|
Source
Hey everyone,
We’ve received a lot of feedback about the changes we announced recently, and we’d like to take an opportunity to address some of them now. But first, though, a quick note about behavior on our forums: we appreciate how passionate and invested you are in StarCraft II’s future, but it’s crucial that we all remain respectful of one another. We all want the same thing—to make StarCraft II as great as it can possibly be. Remember to play nice and play fair.
On that note, let’s switch gears and talk about the changes we’re making to what we originally proposed for the upcoming balance update.
We are still planning to move the Zerg’s Ventral Sacs upgrade to be part of Lair tech. We’ve heard your concerns that Zerg is losing an aggressive early-game option that easily transitions into the mid-game, so rest assured that we’ll be keep a close eye on the results of this change.
As for the Terran changes, we plan on holding off on them for now. It’s clear that some of you are worried that we’re moving too quickly to change things, so perhaps we can shed a bit more light on our design philosophy around these changes.
When we design something new or make a substantial change to how something works, we ask ourselves: “Does this change result in something that’s more interesting and fun than what was there before?” Once the change is in the players’ hands, though, they have a say as well. If players start using a unit or ability in a way we didn’t imagine or intend, it’s on us to keep that new gameplay in mind going forward. We think this is where our current disconnect is.
Our intention with Anti-Armor missile was to create a spell that Terran could use to get an edge over opponents in a direct fight, but that has low to no lethality on its own. Currently, it’s used in the late game primarily for its damage potential. Our worry here is that in the past, area of effect abilities that easily scaled in damage were often seen as unenjoyable to fight against. Thus, we wanted to bring the spell back in line with its original intent, to make it feel truer to its intended role, and eventually move the power it lost elsewhere in the Terran army. This could be in the form of direct late game power. Or perhaps this power could be directed more towards the mid-game, which would allow Terran players to transition more easily or delay an opponent’s transition.
Regarding the changes we proposed for the Vikings, they’re still up for consideration. Initially, we identified the Viking HP change as a frequently requested and “safe” change to help assuage the subsequent late-game power loss, though we realize it doesn’t make up for it completely. Though we’re holding off on it for now, this doesn’t mean it’s off the table.
As always, please let us know what you think and remember that we’re all in this together.
|
I agree 100% with keeping the Raven as it is.
Terran need a tool to fight against late game air armies. Terran, Zerg and Protoss all have powerful tools to fight against Ravens now when pdd is no longer in the game and when turret cast range is so low.
I predict that people will get better at fighting against Raven and that keeping Ravens as they are will be good for the game. Anything that discourage massing Carriers an a-moving with them is should be encouraged.
|
Can a Jin Air player win GSL with an unbeatable unit comp?!
|
On March 14 2018 04:20 Ej_ wrote: Can a Jin Air player win GSL with an unbeatable unit comp?!
Terran can be literally unbeatable or a complete dead race and Maru will still lose in the ro4.
|
Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop.
|
Copied over from what I said in the thread that was closed:
Meh. I hate this line of thinking.
The balance team should have stuck to their guns. It's good to listen to the people, but at the end of the day it's their decision not the community's. The whining was loud in volume, but had very little substance. Much of it revolved around yelling that skytoss is unfair so Terran should get something unfair too, which is retarded. Yes Terran is weaker than Protoss in TvP, but that doesn't mean you should leave something as dumb as anti-armor missile in the game. It means you also need to make other changes.
On March 14 2018 04:27 Vutalisk wrote: Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop.
Zerg's only won basically all the big tournaments in the last 6 months , I'm sure they can't deal with a nerf of any sort. And since when do Zergs overlord drop against terran?
|
Spineless and clueless. Doubt T has the best players, but they sure have the best whiners.
|
They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo.
|
On March 14 2018 04:38 Aiobhill wrote: Spineless and clueless. Doubt T has the best players, but they sure have the best whiners.
People whine on forums > blizz suggest nerfs > people whine about suggested nerfs > nerfs get backtracked > people whine about players getting nerfs backtracked
What step's next?
|
On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote: They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo.
Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem.
|
On March 14 2018 04:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote: They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo. Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem. I know the question is rhetorical, but the answer is no. I don't think people understand why protoss is forced to go stargate.
|
On March 14 2018 04:49 iMrising wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote: They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo. Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem. I know the question is rhetorical, but the answer is no. I don't think people understand why protoss is forced to go stargate.
Of course we do. Because they want to chronoboost probes till 5 minute mark safely. LOL
|
Blizzard should reduce the research time for blue flame from 79 seconds to 60 seconds and reduce the cost from 150 minerals/150 gas to 100 minerals/100 gas. I think this change will provide variety for different openings without being ridiculously OP.
|
On March 14 2018 04:17 MockHamill wrote: I agree 100% with keeping the Raven as it is.
Terran need a tool to fight against late game air armies. Terran, Zerg and Protoss all have powerful tools to fight against Ravens now when pdd is no longer in the game and when turret cast range is so low.
I predict that people will get better at fighting against Raven and that keeping Ravens as they are will be good for the game. Anything that discourage massing Carriers an a-moving with them is should be encouraged. Ravens need a nerf, not as big as the one they were suggesting perhaps but they still need one. The best way to solve late game issues is to nerf the other races too, particularly carriers which need a big nerf.
|
I agree on the Raven line of thought. I just hope they don't only make midgame more powerful for T, but address late game.
|
On March 14 2018 04:28 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Copied over from what I said in the thread that was closed:
Meh. I hate this line of thinking.
The balance team should have stuck to their guns. It's good to listen to the people, but at the end of the day it's their decision not the community's. The whining was loud in volume, but had very little substance. Much of it revolved around yelling that skytoss is unfair so Terran should get something unfair too, which is retarded. Yes Terran is weaker than Protoss in TvP, but that doesn't mean you should leave something as dumb as anti-armor missile in the game. It means you also need to make other changes.
this. Reminds me of the stalker nerf they canceled just to implement it a month later. Just hope they are faster this time.
But to be fair, I can understand their reasoning. Terran needs more than the viking buff, not because of the raven but in general. I hope they going with a buff for terran mid-game, a widow mine buff would be perfect imo. They should sharpen Terrans roll as a mid-game power house. The beauty about this game is that the three races play so different but this got a little bit lost lately.
|
On March 14 2018 05:15 Fran_ wrote: I agree on the Raven line of thought. I just hope they don't only make midgame more powerful for T, but address late game.
I disagree quite a bit depending on how you define mid-game. In TvP Terran needs the most help at the three/four base stage of the game even more so than in the very late game. If by midgame you mean the 2-base pre-2/2 upgrade stage of the game, than yeah terran is fine there.
|
Thank goodness they are delaying this with the Ro4 so close.
it is also good that they acknowledge that the Viking buff in no way compensates for the loss of Terran late game viability. Now if only they can think of something that does compensate, rather than let's break Terran completely and wait a few months to see how bad it gets.
|
On March 14 2018 05:24 DeadByDawn wrote: Thank goodness they are delaying this with the Ro4 so close.
it is also good that they acknowledge that the Viking buff in no way compensates for the loss of Terran late game viability. Now if only they can think of something that does compensate, rather than let's break Terran completely and wait a few months to see how bad it gets.
You exaggerate a bit, TvZ was just fine even in late game and the biggest problem in TvP is by far the mid-game.
|
Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses...
User was warned for this post.
|
On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses...
The irony
|
On March 14 2018 05:15 Fran_ wrote: I agree on the Raven line of thought. I just hope they don't only make midgame more powerful for T, but address late game.
The raven is late-game. Terran lategame is completely fine (imo op thx to ravens but whatever). The main TvP problem is the 3-4 base stage and the transition to the real lategame.
|
On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses...
You should read this part again,it's my favourite one.
We’ve received a lot of feedback about the changes we announced recently, and we’d like to take an opportunity to address some of them now. But first, though, a quick note about behavior on our forums: we appreciate how passionate and invested you are in StarCraft II’s future, but it’s crucial that we all remain respectful of one another. We all want the same thing—to make StarCraft II as great as it can possibly be. Remember to play nice and play fair.
|
One unit no one is talking about is the colossus. It was made into an anti-light unit to help against ling/bane/hydra, but just wasn't good enough to make it in high level PvZ (sure Probe plays colossus almost exclusively, and some players like Neeb dabbled with it at one point, but it isn't played at the highest level). However in PvT it's so good against marines that it (and other things such as chrono-ed upgrades) have forced terrans into 2 base all-inning all the time. And with terrans going for 2 base all-ins, you don't go for colossus. So the colossus is paradoxically too strong, and not played at all...
|
On March 14 2018 04:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote: They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo. Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem. As you tried 2 SB per bases ?
I mean it's 400mineral like 16lings, i've never tried it so feel free to explain me why it doesn't work if you have already tried it, but i feel like with your probes healed by SB + a few units it's holdable.
As zerg i build spores sometimes blindly, and a spores are more expensive than SB, i see toss complaining about the all-in but they usually play without SB.
Sure aligulac stats show imbalance but at kor level ZvP is pretty close of 50% and just recently Stats 2-0 Rogue.
Aligulac is biased and overrates EU on Zerg, and then you have : Serral best player of the world or that is supposed to beat classic 3-2 while he has lost 3-0.
|
On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses... part of a free flowing creative process includes flip flopping on opinions give Blizzard some creative space to do their thing.
|
And the whiners win... Mass Raven is terrible for the game, they should have gone through with the nerf and experimented more with sufficient viking changes.
|
On March 14 2018 06:35 Charoisaur wrote: And the whiners win...
Or the whiners lost, depending on the viewpoint
|
On March 14 2018 06:09 ZigguratOfUr wrote: One unit no one is talking about is the colossus. It was made into an anti-light unit to help against ling/bane/hydra, but just wasn't good enough to make it in high level PvZ (sure Probe plays colossus almost exclusively, and some players like Neeb dabbled with it at one point, but it isn't played at the highest level). However in PvT it's so good against marines that it (and other things such as chrono-ed upgrades) have forced terrans into 2 base all-inning all the time. And with terrans going for 2 base all-ins, you don't go for colossus. So the colossus is paradoxically too strong, and not played at all... During the balance talk at the foreigner team house a collossus revert was the change everyone agreed on.
|
On March 14 2018 06:38 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 06:09 ZigguratOfUr wrote: One unit no one is talking about is the colossus. It was made into an anti-light unit to help against ling/bane/hydra, but just wasn't good enough to make it in high level PvZ (sure Probe plays colossus almost exclusively, and some players like Neeb dabbled with it at one point, but it isn't played at the highest level). However in PvT it's so good against marines that it (and other things such as chrono-ed upgrades) have forced terrans into 2 base all-inning all the time. And with terrans going for 2 base all-ins, you don't go for colossus. So the colossus is paradoxically too strong, and not played at all... During the balance talk at the foreigner team house a collossus revert was the change everyone agreed on.
Do you have a link to that discussion?
Also i thought Protoss stopped with Robo into Colossus builds because it got hard countered by one raven?
|
On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses...
Why is it ok for zerg and protoss to have insane AOE damage spellcasters but not terran(even though 1 raven missile only tickles, but 1 storm or parasitic bomb will deal 95% of most units' hp)? The double standard needs to stop.
On a side note, It would be nice if blizzard reduced the research time for blue flame from 79 seconds to 60 seconds as well as reducing the cost from 150/150 minerals/gas to 100/100 minerals/gas. I think this would be a nice change that would provide terran with some more variety when sculpting builds as well as make for some exciting early/mid game plays from a spectator perspective. The research time and cost feels too long/expensive in comparison to the added bonus blue flame gives since they nerfed the damage of it awhile back. I think the damage it does is balanced, just lower the research time and cost.
