive Reaper now. Good to make in a group of 3-4 to harass a base MAYBE, but they're not worth keeping in your army. A no risk Reaper. You can keep them active and trade still constantly. Just not anymore in this great scale. | ||
ETisME
12071 Posts
On February 28 2015 00:24 404AlphaSquad wrote: A no risk Reaper. You can keep them active and trade still constantly. Just not anymore in this great scale. until you weight in the cost for infestation pit, swarmhost cost and the total absence of drop defense. I don't even know why people keep thinking free units means no risk, with some slight tweak, swarmhost efficiency will be reliant on player's skill. | ||
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On February 28 2015 00:24 404AlphaSquad wrote: A no risk Reaper. You can keep them active and trade still constantly. Just not anymore in this great scale. "No risk reaper" is taking it a little harsh. Due to the relatively low duration of Locusts now, you have to get the host fairly close to your actual target. I wouldn't say it's risk-free, just less risky. Which should be fine considering the cost and tech-requirement of the unit and the fact that it takes away a lot of firing power for zerg. I hate that the testmap is on Deadwing, it's not only the map I'm least likely to go swarmhosts to harrass because Mutas are so much better, but it also has shitty spawning positions. Also am I mistaken or is the EU version not up to date? | ||
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On February 28 2015 00:24 404AlphaSquad wrote: A no risk Reaper. You can keep them active and trade still constantly. Just not anymore in this great scale. I mean, it's certainly a risk using that much supply and gas on just a few harass units, which ultimately makes your main army weaker in a fight. And is a reaper really risky either? If you micro it properly, you really should not be losing it. | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 27 2015 23:35 Phaenoman wrote: Calm down. Take a step back and think without ur Zerg-eyes. We do not want any race to be underpowered or overpowered so we can win ezly. We want a fun game, not frustrating 2h games. If the SH change (nerf/ buff,up to u how u wanna call it) is healthy for the game, but makes Zerg weak, they will tweak other things. And even if u say that mech is the issue that is causing all this, then I can assure u 99% of all mech players would appreciate to be able to move out much earlier than 200/200. We could continue the same way with Protoss etc. etc. Try to improve the game as a whole.. not only ur race. I agree, but I can fully understand baabaa's frustration. Blizzard keeps on doing this to zerg, trashing our core lategame units every two years. Meanwhile the Colossus is still the same bullshit it has been, Terran is still able to play the game without having to think about transitions past 10mins and one annoying infromation-gamble play after the other has been added for 4years since the 2011 Immortal buff. They nerf Zergs core lategame ground unit and then talk about how they want Tempests to be weaker vs Broodlords. Why not nerf the Colossus and the High Templar? Those are the main reasons* why we build Swarm Hosts against Protoss. Not the Tempest. Not the Voidray. Not the Carrier. We can deal with all of that with hydralisks and mutalisks and stuff like that. But we can't deal with what the Protoss builds to kill our hydralisks in the first place. Also it would be way fairer. My core gameplan for lategame is gone, yours is gone. Not: "Your gameplan is gone, but there might be a new one with that other patch. Maybe you'll figure it out in the next half year. If not, well, we hope you don't mind losing a lot while your opponents can still play exactly as they played before." *of course it is the combination of all of those units. But if it wasn't for ultimate Colossus+HT+Immortal+Gateway combos destroying all our ground forces with hardly any scratches we wouldn't even have to talk about how Zerg has to switch into air deathballs or Swarm Host turtles to begin with. | ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 28 2015 00:41 Big J wrote: I agree, but I can fully understand baabaa's frustration. Blizzard keeps on doing this to zerg, trashing our core lategame units every two years. They don't do it for no reason. terran doesnt even have lategame units, so stop the qq. It's a massive change, we don't even know the effects. | ||
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
On February 28 2015 00:50 SC2Toastie wrote: They don't do it for no reason. terran doesnt even have lategame units, so stop the qq. It's a massive change, we don't even know the effects. This. On February 27 2015 04:32 Big J wrote: This could however shake up Mech and lategame PvT, since it effectively makes the BC a counter to the Tempest and the Carrier. This is a massive blow to Skytoss vs Mech (I'm 100% not complaining about this, but this needs to be pointed out), making mass BC with Yamato a very strong lategame composition. Same goes probably for bio, even to a much lesser extend. But still, this could severly shake up how Terran can play the TvP lategame or even the TvP game at all. Now this is going to be really cool. With how lopsided PvMech is in being Protoss favored this will finally allow the BC to get some usage. Kudos to Blizzard for addressing the absolutely terrible design of the Tempest hard-courting all capital ships out of the game, and SH's toxicity (though it still remains to be seen if the new SH will be problematic). | ||
404AlphaSquad
838 Posts
On February 28 2015 00:30 ohmylanta1003 wrote: I mean, it's certainly a risk using that much supply and gas on just a few harass units, which ultimately makes your main army weaker in a fight. And is a reaper really risky either? If you micro it properly, you really should not be losing it. As you shouldnt lose your swarmhosts either. It wasnt a balance complain, just thinking that the "reaper" comparison is utterly stupid. And these swarmhosts will do more in fights than reapers because they still can deal dmg from far away. I didnt say it was good or bad. Me personally I am all in favor of this change because picking off some units here and there and harrassing is more exciting than having a snowball unit which drags out the game unneccessarily long and noone has fun playing against it (Yes I know there are still other units like this in the game). It rewards Apm/ beeing active with those things and get as much dmg done as possible. | ||