Also, Terran activity and winrates are at an all time low since patch 4.0. In major tournaments, terran isn't performing all that well even though terran players are extremely good mechanically. When it comes to ladder, 40% of gm in EU and NA is zerg. On NA, zerg makes up 50% of the top 120 gm(this includes random non-zerg off-server pros playing on NA for whatever reason). I'm not saying nerf zerg, zerg loves their toys and I think they should have their toys. Lets buff terran starting with my proposed blue flame change. Keep the raven as is, the other races have their high damage dealing spellcasters like storms and parasitic bombs, terran should have one too. All races should have one and there should be no double standards when it comes to balance and the decision making process when making balance changes.
|
On March 14 2018 07:08 ReachTheSky wrote: On a side note, It would be nice if blizzard reduced the research time for blue flame from 79 seconds to 60 seconds as well as reducing the cost from 150/150 minerals/gas to 100/100 minerals/gas. I think this would be a nice change that would provide terran with some more variety when sculpting builds as well as make for some exciting early/mid game plays from a spectator perspective. The research time and cost feels too long/expensive in comparison to the added bonus blue flame gives since they nerfed the damage of it awhile back. I think the damage it does is balanced, just lower the research time and cost.
i'd prefer they kept the Blue Flame upgrade's time and resource cost high.. and instead increased its power from +5 up to something higher like +7 or more.
|
Patching the Raven out of the game and removing all Terran chances in the lategame by extension because of a single tournament that the Raven wasn't even played that much in is a huge stretch, no matter how you spin it. Yeah, current Raven is bullshit, but untill they come up with a real solution to Terran lategame, it needs to stay. inb4 toss and zergs dare to complain, may I to remind you: Broken Adepts in the game for months before being patched. 15 range 4 supply Tempests making lategame even more of a joke than it is now, in the game for over a year. 8 armor Ultras in the game for over a fucking year. Liberator anti-air patched after 1 tournament, literally lasted for 2 weeks. AAM was about to be patched after 1 tournament where it was used in 2-3 games.
|
On March 14 2018 07:08 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses... Why is it ok for zerg and protoss to have insane AOE damage spellcasters but not terran(even though 1 raven missile only tickles, but 1 storm or parasitic bomb will deal 95% of most units' hp)? The double standard needs to stop. On a side note, It would be nice if blizzard reduced the research time for blue flame from 79 seconds to 60 seconds as well as reducing the cost from 150/150 minerals/gas to 100/100 minerals/gas. I think this would be a nice change that would provide terran with some more variety when sculpting builds as well as make for some exciting early/mid game plays from a spectator perspective. The research time and cost feels too long/expensive in comparison to the added bonus blue flame gives since they nerfed the damage of it awhile back. I think the damage it does is balanced, just lower the research time and cost.
I just wonder when and where did u saw that one funghal is takin all the hp from units besides marines or lings? Try to kill Liberators or Carriers or Broodlords with funghals. U just can't. But guess what can- Ravens.
|
On March 14 2018 04:27 Vutalisk wrote: Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop. In what world is an opponent turtling something that a Zerg player complains about? Just double or even triple expand and murder them with a mid-game push.
|
On March 14 2018 07:30 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 07:08 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses... Why is it ok for zerg and protoss to have insane AOE damage spellcasters but not terran(even though 1 raven missile only tickles, but 1 storm or parasitic bomb will deal 95% of most units' hp)? The double standard needs to stop. On a side note, It would be nice if blizzard reduced the research time for blue flame from 79 seconds to 60 seconds as well as reducing the cost from 150/150 minerals/gas to 100/100 minerals/gas. I think this would be a nice change that would provide terran with some more variety when sculpting builds as well as make for some exciting early/mid game plays from a spectator perspective. The research time and cost feels too long/expensive in comparison to the added bonus blue flame gives since they nerfed the damage of it awhile back. I think the damage it does is balanced, just lower the research time and cost. I just wonder when and where did u saw that one funghal is takin all the hp from units besides marines or lings? Try to kill Liberators or Carriers or Broodlords with funghals. U just can't. But guess what can- Ravens.
Infestors also have infested terran, which is very effective against carriers or broods. One infestor at full energy beats a carrier in a h2h fight I think.
|
I think what I'm reading is that after this GSL season they're going to try something different, and hopefully more dramatic for Terran than a 10HP Viking buff. The planned Raven change was acceptable, and like a few others here I would prefer something that would accentuate Terran strengths (mid game buff) or even something that added a new avenue of aggression (Blue Flame buff of some kind) rather than leaving the Raven as-is in the long term.
|
On March 14 2018 07:19 ihatevideogames wrote: Patching the Raven out of the game and removing all Terran chances in the lategame by extension because of a single tournament that the Raven wasn't even played that much in is a huge stretch, no matter how you spin it.
you got the price for so far the biggest exaggeration. TvZ lategame was totally winnable without the raven and no not only TY and Maru where able to pull that off.
On March 14 2018 07:19 ihatevideogames wrote: Yeah, current Raven is bullshit, but untill they come up with a real solution to Terran lategame, it needs to stay. inb4 toss and zergs dare to complain, may I to remind you: Broken Adepts in the game for months before being patched. 15 range 4 supply Tempests making lategame even more of a joke than it is now, in the game for over a year. 8 armor Ultras in the game for over a fucking year. Liberator anti-air patched after 1 tournament, literally lasted for 2 weeks. AAM was about to be patched after 1 tournament where it was used in 2-3 games.
This is such a childish attitude. *REEEE your BS was so much longer in the Game, that's unfair!!!11*
In 80% of my games i play as Terran and i don't want to rely on AAM spam to win a game vs Protoss so hopefully blizzard will nerf the Raven as soon as possible and obviously buff Terran accordingly. When i want to play with a huge dethball of spellcasters and airunits I switch to Protoss or Zerg, i don't need a third race with the same mechanic,I like Terran because the race is so different in this aspect.
If you're only interested in your Win rates and MMR and not in fun and diverse gameplay, please go ahead and use some hacks, I heard Beasty's Red-Dot-hack is pretty good.
|
Are they really that oblivious to the fact that Terran have no viable late game and thus have to all in most of the time? This is the source of the problem here. Without ravens, Terran can't compete in the late game. That viking buff is so irrelevant that it can't even be considered as a band-aid solution as it doesn't fix anything. Like I said in the other thread, the best solution would've been to make the damage component of AAM be unstackable, and that would've achieved their intended goals of the spell.
If they don't want Ravens to be the core of late game Terran, how about buffing BCs, who are laughably weak for a T3 unit.
|
On March 14 2018 08:08 ilikeredheads wrote: Like I said in the other thread, the best solution would've been to make the damage component of AAM be unstackable, and that would've achieved their intended goals of the spell.
If they don't want Ravens to be the core of late game Terran, how about buffing BCs, who are laughably weak for a T3 unit. i agree, i like the idea of making the Anti-Air Missile unstackable.
|
On March 14 2018 07:48 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:27 Vutalisk wrote: Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop. In what world is an opponent turtling something that a Zerg player complains about? Just double or even triple expand and murder them with a mid-game push. Yeah the problem is you just drone until reaching 66 or even 82 drones, and then you start playing the game, after 6-7min of "warmup".
And it's boring. T and P can attack with a few units without all-inning, Zerg can't and just drone and defend...
Terran is impossible to attack before hive tech if you're not all-in.
ZvP was the rare MU where you can play agressive (outside ZvZ, and even on Z vs Z defending is usually the best choice) and you felt the swarm.
Zerg wasn't supposed to be "I keep droning and defending", but it's exactly like that since WOL.
ZvT, wasn't it supposed to be a swarm of zerg attacking the humans ? Why it was always the opposite ?
The most common question on Zerg strategy/guide ? - How can i play agressive as Zerg without being all-in ? -.... you can't sorry...maybe drop play... oh wait...
The ZvT is already a really stupid defend only game : -Deal with reaper harass -deal with hellions harass -deal with liberatoir/banshee/drops harass. -deal with tank push.
-vipers/broodlords are ready, i CAN ATTACK. - Oh no RAVEN, ghost/liberators, need to camp under my spores. and mass infestors/vipers and search 3/3 air and slowly trade for hours...
Just want a fun game, not a "defend for hours challenge" like ZvT, so if they keep removing the rare thing that has given a fresh air for Zerg like drops, that would be nice.
|
On March 14 2018 08:22 Tyrhanius wrote: Just want a fun game, not a "defend for hours challenge" like ZvT, so if they keep removing the rare thing that has given a fresh air for Zerg like drops, that would be nice. Then I would suggest you try a different race. When Terran and Protoss HAVE to play aggressive versus Zerg or they functionally auto lose, Zerg cannot reasonably have the option of being aggressive as well.
|
On March 14 2018 07:30 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 07:08 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses... Why is it ok for zerg and protoss to have insane AOE damage spellcasters but not terran(even though 1 raven missile only tickles, but 1 storm or parasitic bomb will deal 95% of most units' hp)? The double standard needs to stop. On a side note, It would be nice if blizzard reduced the research time for blue flame from 79 seconds to 60 seconds as well as reducing the cost from 150/150 minerals/gas to 100/100 minerals/gas. I think this would be a nice change that would provide terran with some more variety when sculpting builds as well as make for some exciting early/mid game plays from a spectator perspective. The research time and cost feels too long/expensive in comparison to the added bonus blue flame gives since they nerfed the damage of it awhile back. I think the damage it does is balanced, just lower the research time and cost. I just wonder when and where did u saw that one funghal is takin all the hp from units besides marines or lings? Try to kill Liberators or Carriers or Broodlords with funghals. U just can't. But guess what can- Ravens.
I'm not talking about fungal, i'm referring to parasitic bomb. I'm glad you brought it up though, zerg has two AOE casters while terran and protoss have 1.
|
On March 14 2018 08:22 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 07:48 Boggyb wrote:On March 14 2018 04:27 Vutalisk wrote: Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop. In what world is an opponent turtling something that a Zerg player complains about? Just double or even triple expand and murder them with a mid-game push. Yeah the problem is you just drone until reaching 66 or even 82 drones, and then you start playing the game, after 6-7min of "warmup". And it's boring. T and P can attack with a few units without all-inning, Zerg can't and just drone and defend... Terran is impossible to attack before hive tech if you're not all-in. ZvP was the rare MU where you can play agressive (outside ZvZ, and even on Z vs Z defending is usually the best choice) and you felt the swarm. Zerg wasn't supposed to be "I keep droning and defending", but it's exactly like that since WOL. ZvT, wasn't it supposed to be a swarm of zerg attacking the humans ? Why it was always the opposite ? The most common question on Zerg strategy/guide ? - How can i play agressive as Zerg without being all-in ? -.... you can't sorry...maybe drop play... oh wait... The ZvT is already a really stupid defend only game : -Deal with reaper harass -deal with hellions harass -deal with liberatoir/banshee/drops harass. -deal with tank push. -vipers/broodlords are ready, i CAN ATTACK. - Oh no RAVEN, ghost/liberators, need to camp under my spores. and mass infestors/vipers and search 3/3 air and slowly trade for hours... Just want a fun game, not a "defend for hours challenge" like ZvT, so if they keep removing the rare thing that has given a fresh air for Zerg like drops, that would be nice.
What you say it true (to an extent). But at the same time a terran player could complain about how shit it is trying to turtle/defend until an ultimate tech is reached. In TvZ the terran is the one who needs to play aggressive and do as much damage as possible before zerg gets that ultimate tier 3 army. If the terran tries to play defensive all game long they'll usually lose.
If you really want to play aggressive instead of reactive/defensive then don't play zerg, aka the reactive race....
|
United States8298 Posts
I was hoping the Raven nerf would go through. Its a band aid solution to terrans non existent late game. Terran needs a true and deeper late game fix. Still I quite enjoy seeing crybabies unironically whine about other supposed crybabies that resulted from blizzard backtracking.
|
I was really looking forward to not instaquitting against T as well...
|
I cant comment much on higher level pvz balance but at least in my scrub experience in d1-m3 with protoss and zerg the most aggravating aspect of the match up is zergling drops after the patch that removed ms core. With the current state of protoss this build is both difficult to anticipate in time and difficult to stop even when you know its coming, unless you already have all the units required to stop it. This means that the best way to hold this build is for protoss to hard counter it with something like oracles, and that creates a really conflippy element to zvp that is less prominent in all other match ups currently (now that prxoy oracle no longer hits at 3 minutes). Protoss has to from the outset of the game gamble around if there opponent will do exactly one build, because the effective responses to this build are very limited compared to any other strategy zerg has. If zerg does do the one build and protoss gambled incorrectly they will lose the game on the spot. But if zerg did not do the one build than alot more oprions are available to protoss, I think that for balance sake its important that allins limit potential openings from an opponent but when the threat of an allin reduces the viable openings to just one ore two builds something is probably wrong with the match up.
Generally in starcraft 2's history incredibly early hitting allins that have very few reasonable responses get nerfed or alternative answers are buffed for example to name a few: Wol proxy rax, 4 gate, pylon block,1-1-1,wol blue flame hellions,hots release hellbats, blink stalker allin, 16 marine drop (queen buff),5 rax reaper allin, 3 minute proxy oracle. There's alot of precedent for blizzard nerfing these kind of builds when they are perceived to be to strong, notably zerg has not really had large nerfs to early game builds except back in beta when roaches were broken and a few tweeks to ravagers. That's mostly because up until the current patch zerg has never really had an early game build that was overly imbalanced (except maybe roach ravager rush on some of the very small maps in the first lotv map pool).So far most zerg imbalances have been centered around the late game( bl infestor, swarmhosts,8 armor ultras) or the midgame( wol mass mutas, hydra bane) This doesn't mean that if zerg does now have an overly strong early game build it should not be looked at.
I think that this is a good quality of life change for the zvp match up.A fter a few months after the removal of msc we have all had a chance to see that this build is a bit to meta game defining. Hopefully it does not impact overall match up balance to heavily, and if it does I hope that blizzard will quickly compensate zerg in other areas. I think that sometimes when blizzard has nerfed early game pressure of a race without adequate mid or late game compensation it has left that race in an under powered state for instance when they nerfed the 5 rax reaper build without giving terran any meaningful changes that enabled bio to function well without this kind of early game shenanigan it left terran in a weekend state vs zerg. Over time blizzard has been altering terran to account for this problem but it took awhile. Hopefully if zerg is in a terrible state (I don't think they will be) than blizzard will re balance the match up around less coinflippy strategies.
|
ghost-raven-bio-liberator is super strong and people are now noticing it, it will stay strong without the 25 extra damage. Emp + anti-armor is insane vs toss. not to mention anti armor is so easy to use and is undodgeable.
the nerf helps, but terran late game is going to stay good for players who know how to play imo...
also it's about time they fix overlord drops.
|
On March 14 2018 08:06 MrWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 07:19 ihatevideogames wrote: Patching the Raven out of the game and removing all Terran chances in the lategame by extension because of a single tournament that the Raven wasn't even played that much in is a huge stretch, no matter how you spin it.
you got the price for so far the biggest exaggeration. TvZ lategame was totally winnable without the raven and no not only TY and Maru where able to pull that off. Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 07:19 ihatevideogames wrote: Yeah, current Raven is bullshit, but untill they come up with a real solution to Terran lategame, it needs to stay. inb4 toss and zergs dare to complain, may I to remind you: Broken Adepts in the game for months before being patched. 15 range 4 supply Tempests making lategame even more of a joke than it is now, in the game for over a year. 8 armor Ultras in the game for over a fucking year. Liberator anti-air patched after 1 tournament, literally lasted for 2 weeks. AAM was about to be patched after 1 tournament where it was used in 2-3 games. This is such a childish attitude. *REEEE your BS was so much longer in the Game, that's unfair!!!11* In 80% of my games i play as Terran and i don't want to rely on AAM spam to win a game vs Protoss so hopefully blizzard will nerf the Raven as soon as possible and obviously buff Terran accordingly. When i want to play with a huge dethball of spellcasters and airunits I switch to Protoss or Zerg, i don't need a third race with the same mechanic,I like Terran because the race is so different in this aspect. If you're only interested in your Win rates and MMR and not in fun and diverse gameplay, please go ahead and use some hacks, I heard Beasty's Red-Dot-hack is pretty good. I care so much about my MMR that I insta-leave every TvP I get because I simply find the matchup unfun af to play. Yes, the Raven is BS, but it's also Terran's only chance in the lategame. I just pinted out that every time Terran had a lategame that worked it got nerfed immediately, while for Z/P it was always 'let the meta settle', 'let the playerbase come up with ways to deal with it', etc etc.
|
On March 14 2018 08:48 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 08:22 Tyrhanius wrote:On March 14 2018 07:48 Boggyb wrote:On March 14 2018 04:27 Vutalisk wrote: Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop. In what world is an opponent turtling something that a Zerg player complains about? Just double or even triple expand and murder them with a mid-game push. Yeah the problem is you just drone until reaching 66 or even 82 drones, and then you start playing the game, after 6-7min of "warmup". And it's boring. T and P can attack with a few units without all-inning, Zerg can't and just drone and defend... Terran is impossible to attack before hive tech if you're not all-in. ZvP was the rare MU where you can play agressive (outside ZvZ, and even on Z vs Z defending is usually the best choice) and you felt the swarm. Zerg wasn't supposed to be "I keep droning and defending", but it's exactly like that since WOL. ZvT, wasn't it supposed to be a swarm of zerg attacking the humans ? Why it was always the opposite ? The most common question on Zerg strategy/guide ? - How can i play agressive as Zerg without being all-in ? -.... you can't sorry...maybe drop play... oh wait... The ZvT is already a really stupid defend only game : -Deal with reaper harass -deal with hellions harass -deal with liberatoir/banshee/drops harass. -deal with tank push. -vipers/broodlords are ready, i CAN ATTACK. - Oh no RAVEN, ghost/liberators, need to camp under my spores. and mass infestors/vipers and search 3/3 air and slowly trade for hours... Just want a fun game, not a "defend for hours challenge" like ZvT, so if they keep removing the rare thing that has given a fresh air for Zerg like drops, that would be nice. What you say it true (to an extent). But at the same time a terran player could complain about how shit it is trying to turtle/defend until an ultimate tech is reached. In TvZ the terran is the one who needs to play aggressive and do as much damage as possible before zerg gets that ultimate tier 3 army. If the terran tries to play defensive all game long they'll usually lose. If you really want to play aggressive instead of reactive/defensive then don't play zerg, aka the reactive race....
in an ideal world it would be the style you chose to approach a matchup with rather than the race you pick that would determine if you or your opponent would be the deffender/agresor however in sc 2 rarely if ever has this been the case except in mirror match ups.
Generally when a race has very viable turtle strategies and very viable aggressive strategies blizzard has nerfed them because having a whole package range of approaches to the game is usually cause by imbalance. It may be that we just have to accept that this is the case for the tvz matchup forever. zerg defends terran pressures, when the meta is ballanced both can reach late game on even footing if terran has done decent dmg to zerg otherwise zerg will reach the late game ahead. When the meta is imbalanced either terran is unable to attacke and is forced into teching into an inferior late game, zerg cant reach the late game because terran is 65% of the time killing them before they do, or terran can play a totaly defensive style and reach a superior late game to zerg without putting on any kind of pressure. Idealy the matchup would function more along the lines that either race could play for the superior late game, the superior midgame, or the superior early game depending on what kind of strategy they pursued and if each player went for a period of strength at the same timing there armies would be close in strength to one another unless one had macroed, microed, pressured, or ourwitted there opponent in a superior fashion. However givin sc2's asymetrical balance I don't think this is a likely outcome. Since zerg has the larva mechanic they will always have to choose between units and economy, since they have to chose between units and economy its difficult for them to try to pump out alot of aggression while at the same time committing to the macro game. Generally when zerg has been able to do this the match up has been fairly unfair. Larva is a unique and interesting mechanic that has an opportunity cost that's not realy present in any other rts I've played to the same extent,but it also is the chief offending mechanic for why we get the pattern of:
1. zerg either turles and drones or does an allin 2. Terran either allins( depending on if they have a decent one), turtles into mech (if they have a strong timing or op late game or if they cant dmg zerg becuase zerg has an op midgame), or Terran pressures in the mid game with bio 3. Terran either does a big timing or transitions to some kind of gimiky sky army if its viable 4. zerg techs to there current strongest meta late game comp and either absolutely crushes terran, plays a super long turtle game vs them, or gets crushed by a raven death ball, depending on the current state of balance.
We have seen several periods where blizzard has been able to balance one path through these options such that tvz was a well balanced match up. I cant think of a time when blizzard has been able to break this pattern and create a radically new pattern to the tvz match up outside what ive listed. I think that for the most part when bliz has changed the tvz mu its been because one race had to much of an advantage within the current predictable pattern rather than trying to break the way the match up has always functioned.
Personally I think the best state the match up was ever in was in HOTS when blizzard managed to make it so that zerg had trouble reaching hive safety and terran had to stop zerg from reaching hive leading to an extended midgame where terran attacked and zerg defended. This was probably the best state tvz has been in and since hots we have not been able to get back to it because LOTV mid game is more compressed and zerg is able to get to hive significantly faster. The matchup was still highly formulaic in terms of strategy but at least it felt like skill was the primary relevant factor and balance was in the back seat, pre widow mine nerf it was a bit Terran favored, post mine nerf a bit zerg favored, but overall the matchup was fairly healthy and fun.
|
On March 14 2018 06:21 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:44 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On March 14 2018 04:41 hiroshOne wrote: They should not nerf droperlords. Just buff Protoss early game scouting options, as not defending droperlords is the oroblem but scouting this strategy without Stargate opening. I proposed earlier lowering the energy cost of hallucination from sentry. That way, Protoss could choose not to build Stargate, but go for example robo or sth different than Stargate. This proposal would improve Protoss openings, scouting and not limit options for Zerg.
Raven nerf will come, sooner or later, as it's cancer unit in its current form. If u all need more games to see it, so be it. But the nerf is unavoidable imo. Is it possible to hold a 16 ling drop while opening robo even if you scout it early? It's not just a scouting problem. As you tried 2 SB per bases ? I mean it's 400mineral like 16lings, i've never tried it so feel free to explain me why it doesn't work if you have already tried it, but i feel like with your probes healed by SB + a few units it's holdable. As zerg i build spores sometimes blindly, and a spores are more expensive than SB, i see toss complaining about the all-in but they usually play without SB. Sure aligulac stats show imbalance but at kor level ZvP is pretty close of 50% and just recently Stats 2-0 Rogue. Aligulac is biased and overrates EU on Zerg, and then you have : Serral best player of the world or that is supposed to beat classic 3-2 while he has lost 3-0. Expecting Protoss to have two shield batteries at each base early on for one specific attack that may or may not happen but is more or less unscoutable until it is already too late is not a good way to do to go about balancing the game.
Zerg having to make a spore crawler is not even remotely comparable to the idea of Protoss being required to have 2 shield batteries. Spore crawlers provide a lot more utility. They shut down Stargate-based harass, Dark Templars, and they limit the effectiveness of observer scouting, allowing Zerg to be relatively safe from a variety of different Protoss attacks. Shield batteries do none of that and are only situationally useful. They have a slow build time so it isn't like you can't build them as a reaction to being dropped. The damage will be done by the time they finish building.
I've played this game for a long time, I've been through all the different eras of "Here's a specific build that requires few resources to build and has a disproportionate cost to defend against". In every single case, those builds have been nerfed (A good example are hellbat drops from when HOTS first came out or the 1/1/1 in Wings of Liberty). Pre-Lair zergling drops feel like one of those things. Anything less than a perfect defense and Protoss is automatically behind, but since Protoss can't scout it, they either have to blindly prepare for it and be behind against everything else, or not prepare and lose in the case the drops are done.
|
I feel like people are too eager to jump the gun on Blizzard.
Theres was no way, NO WAY IN HELL, that they would've gone for a patch before GSL finals, specially not new team, last community update was that A COMMUNITY UPDATE NOT A PATCH,and very rarely they go with a change before a few of these at least.