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On February 28 2015 01:22 404AlphaSquad wrote: As you shouldnt lose your swarmhosts either. It wasnt a balance complain, just thinking that the "reaper" comparison is utterly stupid. And these swarmhosts will do more in fights than reapers because they still can deal dmg from far away. I didnt say it was good or bad. Me personally I am all in favor of this change because picking off some units here and there and harrassing is more exciting than having a snowball unit which drags out the game unneccessarily long and noone has fun playing against it (Yes I know there are still other units like this in the game). It rewards Apm/ beeing active with those things and get as much dmg done as possible. Agreed. You really can't compare it to the reaper at all. It's so far off from it, actually, that I'm surprised they were even compared. And I think it will be great for Zerg to have a back door harass option other than the Muta. | ||
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
On February 28 2015 00:50 SC2Toastie wrote: The effects are very easy to see. The moved SH from core lategame unit to purely harrass role. It's not like people never played without swamhosts, they had and it doesn't work in lategame.They don't do it for no reason. terran doesnt even have lategame units, so stop the qq. It's a massive change, we don't even know the effects. | ||
MrFreeman
207 Posts
Thanks | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 28 2015 02:34 MrFreeman wrote: Is it OK to post here what I posted to battle.net about this topic or do you recognize it as a duplicity post? Thanks Post it, quote it, link it. It's not a duplicate unless you posted it here already I believe. | ||
MrFreeman
207 Posts
On February 28 2015 03:10 Big J wrote: Post it, quote it, link it. It's not a duplicate unless you posted it here already I believe. Thanks for ur answer :-) . Personally I think that 100% balance on lower skill levels isn´t that important and isn´t achievable. As for the achievability, it is easy to explain, in a complex game relative profit from an aspect of chosen race is different on each skill level and with growing complexity and skill diversity, it is still more difficult to have the design to account for each skill level and it is unrealistic to expect this. Fortunately, it is not needed, all you need to care about is an even matchup. It doesn´t matter that much, if your opponent is little better or worse and the gap is filled with the race strength difference on your specific skill level as long as the design is consistent and robust and it stays relevant to both races you are not playing. Of course, it has to be perfectly balanced on the top levels, because you want the most skilled player to win that is why it is OK for me, if their balance focus lays on the pro-level players. They probably also provide better feedback. What they need to get rid off is frustrating things that make players of all skill levels not play and I think that is exactly what they are after here. Other thing they need is to avoid paper, stone, scissors scenario, where race one has edge on race 2 but is weak against race 3 on some skill level, but again, I think they are on that. I personally would like game to be little bit less stressful as well. It could for example allow greater zoom-out, allow queuing of things you don´t have the money for (maybe with delay in beginning of the production, to profit good macro), give info about total amount of each unit/structure/upgrade to the payer, like in replay, more auto-cast, but it doesn't seem they want to go this way, but that is only my personal preference :-) . | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Deadwing LE (Balance Jay) that implemented the changes mentioned in the OP on top of the ones that are already live in the blizzard test map. | ||
mongoose22
174 Posts
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18184815/call-to-action-march-5-balance-testing-3-5-2015 | ||
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
| ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 28 2015 01:51 Tuczniak wrote: The effects are very easy to see. The moved SH from core lategame unit to purely harrass role. It's not like people never played without swamhosts, they had and it doesn't work in lategame. the effects on the overal game are impossivle to see, and biased forum knights make it hard to change anything in this game the right way. I simply cannot understand how people complain about balance in this topic... | ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 09 2015 17:47 SC2Toastie wrote: the effects on the overal game are impossivle to see, and biased forum knights make it hard to change anything in this game the right way. I simply cannot understand how people complain about balance in this topic... Have you played one of those testmaps? Have you? Because I have, quite a bit - though it is obviously hard to get equal skilled opponents. You keep on saying that we can't know the effects, but you know what, the people who actually test it can get a very good feel for it. And so far I can only say I'm very concerned for balance and even more the change isn't good to begin with. Everyone who has lost a base to locusts randomly flying in from some random angle doesn't have good words for the unit. Everyone who tried to hold anything with those 200gas/4supply abominations hasn't had a good word for the unit. --> it isn't even a good solution to the existing problem to begin with. If this patch goes through like that my prediction is that we might see a few games in which those Swarm Hosts win games because it is zerg and the right way to deal with zerg tech stuff is usually to put on pressure at the right times and limit them from even doing that and people will have to find those points in time. Then zergs will realize that they can't hold anything when they build those Swarm Hosts because they are too expensive, at best they can snipe a nexus and forcing the opponent to pull his workers, while the enemy is ravaging your stuff with an army that sits on top your production and just wins the game. Then Zergs are going to push Swarm Hosts out of their gameplan because everything else is going to be more important and then we will end up with the same endgame plays from Terran and Protoss just without Swarm Hosts. I guess against Protoss turtling into massive Broodlord timings might actually become a thing again though. The least thing blizzard should do to try and counterbalance is reintroducing the Terran Air Upgrades (which is something they are planning for LotV anyways) so that a Terran cannot go as freely from shitting on all your ground with Factory Tech into shitting on all that's left with Starport tech. | ||
| ||