THEY ARE GOING TO NERF THE RAVEN, that much its obvious, they are simply treading slowly, note the fact that even if they mentioned the drop overlord nerf staying, its still not patched as of today.
They are taking their time, that is all, nothing new, so stop acting like the world is going to end.
|
On March 14 2018 09:48 Lexender wrote: I feel like people are too eager to jump the gun on Blizzard.
Theres was no way, NO WAY IN HELL, that they would've gone for a patch before GSL finals, specially not new team, last community update was that A COMMUNITY UPDATE NOT A PATCH,and very rarely they go with a change before a few of these at least.
THEY ARE GOING TO NERF THE RAVEN, that much its obvious, they are simply treading slowly, note the fact that even if they mentioned the drop overlord nerf staying, its still not patched as of today.
They are taking their time, that is all, nothing new, so stop acting like the world is going to end.
they should have just said they would patch the game after wesg/gsl instead of this word play they are doing.
|
Good, the fewer things they change the better. The current version should be the permanent version, at least as far as balance is concerned. I cannot understand the desire to continue patching.
|
I just hope they can change the appearance of the raven missile effect, the orange units makes the big battles hard to follow. With the timer on top now maybe they don't need to be orange too.
|
On March 14 2018 10:23 neverexpand wrote: Good, the fewer things they change the better. The current version should be the permanent version, at least as far as balance is concerned. I cannot understand the desire to continue patching. Even if balance was absolutely perfect in all matchups (and it never will be), there are still design changes which of course alter balance.
The only constant is change.
|
I'm kinda agnostic on the dropverlord change, but hearing toss players screaming about an "unscoutable tricky" all-in is delicious
I feel like the real issues in early Z all-ins is queens, either coming by drop or nydus. Queens are incredibly strong early game, with some transfuses they are the best early game units for price. It's balanced by being a very slow and defensive unit... until invincible nydus or un-killable transfused drop bring them to your base.
So if i were in charge of balance i would let the T1 drop but nerf the queens drop cargo and the invincible nydus. Invincible nydus leads to "incredible" play like at IEM, with the in-your-face beetween-your-gates play, witch has no counter-play at all (except blindly going for a counter BO, lol). Every mechanism totally breaking defender advantage early-game should have clear weakness and counter-play, else it is logically OP.
The most incredible is how zergs players abuse so little of theses powerful earlygame plays. (on ladder and in pro games). When T/P have early-game OP shit, they abuse it so much and so good in no time .... so it get nerfed fast.
|
just make the BC viable? id rather see battlecruisers spamned over this raven meme, but this is just personal preference
|
On March 14 2018 11:08 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 10:23 neverexpand wrote: Good, the fewer things they change the better. The current version should be the permanent version, at least as far as balance is concerned. I cannot understand the desire to continue patching. Even if balance was absolutely perfect in all matchups (and it never will be), there are still design changes which of course alter balance. The only constant is change. I don't buy that. Last BW patch was in 2001, a few years after the game release. We're over seven years deep now and Blizzard can't stop fiddling. It's shameful.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/157178-the-myth-of-a-long-patch-history-in-scbw
|
On March 14 2018 13:24 neverexpand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 11:08 pvsnp wrote:On March 14 2018 10:23 neverexpand wrote: Good, the fewer things they change the better. The current version should be the permanent version, at least as far as balance is concerned. I cannot understand the desire to continue patching. Even if balance was absolutely perfect in all matchups (and it never will be), there are still design changes which of course alter balance. The only constant is change. I don't buy that. Last BW patch was in 2001, a few years after the game release. We're over seven years deep now and Blizzard can't stop fiddling. It's shameful. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/157178-the-myth-of-a-long-patch-history-in-scbw BW balance:
The only difference is that SC2 balance issues are directly addressed by the balance team, for better or worse.
|
On March 14 2018 13:35 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 13:24 neverexpand wrote:On March 14 2018 11:08 pvsnp wrote:On March 14 2018 10:23 neverexpand wrote: Good, the fewer things they change the better. The current version should be the permanent version, at least as far as balance is concerned. I cannot understand the desire to continue patching. Even if balance was absolutely perfect in all matchups (and it never will be), there are still design changes which of course alter balance. The only constant is change. I don't buy that. Last BW patch was in 2001, a few years after the game release. We're over seven years deep now and Blizzard can't stop fiddling. It's shameful. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/157178-the-myth-of-a-long-patch-history-in-scbw BW balance: https://clips.twitch.tv/SeductiveHappyFrogPooooundThe only difference is that SC2 balance issues are directly addressed by the balance team, for better or worse. Right, and that's how it should be by now. We'd get a stable game and more interesting maps. The poorly kept secret is that Blizzard keeps rebalancing the game around their own map pools.
|
On March 14 2018 14:05 neverexpand wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 13:35 pvsnp wrote:On March 14 2018 13:24 neverexpand wrote:On March 14 2018 11:08 pvsnp wrote:On March 14 2018 10:23 neverexpand wrote: Good, the fewer things they change the better. The current version should be the permanent version, at least as far as balance is concerned. I cannot understand the desire to continue patching. Even if balance was absolutely perfect in all matchups (and it never will be), there are still design changes which of course alter balance. The only constant is change. I don't buy that. Last BW patch was in 2001, a few years after the game release. We're over seven years deep now and Blizzard can't stop fiddling. It's shameful. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/157178-the-myth-of-a-long-patch-history-in-scbw BW balance: https://clips.twitch.tv/SeductiveHappyFrogPooooundThe only difference is that SC2 balance issues are directly addressed by the balance team, for better or worse. Right, and that's how it should be by now. We'd get a stable game and more interesting maps. The poorly kept secret is that Blizzard keeps rebalancing the game around their own map pools. Maybe. But maybe we'd still be in GomTvT.
Hard to say.
|
On March 14 2018 11:32 xongnox wrote:I'm kinda agnostic on the dropverlord change, but hearing toss players screaming about an "unscoutable tricky" all-in is delicious I feel like the real issues in early Z all-ins is queens, either coming by drop or nydus. Queens are incredibly strong early game, with some transfuses they are the best early game units for price. It's balanced by being a very slow and defensive unit... until invincible nydus or un-killable transfused drop bring them to your base. So if i were in charge of balance i would let the T1 drop but nerf the queens drop cargo and the invincible nydus. Invincible nydus leads to "incredible" play like at IEM, with the in-your-face beetween-your-gates play, witch has no counter-play at all (except blindly going for a counter BO, lol). Every mechanism totally breaking defender advantage early-game should have clear weakness and counter-play, else it is logically OP. The most incredible is how zergs players abuse so little of theses powerful earlygame plays. (on ladder and in pro games). When T/P have early-game OP shit, they abuse it so much and so good in no time .... so it get nerfed fast. Nyndus is just too expensive not to be used as all-in. 300gas just for 1 worm ! In the man time protoss can warp everywhere for 200mineral and recall for free.
And yeah you are again of those asking for deleting one of the rare agressive options of zerg... Like zerg should be stuck to only defend the first 6-7mins.
|
Ok how about this: - leave drops as they are but - increase queen cargo size to 2 max for 1 dropalord. - remove Nydus invincibility but increase its armour to 3 (to prevent pure worker kills) - reduce hallucinations cost to 75 to allow faster scouts for protoss. That would diversify protoss openings.
|
Thanks arceus they did listen to us.I think the raven nerf needs to be done regardless. I don't want to mass raven in order to fight mass air.But i also don't want to mass vikings in order to fight mass air either.
|
That is totally unfair to say terran players are whiners, both zerg and protoss got some changes and terrans have to handle with this for months. I remember for example the first time we saw oracles, terrans said that was unbalanced, and that was for many many weeks and then we found a way. I could give you tons of examples like this.
And in the opposite side they nerfed reapers because unbalanced, when only Byun knew how to use them.
So now I really appreciate Blizzard team doesn't removev an upgrade they have just added in the game. And with the latest results, that clearly doesn't show that is unbalanced, terrans lost in every single major tournaments, and the only one who knows to use this well, Maru, lost at IEM and is in semi final of Gsl.
|
So did i understand right, they are keeping the Droperlord nerf, while they leave AA missile as it is ? How is that fair for zergs?
|
On March 14 2018 18:42 kajtarp wrote: So did i understand right, they are keeping the Droperlord nerf, while they leave AA missile as it is ? How is that fair for zergs?
you wanna say that AA missile is auto win vs zerg?
|
On March 14 2018 17:02 insitelol wrote: Ok how about this: - leave drops as they are but - increase queen cargo size to 2 max for 1 dropalord. - remove Nydus invincibility but increase its armour to 3 (to prevent pure worker kills) - reduce hallucinations cost to 75 to allow faster scouts for protoss. That would diversify protoss openings.
I agree. Don't nerf drops, buff protoss early game scouting instead. Maybe it would make alternatives to SG openings more popular as well.
|
On March 14 2018 18:42 kajtarp wrote: So did i understand right, they are keeping the Droperlord nerf, while they leave AA missile as it is ? How is that fair for zergs? Look how Zergs are performing currently and how terrans are performing, then you will understand
|
The main problem since LOTV realase is the zerg multiple ways to be agressive on early. Each one has his own counter and with little to no damage a zerg player can macro it after the agression so.
Make zerg allins more risky on the economical side and i think protosses will be ok to the midgame.
|
On March 14 2018 19:09 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 18:42 kajtarp wrote: So did i understand right, they are keeping the Droperlord nerf, while they leave AA missile as it is ? How is that fair for zergs? Look how Zergs are performing currently and how terrans are performing, then you will understand
No i won't. Seeker missiles were always like a cancer to watch, and the AA missile is not much different so i agree with Blizzard here. It's sad they got afraid because terrans cried a river. Maru is just doing fine. TY in his usual slump he has every year at least once, and Innovation got overconfident (you could see he was 100% sure he will roflstomp his GSL group and didn't really put much effort). None of this is balance issue.
|
Zerg logic: Win 7 tournaments in a row. No Terran in the finals for any of them. Balance is fine. Terran deserves nerfs but Zerg doesn't.
|
On March 14 2018 20:18 LRObot wrote: Zerg logic: Win 7 tournaments in a row. No Terran in the finals for any of them. Balance is fine. Terran deserves nerfs but Zerg doesn't.
Exactly this.
When Terran start to dominate all tournaments like Zerg does now then I agree that Raven much be changed. Until that happens Ravens are perfectly fine.
If pro players can not manage to dominate tournaments with something then it is balanced by defination. If Ravens were too strong we would see it in tournament results.
|
By "dominant" you mean Maru and TY
|
First, im not Zerg, second i hate Mass Raven play since forever. Maru almost 3-0'd Rogue and if he doesnt choke after 2-0 we wouldn't even talk about this. Plus he has every chance to make GSL Finals and win the whole thing. What 7 tournaments in a row? Last year GSL was won by Protoss, Terran, Terran. SSL Terran, Protoss. Rogue won some weekend tournaments and Blizzcon. You count Serral victory as balance issue while foreign scene does not have one good Terran player maybe except Special (who is/was always a bit overrated imho) ?
As i see currently each race has some good players, (Inno Maru TY alive, Stats Classic hero sOs, Rogue Dark soO Solar) and whoever is in good shape goes into the final stages of tournaments.
|
On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses... the hilarious thing is that 95% of those who cried about the announced mass-raven lategame nerf dont actually play that style, cuz it s too hard to take that many bases and tech up that much. But based on principle, that they hysterically oppose any nerf because it actually f-in works, they ve done it. Unless you re at GM level, you re not seeing mass raven lategame, period. Im Masters with zergs, and seen mass ravens on ladder maybe once. This would have been a change that affects the tournaments, and I for one, dont cherish the ideas that Terran are incentivized to turtle and mass ravens/raven energy. Until now it wasnt so popular, maybe terrans considered it a waste of practice-time, since the announcement of the nerf came out, but i think we re gonna see a lot of mass ravens by high level pro Terrans.
For the record, I also dislike the mass spore+mass infestor style that dominates the ZvP meta right now.
Gonna offrace more after the drop nerf is implemented, that s for sure.
|
On March 14 2018 21:24 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses... the hilarious thing is that 95% of those who cried about the announced mass-raven lategame nerf dont actually play that style, cuz it s too hard to take that many bases and tech up that much.
To add more highly unscientific numbers, 90% of forum dwellers are unaffected by balance decisions and they aren't targeted by balance decisions. But many people are viewers as well and mass Raven bullshit is unwatcherablererererer than BL/Infestor. Even if it doesn't affect you as a player, viewing 'unbalanced' is a possibly even bigger turn-off.
|
On March 14 2018 21:42 Aiobhill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 21:24 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 14 2018 05:36 Freeborn wrote: Terran whine is too sour even for the dev team to stomach...
A bit pathetic.
It's pretty sure that the nerf will come a bit later though, since it's just bad design and as they emphasized AGAIN it's supposed to be a fricking SUPPORT not mass damage dealer.
But okay let's appease the vulgar terran crybaby masses... the hilarious thing is that 95% of those who cried about the announced mass-raven lategame nerf dont actually play that style, cuz it s too hard to take that many bases and tech up that much. To add more highly unscientific numbers, 90% of forum dwellers are unaffected by balance decisions and they aren't targeted by balance decisions. But many people are viewers as well and mass Raven bullshit is unwatcherablererererer than BL/Infestor. Even if it doesn't affect you as a player, viewing 'unbalanced' is a possibly even bigger turn-off. yes, that s kinda what i said with the second part of my post.
But i dont think you re right with the player base being unaffected by most balance changes. If a change is targeted to address cheese-strats/ allins, then it most definitely affects the common players, as low Master and plat-dia players (which is the majority of active ladder players) cuz at this level you re either at that rank because u know how to allin or how to defend allins.
Ultra lategame/ mechanical changes dont affect most of them/most of us.
|
So when is the patch going live? Post or pre GSL? Seems like this can have major impact on Stats vs Soo.
|
On March 14 2018 22:25 TW wrote: So when is the patch going live? Post or pre GSL? Seems like this can have major impact on Stats vs Soo.
Yeah, droperlord nerf will help Stats so much...
|
On March 14 2018 20:18 LRObot wrote: Zerg logic: Win 7 tournaments in a row. No Terran in the finals for any of them. Balance is fine. Terran deserves nerfs but Zerg doesn't.
Well said
|
On March 14 2018 19:52 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 19:09 Charoisaur wrote:On March 14 2018 18:42 kajtarp wrote: So did i understand right, they are keeping the Droperlord nerf, while they leave AA missile as it is ? How is that fair for zergs? Look how Zergs are performing currently and how terrans are performing, then you will understand Seeker missiles were always like a cancer to watch,
Mass fungals/Broodlords were not ?
|
On March 14 2018 16:18 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 11:32 xongnox wrote:I'm kinda agnostic on the dropverlord change, but hearing toss players screaming about an "unscoutable tricky" all-in is delicious I feel like the real issues in early Z all-ins is queens, either coming by drop or nydus. Queens are incredibly strong early game, with some transfuses they are the best early game units for price. It's balanced by being a very slow and defensive unit... until invincible nydus or un-killable transfused drop bring them to your base. So if i were in charge of balance i would let the T1 drop but nerf the queens drop cargo and the invincible nydus. Invincible nydus leads to "incredible" play like at IEM, with the in-your-face beetween-your-gates play, witch has no counter-play at all (except blindly going for a counter BO, lol). Every mechanism totally breaking defender advantage early-game should have clear weakness and counter-play, else it is logically OP. The most incredible is how zergs players abuse so little of theses powerful earlygame plays. (on ladder and in pro games). When T/P have early-game OP shit, they abuse it so much and so good in no time .... so it get nerfed fast. Nyndus is just too expensive not to be used as all-in. 300gas just for 1 worm ! In the man time protoss can warp everywhere for 200mineral and recall for free. And yeah you are again of those asking for deleting one of the rare agressive options of zerg... Like zerg should be stuck to only defend the first 6-7mins.
- Yes early game nydus is all-in. But it is OP at it. Dosen't make any sense at all. Remember the days protoss 4gated you in your base with a pylon behind the threes ? feels the same, but with a 100% sure pylon. That's why i would keep dropverlord but nerf nydus. Same as #64. - Zerg is right now the strongest race for early game aggression/cheeses. Just watch Scarlett, bly, Rogue, etc. Zerg also have plenty way of playing super-aggressive mid-game. Again, watch Rogue. (from banes max-out to mass ravager timing to aggro ling/bane/hydra to aggro hydra/lurker to mass ling/bane counter-attack style ala Life/True, etc.)
|
On March 14 2018 21:02 kajtarp wrote: First, im not Zerg, second i hate Mass Raven play since forever. Maru almost 3-0'd Rogue and if he doesnt choke after 2-0 we wouldn't even talk about this. Plus he has every chance to make GSL Finals and win the whole thing. What 7 tournaments in a row? Last year GSL was won by Protoss, Terran, Terran. SSL Terran, Protoss. Rogue won some weekend tournaments and Blizzcon. You count Serral victory as balance issue while foreign scene does not have one good Terran player maybe except Special (who is/was always a bit overrated imho) ?
As i see currently each race has some good players, (Inno Maru TY alive, Stats Classic hero sOs, Rogue Dark soO Solar) and whoever is in good shape goes into the final stages of tournaments.
Yes all the races have good players, so you'd expect all three to get decent results right? Which isn't the case. By any measure, zerg is overperforming and terran is underperforming. That's why one is getting nerfed and the other isn't.
The last 7 premier tournaments have had either ZvZ or ZvP final. With zerg winning 5 of them (sure some people will ignore IEM pyeongchang due to the strange qualifying system). It'll be a miracle if this GSL isn't a ZvZ final for the first time since WoL.
Even if you look at the few tournaments since 4.0: HSC XVI had one terran in the ro8, GSL Code S had one terran in the ro8, WCS Leipzig had one terran in the ro8, and IEM katowice had 2 terrans in the ro12. It's obvious which race is weaker.
|
People saying that zerg can't play aggressively made my days. As xongnox said, jsut watch bly scarlett life true or rogue and you'll see plenty aggresive zerg play... Nydus NEED a nerf; without killing it. Making it not immortal anymore but with +3 armors would be good. Or adding an effect : casters abilitie need 3 secondes to be usable after getting through a Nydus.
|
They could change the Nydus so i can just spawn on creep
|
Just gotta say I'm happily surprised they came to their senses. R04 GSL will be competitive now. Not in love at all with the current Raven - but it's good to see they quickly recognized that 10 health on a unit that's still worse than sky units for Protoss and Zerg wouldn't be close to compensation.
It's pretty funny to me also to see the people whining now about how "unwatchable" it is - claiming to not care about the balance implication - clearly with the shoe on the other foot they'd be crying and arguing how BL/infestor and Mothership/Carrier is so "fun to watch" LOL
|
On March 14 2018 23:25 DomeGetta wrote: It's pretty funny to me also to see the people whining now about how "unwatchable" it is - claiming to not care about the balance implication - clearly with the shoe on the other foot they'd be crying and arguing how BL/infestor and Mothership/Carrier is so "fun to watch" LOL
Lucky for them that the unwatchable race barely makes ro8s anyway.
|
On March 14 2018 23:25 DomeGetta wrote:
It's pretty funny to me also to see the people whining now about how "unwatchable" it is - claiming to not care about the balance implication - clearly with the shoe on the other foot they'd be crying and arguing how BL/infestor and Mothership/Carrier is so "fun to watch" LOL As I said, mass infestor+mass spore is hard to watch after the first few times, and Mass carrier+mothership is not only hard to watch but incredibly frustrating to play against. And it absolutely is a strat, that low level players do on ladder all the time (unlike mass raven). Hell, i do it as an offrace protoss in diamond, even though i dont know most P hotkeys to this day, i can win easily if i ever get up to that comp. Not that my offrace stats have any meaning balance wise.
|
On March 14 2018 22:59 Fango wrote:Yes all the races have good players, so you'd expect all three to get decent results right? Which isn't the case. By any measure, zerg is overperforming and terran is underperforming. That's why one is getting nerfed and the other isn't. The last 7 premier tournaments have had either ZvZ or ZvP final. With zerg winning 5 of them (sure some people will ignore IEM pyeongchang due to the strange qualifying system). It'll be a miracle if this GSL isn't a ZvZ final for the first time since WoL. Even if you look at the few tournaments since 4.0: HSC XVI had one terran in the ro8, GSL Code S had one terran in the ro8, WCS Leipzig had one terran in the ro8, and IEM katowice had 2 terrans in the ro12. It's obvious which race is weaker.
Innovation playing arrogant in last weeks has nothing to do with balance. TY losing to alive in GSL (while if he wins he could have knocked out soO) has again nothing to with balance. In foreign scene obviously there will be a P or Z in the finals, because of Neeb, Serral and the fact foreign scene has not one single strong terran. Remember when Dreamhacks, IEM's HSC's always had someone like Taeja or Polt? That again has nothing to do with balance.
If the best players are not doing well, its because the players themselvs are not performing. Those 12 players i mentioned are imo totally capable of beating each other on a good day. Would we even have this conversation if Innovation would have wrecked almost every tournament like last year?
|
On March 14 2018 23:33 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 23:25 DomeGetta wrote:
It's pretty funny to me also to see the people whining now about how "unwatchable" it is - claiming to not care about the balance implication - clearly with the shoe on the other foot they'd be crying and arguing how BL/infestor and Mothership/Carrier is so "fun to watch" LOL As I said, mass infestor+mass spore is hard to watch after the first few times, and Mass carrier+mothership is not only hard to watch but incredibly frustrating to play against. And it absolutely is a strat, that low level players do on ladder all the time (unlike mass raven). Hell, i do it as an offrace protoss in diamond, even though i dont know most P hotkeys to this day, i can win easily if i ever get up to that comp. Not that my offrace stats have any meaning balance wise.
Yah - so my point is - to the people crying about "omg terrible design - terrible to watch" - where is your uproar about all the shit Protoss and Zerg has had for the history of the game that takes no skill to micro and is terrible to watch? Why are you not proposing nerfs to these to go along with a Raven nerf? Nah - because that might impact your MMR a few tiers - and forget that right? Instead you'll search for any possible reason to bait the forums and the balance team into nerfing currently worst performing race - wonder what the next one will be.
|
On March 14 2018 23:37 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 22:59 Fango wrote:On March 14 2018 21:02 kajtarp wrote:
Yes all the races have good players, so you'd expect all three to get decent results right? Which isn't the case. By any measure, zerg is overperforming and terran is underperforming. That's why one is getting nerfed and the other isn't. The last 7 premier tournaments have had either ZvZ or ZvP final. With zerg winning 5 of them (sure some people will ignore IEM pyeongchang due to the strange qualifying system). It'll be a miracle if this GSL isn't a ZvZ final for the first time since WoL. Even if you look at the few tournaments since 4.0: HSC XVI had one terran in the ro8, GSL Code S had one terran in the ro8, WCS Leipzig had one terran in the ro8, and IEM katowice had 2 terrans in the ro12. It's obvious which race is weaker. Innovation playing arrogant in last weeks has nothing to do with balance. TY losing to alive in GSL (while if he wins he could have knocked out soO) has again nothing to with balance. In foreign scene obviously there will be a P or Z in the finals, because of Neeb, Serral and the fact foreign scene has not one single strong terran. Remember when Dreamhacks, IEM's HSC's always had someone like Taeja or Polt? That again has nothing to do with balance. If the best players are not doing well, its because the players themselvs are not performing. Those 12 players i mentioned are imo totally capable of beating each other on a good day. Would we even have this conversation if Innovation would have wrecked almost every tournament like last year?
Actually can't tell if this is a for serious post. He throws up factual information - and your explanation is: "innovation is playing arrogant" Ty lost to alive.. OBVIOUSLY there can never be a dominant foreign Terran right? Because the race is hard to play. Remember Taeja and Polt? What if innovation won everything??! (but - he didn't tho..)
|
On March 14 2018 23:40 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 23:33 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 14 2018 23:25 DomeGetta wrote:
It's pretty funny to me also to see the people whining now about how "unwatchable" it is - claiming to not care about the balance implication - clearly with the shoe on the other foot they'd be crying and arguing how BL/infestor and Mothership/Carrier is so "fun to watch" LOL As I said, mass infestor+mass spore is hard to watch after the first few times, and Mass carrier+mothership is not only hard to watch but incredibly frustrating to play against. And it absolutely is a strat, that low level players do on ladder all the time (unlike mass raven). Hell, i do it as an offrace protoss in diamond, even though i dont know most P hotkeys to this day, i can win easily if i ever get up to that comp. Not that my offrace stats have any meaning balance wise. Yah - so my point is - to the people crying about "omg terrible design - terrible to watch" - where is your uproar about all the shit Protoss and Zerg has had for the history of the game that takes no skill to micro and is terrible to watch? Why are you not proposing nerfs to these to go along with a Raven nerf? Nah - because that might impact your MMR a few tiers - and forget that right? Instead you'll search for any possible reason to bait the forums and the balance team into nerfing currently worst performing race - wonder what the next one will be.
This so much. So many absurd things in the game and they whine about Ravens and pretend that Carriers, Parasitic bomb and Nydus is just fine.
|
I'm happy to see they are not instantly nuking ravens. While I think almost everyone here would agree that in the current state the raven design is probably not the greatest, I do think most people would also agree that terran's lategame is in a terrible spot in the lategame without it. For years now people have told Terrans to "kill the player before he gets the deathball" or Terrans just have been forced to deal with splitting against stuff like psionic storm. It feels really silly that after two weeks of terran players having some sort of really hard to beat lategame army, it's nerfed without questioning.
If they are to nerf the raven or rework it, blizzard needs to seriously look at terran lategame. It's okay that they don't get a top tier lategame army to turtle up to, but the state without ravens of terran lategame is just terrible. It's so frustrating when you realize that you are just fucked if you don't win before protoss maxes out. That design is simply way too extreme.
|
On March 14 2018 23:40 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 23:33 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 14 2018 23:25 DomeGetta wrote:
It's pretty funny to me also to see the people whining now about how "unwatchable" it is - claiming to not care about the balance implication - clearly with the shoe on the other foot they'd be crying and arguing how BL/infestor and Mothership/Carrier is so "fun to watch" LOL As I said, mass infestor+mass spore is hard to watch after the first few times, and Mass carrier+mothership is not only hard to watch but incredibly frustrating to play against. And it absolutely is a strat, that low level players do on ladder all the time (unlike mass raven). Hell, i do it as an offrace protoss in diamond, even though i dont know most P hotkeys to this day, i can win easily if i ever get up to that comp. Not that my offrace stats have any meaning balance wise. Yah - so my point is - to the people crying about "omg terrible design - terrible to watch" - where is your uproar about all the shit Protoss and Zerg has had for the history of the game that takes no skill to micro and is terrible to watch? Why are you not proposing nerfs to these to go along with a Raven nerf? Nah - because that might impact your MMR a few tiers - and forget that right? Instead you'll search for any possible reason to bait the forums and the balance team into nerfing currently worst performing race - wonder what the next one will be. it s a bit of a stretch to say people arent complaining about carriers (i personally contributed a lot to this campaign) or infestors, open any live report thread and it is filled with it. And in the balance update threads it comes up every time, this one included. obviously, since the object of the update would have been the raven, it is naturally the central point of discussion. As ravens go, i stated that i dont give that much of a shit about missiles, tho i support the reasoning behind nerfing them, and resent the Terran whining about it.
|
[QUOTE]On March 15 2018 00:07 Geo.Rion wrote: [QUOTE]On March 14 2018 23:40 DomeGetta wrote: [QUOTE]On March 14 2018 23:33 Geo.Rion wrote: [QUOTE]On March 14 2018 23:25 DomeGetta wrote:
It's pretty funny to me also to see the people whining now about how "unwatchable" it is - claiming to not care about the balance implication - clearly with the shoe on the other foot they'd be crying and arguing how BL/infestor and Mothership/Carrier is so "fun to watch" LOL[/QUOTE] As I said, mass infestor+mass spore is hard to watch after the first few times, and Mass carrier+mothership is not only hard to watch but incredibly frustrating to play against. And it absolutely is a strat, that low level players do on ladder all the time (unlike mass raven). Hell, i do it as an offrace protoss in diamond, even though i dont know most P hotkeys to this day, i can win easily if i ever get up to that comp. Not that my offrace stats have any meaning balance wise.[/QUOTE]
Yah - so my point is - to the people crying about "omg terrible design - terrible to watch" - where is your uproar about all the shit Protoss and Zerg has had for the history of the game that takes no skill to micro and is terrible to watch? Why are you not proposing nerfs to these to go along with a Raven nerf? Nah - because that might impact your MMR a few tiers - and forget that right? Instead you'll search for any possible reason to bait the forums and the balance team into nerfing currently worst performing race - wonder what the next one will be.[/QUOTE] it s a bit of a stretch to say people arent complaining about carriers (i personally contributed a lot to this campaign) or infestors, open any live report thread and it is filled with it. And in the balance update threads it comes up every time, this one included. obviously, since the object of the update would have been the raven, it is naturally the central point of discussion. As ravens go, i stated that i dont give that much of a shit about missiles, tho i support the reasoning behind nerfing them, and resent the Terran whining about it.[/QUOTE
The illllllogic is real. You just called my post a stretch while accidentally affirming it.
Quote a single post in this thread (including the one you just made) where the author cries about Raven design but ALSO proposes a nerf to their own races late game? "i support the reasoning behing nerfing them, an resent the Terran whining about it." So you support nerfing Terrans "bullshit" independent of the fact that it will be nerfing the already worst performing race - and you think they should do it while leaving alone Protoss and Zergs bullshit - or you have a proposal for a fitting nerf for each Protoss and Zerg's Tier 3 that will make late game closer to balanced?
Either you dislike the bullshit or you don't - you can't selectively dislike it - saying "well I hate spore/infestor also.." is well and good - but unless the balance discussion becomes something that includes all 3 races - it's not logical to call Terran players "whiners" because they want a chance to win after 15 min in the game lol - you must see how ridiculous this sounds.
Am I dreaming or do the proposed changes have any tier 3 nerfs in there for Protoss or Zerg? Terran is "whining?" because they are calling bullshit on nerfing the race with the worst late game? Please explain - I'm interested in your circular logic.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On March 15 2018 00:00 Jerom wrote: I'm happy to see they are not instantly nuking ravens. While I think almost everyone here would agree that in the current state the raven design is probably not the greatest, I do think most people would also agree that terran's lategame is in a terrible spot in the lategame without it. For years now people have told Terrans to "kill the player before he gets the deathball" or Terrans just have been forced to deal with splitting against stuff like psionic storm. It feels really silly that after two weeks of terran players having some sort of really hard to beat lategame army, it's nerfed without questioning.
If they are to nerf the raven or rework it, blizzard needs to seriously look at terran lategame. It's okay that they don't get a top tier lategame army to turtle up to, but the state without ravens of terran lategame is just terrible. It's so frustrating when you realize that you are just fucked if you don't win before protoss maxes out. That design is simply way too extreme. Can you link me to a game, where a Terran pro was splitting something really slow against storms? Would love to see that. (as the AAM is designated to fight slow flying fortresses)
And just a small thingy, storm doesn't stack, AAM does.
|
Thus, we wanted to bring the spell back in line with its original intent, to make it feel truer to its intended role, and eventually move the power it lost elsewhere in the Terran army. This could be in the form of direct late game power. Or perhaps this power could be directed more towards the mid-game, which would allow Terran players to transition more easily or delay an opponent’s transition.
Hey Blizzard. The point is, Terran is extremely weak at this moment. Only 1 Terran made the Ro8 in the GSL. Only 2 Terran made the playoffs at IEM. The Viking buff was a nice gesture to complement the nerf to the anti-armor missile. But Terrran is struggling hard right now, especially against Protoss. Acknowledge that Terran is weak, and make changes to balance the matchup. When you do that, I think the nerf to the anti-armor missile and buff to the Viking will be reasonable.
Also, Protoss late game is very strong. The anti-armor missile as it is now simply makes it possible for Terran to win. But Protoss late game is still stronger than Terran.
|
On March 15 2018 00:18 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 00:00 Jerom wrote: I'm happy to see they are not instantly nuking ravens. While I think almost everyone here would agree that in the current state the raven design is probably not the greatest, I do think most people would also agree that terran's lategame is in a terrible spot in the lategame without it. For years now people have told Terrans to "kill the player before he gets the deathball" or Terrans just have been forced to deal with splitting against stuff like psionic storm. It feels really silly that after two weeks of terran players having some sort of really hard to beat lategame army, it's nerfed without questioning.
If they are to nerf the raven or rework it, blizzard needs to seriously look at terran lategame. It's okay that they don't get a top tier lategame army to turtle up to, but the state without ravens of terran lategame is just terrible. It's so frustrating when you realize that you are just fucked if you don't win before protoss maxes out. That design is simply way too extreme. Can you link me to a game, where a Terran pro was splitting something really slow against storms? Would love to see that. (as the AAM is designated to fight slow flying fortresses) And just a small thingy, storm doesn't stack, AAM does. It's surely different, and the raven surely is a bit over the top, but it just seems extremely inconsistent to nerf something like this within weeks. Terrans have to split their vikings against all sorts of stuff including storms, fungal and parasitic bomb, and they can actually pull this off somewhat after practise. I don't feel like going through VODs to find poor splits against storms. I thought it's common knowledge that storms sometimes just obliterate a terran army? I've seen it happen countless times. I haven't really seen people put a lot of effort into actually presplitting against AAM, I haven't seen protoss players getting skilled at feedbacking the ravens. I actually skimmed over the maru vs stats game the other day and noticed that stats grouped up his entire army, that had a huge amount of useless tempests, and failed to actually control his high templar well to get any sort of feedback threat.
But it's just the sentiment: AAM is sure as hell a gimmicky and poorly designed ability, and maybe the eventual Raven deathball is really hard to beat, but there are similair abilities in the game that terran has had to deal with since the very beginning of the game. Fungal growth, storm, insane deathballs, parasitic bomb. The answer was always to kill the other player before it happens or to get better at splitting, yet the same logic doesn't apply to other races at all. Without the raven, terran is up against a way more frustrating deathball that's basically unbeatable, yet that is apperantly completely fine.
|
On March 14 2018 23:37 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 22:59 Fango wrote:On March 14 2018 21:02 kajtarp wrote:
Yes all the races have good players, so you'd expect all three to get decent results right? Which isn't the case. By any measure, zerg is overperforming and terran is underperforming. That's why one is getting nerfed and the other isn't. The last 7 premier tournaments have had either ZvZ or ZvP final. With zerg winning 5 of them (sure some people will ignore IEM pyeongchang due to the strange qualifying system). It'll be a miracle if this GSL isn't a ZvZ final for the first time since WoL. Even if you look at the few tournaments since 4.0: HSC XVI had one terran in the ro8, GSL Code S had one terran in the ro8, WCS Leipzig had one terran in the ro8, and IEM katowice had 2 terrans in the ro12. It's obvious which race is weaker. Innovation playing arrogant in last weeks has nothing to do with balance. TY losing to alive in GSL (while if he wins he could have knocked out soO) has again nothing to with balance. In foreign scene obviously there will be a P or Z in the finals, because of Neeb, Serral and the fact foreign scene has not one single strong terran. Remember when Dreamhacks, IEM's HSC's always had someone like Taeja or Polt? That again has nothing to do with balance. If the best players are not doing well, its because the players themselvs are not performing. Those 12 players i mentioned are imo totally capable of beating each other on a good day. Would we even have this conversation if Innovation would have wrecked almost every tournament like last year? Agreed, terran players just suck. They should suck it up and just play as good as Protoss and Zerg players, then they will win again.
Same thing happened in the BL/Infestor era. If Mvp had won every single tournament back then nobody would have considered it OP. Players just need to git gud!
|
While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply.
|
On March 15 2018 00:56 Nars_ wrote: While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply. Actually the exact same thing happened with the Stalker nerf. It wasn't implemented at first solely because of protoss whine. Probably same with Raven and they will just nerf it later.
|
I have no opinion about the proposed changes, my balance thinking is mostly about the state of PvZ late game; mass spores vs mass carriers and whoever attacks first auto loses, it seems very lame to me.
|
On March 14 2018 23:37 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 22:59 Fango wrote:On March 14 2018 21:02 kajtarp wrote:
Yes all the races have good players, so you'd expect all three to get decent results right? Which isn't the case. By any measure, zerg is overperforming and terran is underperforming. That's why one is getting nerfed and the other isn't. The last 7 premier tournaments have had either ZvZ or ZvP final. With zerg winning 5 of them (sure some people will ignore IEM pyeongchang due to the strange qualifying system). It'll be a miracle if this GSL isn't a ZvZ final for the first time since WoL. Even if you look at the few tournaments since 4.0: HSC XVI had one terran in the ro8, GSL Code S had one terran in the ro8, WCS Leipzig had one terran in the ro8, and IEM katowice had 2 terrans in the ro12. It's obvious which race is weaker. Innovation playing arrogant in last weeks has nothing to do with balance. TY losing to alive in GSL (while if he wins he could have knocked out soO) has again nothing to with balance. In foreign scene obviously there will be a P or Z in the finals, because of Neeb, Serral and the fact foreign scene has not one single strong terran. Remember when Dreamhacks, IEM's HSC's always had someone like Taeja or Polt? That again has nothing to do with balance. If the best players are not doing well, its because the players themselvs are not performing. Those 12 players i mentioned are imo totally capable of beating each other on a good day. Would we even have this conversation if Innovation would have wrecked almost every tournament like last year?
I agree, every terran player that isn't Maru just happened to start underperforming when patch 4.0 happened. Nothing to do with the balance.
Also you know when Innovation started destroying last year we did complain, and terran got nerfed as a result right? After that all three races were getting far in tournaments. This year zerg is clearly doing better than P and a lot better than T.
|
On March 15 2018 00:56 Nars_ wrote: While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply.
It's either that or "blizz nerf anything if people whine enough".
|
On March 15 2018 01:04 xTJx wrote: I have no opinion about the proposed changes, my balance thinking is mostly about the state of PvZ late game; mass spores vs mass carriers and whoever attacks first auto loses, it seems very lame to me. The root of the problem is the strength of mass air armies but for some reason Blizzard refused to adress this or even acknowledge it as a problem.
|
On March 15 2018 00:16 DomeGetta wrote:
The illllllogic is real. You just called my post a stretch while accidentally affirming it.
Quote a single post in this thread (including the one you just made) where the author cries about Raven design but ALSO proposes a nerf to their own races late game? "i support the reasoning behing nerfing them, an resent the Terran whining about it." So you support nerfing Terrans "bullshit" independent of the fact that it will be nerfing the already worst performing race - and you think they should do it while leaving alone Protoss and Zergs bullshit - or you have a proposal for a fitting nerf for each Protoss and Zerg's Tier 3 that will make late game closer to balanced?
Either you dislike the bullshit or you don't - you can't selectively dislike it - saying "well I hate spore/infestor also.." is well and good - but unless the balance discussion becomes something that includes all 3 races - it's not logical to call Terran players "whiners" because they want a chance to win after 15 min in the game lol - you must see how ridiculous this sounds.
Am I dreaming or do the proposed changes have any tier 3 nerfs in there for Protoss or Zerg? Terran is "whining?" because they are calling bullshit on nerfing the race with the worst late game? Please explain - I'm interested in your circular logic.
Couple of things 1. One of my original points was that, sadly, whining about balance actually works, as proven by this very patch-note that was retracted. So, no, i wont say certain Zerg unit is overpowered, cuz i dont want to add my voice to the counter-campaign, even if I felt like it was the case (and it is not the case). If you need a quote from me dishing skytoss/carriers, that s most of my post history since I came back to this site after a long break + Show Spoiler +(exaggerating a bit, but seriously, fuck carriers) . 2. I dislike bullshit/ mechanics that make the game boring or onesided MUs. That being said, i will never stop calling terran whiners whiners, because it was about hightime they taste their own medicine. While they dominated every top8 and won most titles for a long period, it was a game about skill, where terrans happened to have the most talent. It was so frustrating i quit the game in WoL, and never bothered to buy HOTS or LOTV. Now that they arent doing so hot, it s all about the balance. 3. For me there s quite a difference between my own ladder experience, and my viewer experience. For one, ZvtT is my worst matchup by a mile, way below 50%. Not because of mass ravens, but because all the other bullshit. So from that viewpoint, i couldnt give a shit about ravens, but i want terrans to be hit so maybe my own ladder experience would improve. As a viewer, i would enjoy Terrans doing better vs Protoss, because A. i like to watch high level ZvT, B. recent public tournament stats seem to suggest P have the edge in that particular MU. The highest caliber tournament of the last several months had these stats (444 games): exactly 50-50 PvZ, 50-50 TvZ, 53.5-46.5 PvT. If you look at just the main tournament games (191), the stats arent so nice, but the biggest outlier is still PvT, with 57.8%-42.2%.
Most recent GSL stats? Clear trend of P >>>T >> Z>P ZvP 53.5% TvZ 56.7% PvT 57.9%
The trend is clear, it s a volatile scene, but P seems to have the edge vs Terran in every aspect.
So when i look at that as a viewer, i say, yeah Terran needs help against Protoss, but wihtout buffing them in TvZ, cuz data supports they have no need for that.
Plus, i also want enjoyable games. I dislike cheese, and i dislike (repated) starving out/camping games. some cheese is cool, some games of guerilla warfare vs deathball skytoss is cool. Seeing lot of either of those kills the experience for me. Blizz did a decent job (well, compared to WOL at least, lol) at quelling the cheese-meta, in no small part due to the map pool, the very least 1 base allins are few and far between, and 2 base allin sometimes can look to a viewer as a normal strat that happens to win earlier than expected, or sometimes those allin games go onto being normal games, so it s fine.
Zerg tier 3 does not need nerf, zergs arent winning the tournaments because they're camping/defending till they have broodlords, and then rofl to the win. Most finals/seminfinals have 1 game that goes super late and 2-4 that end in early/midgame.
The only lategame strat, that once you get there seems impossible to beat is having the map covered in creep, 100 crawlers and 40 infestors with some spire units. yeah, that s a mission impossible (having some spores, and some infestors and some other units is not the same as what i ve just wrote). I ve seen that done on screen maybe 3 or 4 times. Mass ravens have been so far similarly rare, with the important distinction that their new spell is quite fresh out of the oven, and the meta might not have caught up yet. And terran is excelent at camping, if the "research" is in, and Koreans say that s the way to go, very soon every pro T is going camping with tanks+PF+Viking into mass ravens. I for one, as a viewer, dont want it to go there, so i support in principal the nerf, in the meantime, open to other changes which help out T against the midgame protoss. + Show Spoiler +zealot legs, archons, something?)
|
On March 15 2018 00:56 Nars_ wrote: While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply. i don't think they can. had the final 16 of the GSL been all Terran then they'd be getting nerfed no matter how much whining there was by Terrans.
|
On March 15 2018 02:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 00:56 Nars_ wrote: While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply. i don't think they can. had the final 16 of the GSL been all Terran then they'd be getting nerfed no matter how much whining there was by Terrans.
Remember GomTvT?
|
On March 15 2018 00:56 Nars_ wrote: While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply.
That's probably why 2 of the 3 core terran bio units got nerfed hard (maraudeurs, mines), i guess.
|
On March 15 2018 01:14 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 01:04 xTJx wrote: I have no opinion about the proposed changes, my balance thinking is mostly about the state of PvZ late game; mass spores vs mass carriers and whoever attacks first auto loses, it seems very lame to me. The root of the problem is the strength of mass air armies but for some reason Blizzard refused to adress this or even acknowledge it as a problem.
That. Mass air armies with proper support (templars/viper-spores/etc) is OP and boring af. So only similar OP things like ravens can challenge theses plays, and we are in a vicious circle.
Blizard usual way to fix this is to nerf one race mas air/turtle comp but not the other, so one race have to win on a timer. Generally they nerf terran. And, even as a Terran player, that was not as bad as a solution when Terran was strong in mid-game (ie when no OP infestors in TvZ, for example). At least thaht forced very dynamic T2 games. But nowdays, with hydras and double forge, Terran midgame is so weak "killing it before T3" only works if the T player is way way ahead from early-game. Ghosts are strong vs Z (but induce turtle play by design), but the raven BS was the only hope vs late game toss.
|
Pitiful. Might as well disband the dev team and let PMs handle the balance.
User was warned for this post
|
On March 15 2018 02:13 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 00:16 DomeGetta wrote:
The illllllogic is real. You just called my post a stretch while accidentally affirming it.
Quote a single post in this thread (including the one you just made) where the author cries about Raven design but ALSO proposes a nerf to their own races late game? "i support the reasoning behing nerfing them, an resent the Terran whining about it." So you support nerfing Terrans "bullshit" independent of the fact that it will be nerfing the already worst performing race - and you think they should do it while leaving alone Protoss and Zergs bullshit - or you have a proposal for a fitting nerf for each Protoss and Zerg's Tier 3 that will make late game closer to balanced?
Either you dislike the bullshit or you don't - you can't selectively dislike it - saying "well I hate spore/infestor also.." is well and good - but unless the balance discussion becomes something that includes all 3 races - it's not logical to call Terran players "whiners" because they want a chance to win after 15 min in the game lol - you must see how ridiculous this sounds.
Am I dreaming or do the proposed changes have any tier 3 nerfs in there for Protoss or Zerg? Terran is "whining?" because they are calling bullshit on nerfing the race with the worst late game? Please explain - I'm interested in your circular logic.
Couple of things 1. One of my original points was that, sadly, whining about balance actually works, as proven by this very patch-note that was retracted. So, no, i wont say certain Zerg unit is overpowered, cuz i dont want to add my voice to the counter-campaign, even if I felt like it was the case (and it is not the case). If you need a quote from me dishing skytoss/carriers, that s most of my post history since I came back to this site after a long break + Show Spoiler +(exaggerating a bit, but seriously, fuck carriers) . 2. I dislike bullshit/ mechanics that make the game boring or onesided MUs. That being said, i will never stop calling terran whiners whiners, because it was about hightime they taste their own medicine. While they dominated every top8 and won most titles for a long period, it was a game about skill, where terrans happened to have the most talent. It was so frustrating i quit the game in WoL, and never bothered to buy HOTS or LOTV. Now that they arent doing so hot, it s all about the balance. 3. For me there s quite a difference between my own ladder experience, and my viewer experience. For one, ZvtT is my worst matchup by a mile, way below 50%. Not because of mass ravens, but because all the other bullshit. So from that viewpoint, i couldnt give a shit about ravens, but i want terrans to be hit so maybe my own ladder experience would improve. As a viewer, i would enjoy Terrans doing better vs Protoss, because A. i like to watch high level ZvT, B. recent public tournament stats seem to suggest P have the edge in that particular MU. The highest caliber tournament of the last several months had these stats (444 games): exactly 50-50 PvZ, 50-50 TvZ, 53.5-46.5 PvT.If you look at just the main tournament games (191), the stats arent so nice, but the biggest outlier is still PvT, with 57.8%-42.2%. Most recent GSL stats? Clear trend of P >>>T >> Z>P ZvP 53.5% TvZ 56.7% PvT 57.9% The trend is clear, it s a volatile scene, but P seems to have the edge vs Terran in every aspect. So when i look at that as a viewer, i say, yeah Terran needs help against Protoss, but wihtout buffing them in TvZ, cuz data supports they have no need for that. Plus, i also want enjoyable games. I dislike cheese, and i dislike (repated) starving out/camping games. some cheese is cool, some games of guerilla warfare vs deathball skytoss is cool. Seeing lot of either of those kills the experience for me. Blizz did a decent job (well, compared to WOL at least, lol) at quelling the cheese-meta, in no small part due to the map pool, the very least 1 base allins are few and far between, and 2 base allin sometimes can look to a viewer as a normal strat that happens to win earlier than expected, or sometimes those allin games go onto being normal games, so it s fine. Zerg tier 3 does not need nerf, zergs arent winning the tournaments because they're camping/defending till they have broodlords, and then rofl to the win. Most finals/seminfinals have 1 game that goes super late and 2-4 that end in early/midgame. The only lategame strat, that once you get there seems impossible to beat is having the map covered in creep, 100 crawlers and 40 infestors with some spire units. yeah, that s a mission impossible (having some spores, and some infestors and some other units is not the same as what i ve just wrote). I ve seen that done on screen maybe 3 or 4 times. Mass ravens have been so far similarly rare, with the important distinction that their new spell is quite fresh out of the oven, and the meta might not have caught up yet. And terran is excelent at camping, if the "research" is in, and Koreans say that s the way to go, very soon every pro T is going camping with tanks+PF+Viking into mass ravens. I for one, as a viewer, dont want it to go there, so i support in principal the nerf, in the meantime, open to other changes which help out T against the midgame protoss. + Show Spoiler +zealot legs, archons, something?)
Just saying, your stats conveniently include pre Stalker nerf matches.
|
On March 15 2018 03:00 yangluphil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:13 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 15 2018 00:16 DomeGetta wrote:
The illllllogic is real. You just called my post a stretch while accidentally affirming it.
Quote a single post in this thread (including the one you just made) where the author cries about Raven design but ALSO proposes a nerf to their own races late game? "i support the reasoning behing nerfing them, an resent the Terran whining about it." So you support nerfing Terrans "bullshit" independent of the fact that it will be nerfing the already worst performing race - and you think they should do it while leaving alone Protoss and Zergs bullshit - or you have a proposal for a fitting nerf for each Protoss and Zerg's Tier 3 that will make late game closer to balanced?
Either you dislike the bullshit or you don't - you can't selectively dislike it - saying "well I hate spore/infestor also.." is well and good - but unless the balance discussion becomes something that includes all 3 races - it's not logical to call Terran players "whiners" because they want a chance to win after 15 min in the game lol - you must see how ridiculous this sounds.
Am I dreaming or do the proposed changes have any tier 3 nerfs in there for Protoss or Zerg? Terran is "whining?" because they are calling bullshit on nerfing the race with the worst late game? Please explain - I'm interested in your circular logic.
Couple of things 1. One of my original points was that, sadly, whining about balance actually works, as proven by this very patch-note that was retracted. So, no, i wont say certain Zerg unit is overpowered, cuz i dont want to add my voice to the counter-campaign, even if I felt like it was the case (and it is not the case). If you need a quote from me dishing skytoss/carriers, that s most of my post history since I came back to this site after a long break + Show Spoiler +(exaggerating a bit, but seriously, fuck carriers) . 2. I dislike bullshit/ mechanics that make the game boring or onesided MUs. That being said, i will never stop calling terran whiners whiners, because it was about hightime they taste their own medicine. While they dominated every top8 and won most titles for a long period, it was a game about skill, where terrans happened to have the most talent. It was so frustrating i quit the game in WoL, and never bothered to buy HOTS or LOTV. Now that they arent doing so hot, it s all about the balance. 3. For me there s quite a difference between my own ladder experience, and my viewer experience. For one, ZvtT is my worst matchup by a mile, way below 50%. Not because of mass ravens, but because all the other bullshit. So from that viewpoint, i couldnt give a shit about ravens, but i want terrans to be hit so maybe my own ladder experience would improve. As a viewer, i would enjoy Terrans doing better vs Protoss, because A. i like to watch high level ZvT, B. recent public tournament stats seem to suggest P have the edge in that particular MU. The highest caliber tournament of the last several months had these stats (444 games): exactly 50-50 PvZ, 50-50 TvZ, 53.5-46.5 PvT.If you look at just the main tournament games (191), the stats arent so nice, but the biggest outlier is still PvT, with 57.8%-42.2%. Most recent GSL stats? Clear trend of P >>>T >> Z>P ZvP 53.5% TvZ 56.7% PvT 57.9% The trend is clear, it s a volatile scene, but P seems to have the edge vs Terran in every aspect. So when i look at that as a viewer, i say, yeah Terran needs help against Protoss, but wihtout buffing them in TvZ, cuz data supports they have no need for that. Plus, i also want enjoyable games. I dislike cheese, and i dislike (repated) starving out/camping games. some cheese is cool, some games of guerilla warfare vs deathball skytoss is cool. Seeing lot of either of those kills the experience for me. Blizz did a decent job (well, compared to WOL at least, lol) at quelling the cheese-meta, in no small part due to the map pool, the very least 1 base allins are few and far between, and 2 base allin sometimes can look to a viewer as a normal strat that happens to win earlier than expected, or sometimes those allin games go onto being normal games, so it s fine. Zerg tier 3 does not need nerf, zergs arent winning the tournaments because they're camping/defending till they have broodlords, and then rofl to the win. Most finals/seminfinals have 1 game that goes super late and 2-4 that end in early/midgame. The only lategame strat, that once you get there seems impossible to beat is having the map covered in creep, 100 crawlers and 40 infestors with some spire units. yeah, that s a mission impossible (having some spores, and some infestors and some other units is not the same as what i ve just wrote). I ve seen that done on screen maybe 3 or 4 times. Mass ravens have been so far similarly rare, with the important distinction that their new spell is quite fresh out of the oven, and the meta might not have caught up yet. And terran is excelent at camping, if the "research" is in, and Koreans say that s the way to go, very soon every pro T is going camping with tanks+PF+Viking into mass ravens. I for one, as a viewer, dont want it to go there, so i support in principal the nerf, in the meantime, open to other changes which help out T against the midgame protoss. + Show Spoiler +zealot legs, archons, something?) Just saying, your stats conveniently include pre Stalker nerf matches. they do? i ve looked at the 2 most recent high-level tournaments, GSL (currently running), and iEM Katowice, both played out after the patch, afaik. I guess some o the preliminary games were on the old patch?
|
On March 15 2018 00:56 Nars_ wrote: While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply. It does not.
|
Seems like the trend continues on WESG.
Special is out winning a single map against Zergs, uThermal on his way out. Only Maru in ro16? Hope we all enjoy another pvz and zvz till final.
Maybe it is time to help Terrans instead of thinking how to nerf them.
|
On March 15 2018 17:44 TW wrote: Seems like the trend continues on WESG.
Special is out winning a single map against Zergs, uThermal on his way out. Only Maru in ro16? Hope we all enjoy another pvz and zvz till final.
Maybe it is time to help Terrans instead of thinking how to nerf them.
Nice preemptive whine, impressive how every single one of your sentences is wrong: 1.Special won 5 maps against Zerg. 2. uThermal has a good chance of qualifying, he had a close series against Classic, who now pwned Neeb, so as long as he can beat Neeb, he s through. 3. This is the ro16, so no. But yeah, Maru is the only one who has any chance against this field, that much is true. 4. from the amount of salt that dips from your post, i would conclude that you wont enjoy such a final, and you dont sincerely hope for the rest of us to enjoy the final either. Also, what will you do if the finals is PvT? tatoo a zerg logo on your forehead? deal?
|
Keep Raven as it is.
Or
Significantly buff the battlecruiser. Maybe yamato deals AoE now or something.
|
In some regard, what baffles me is that blizzard doesn't make public some kind of statistical representation of the balance of SC2 to justify their positions. Wouldn't be hard to make, for instance taking the win ratio against every race of every "active" player on the ladder (or up from a certain league), only taking into account games that last more than 1 minute. I even doubt that the dev team has such metrics at its disposition, since the 4.0 patch was such a disaster. Especially in regard to their apparent obliviousness to the fact that shifting power away from the raven and the mine towards other units isn't going to happen by nerfing mines and ravens into the ground and giving 10HP to the viking and the cyclone a useless AA upgrade, as well as the blatant oppressiveness of the queen that's been plaguing the game since the 8 range buff.
What's even more confusing is how they seemed to take very effective and interesting decisions post 4.0 (reduction of the cost of the terran's factory upgrades, ghost buff, reverting the chrono to 50% over 20 secs, etc.) and that the march community update are basically :
"We wanted to turn the raven into a support caster, but because we failed to redistribute some of its power while heavily nerfing it, we unintentionally made it as oppressive as it was before. Our plan now, is to nerf it back to a useless state while granting a 10 HP buff on the viking which, because of its atrocious overall stats, isn't doing its job : allowing it to survive 1 more corruptor or interceptor shot is sure to solve the issue"
|
not sure why but everytime I look at a blizzard update (I've stopped following the game tho I'm only looking from time to time) it's basically the "We'd like to slow things down" argument and it seems like it's not efficient at all ahah
|
On March 14 2018 07:48 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2018 04:27 Vutalisk wrote: Of course BZ will do anything to make sure Z will never win anything ever again after a single Z AKA Rogue managed to win BC and IEM back to back. God forbids soO is gonna win GSL and they will nerf Z back to stone age. Without overlord drop, the P and T just wall off and turtle up for days then go for greed. That will encourage "variety of builds" for sure. P goes stargate these days not just for defensive purposes but also before of map control. Don't just blame that on overlord drop. In what world is an opponent turtling something that a Zerg player complains about? Just double or even triple expand and murder them with a mid-game push.
On paper that makes sense but attacking a turtled terran or protoss with their batteries and siege tanks is retarded. What do you propose I kill them with?
|
On March 16 2018 02:37 Twine wrote: not sure why but everytime I look at a blizzard update (I've stopped following the game tho I'm only looking from time to time) it's basically the "We'd like to slow things down" argument and it seems like it's not efficient at all ahah
What, why would you even comment then? If you don't follow? The game is really fast so people saying slow it down is a just fine complaint. mostly a rush to tier three or conversely a push to kill you right before that time. People got sick of WoL because it was a turtle to late game. Now you just get that shit way faster. Like late game can be as quick as 9 minutes depending on how aggressive you play. The tools terran has had before the AAM were mostly the same as WoL only with the addition of the liberators.
Against zerg this has been alright because of how ghost liberators is and the fact that snipe hits everything zerg has and one hits it, except for corrupters, lurkers, ultras and queens. I skipped a few but you get the point. Zerg basically has to catch you with your pants down. But if you get caught you are gonna die and horribly. Because it usually isn't close when you lose.
Terran are finding it hard because their late game doesn't cut it straight up against protoss. Colossus, storm and carrier is way to much splash and terran before the missile had no way to survive against the double chrono upgrades with those tech options. Zerg shouldn't really complain about the raven corrupters can take on ravens fairly well with parasitic bomb and you just have to chase the ravens and get on top of them, the missle blows their shit up too. At the Super late game like before terrans can dominate but that is much rarer occurence.
|
I rather see Blizzard do something about cannon rush into proxy shield battery abuse.
If you do not defend it perfectly you die on the spot. And if you do defend it perfectly (which is hard since they can do so many variations of the cheese like void rays, tempest or warp prism immortals) Protoss are typically ahead in economy. How is that fair?
Why should Terran have to fight for their life just not to die on the spot and still come out behind?
Blizzard please stop giving Protoss defensive tools since they only result is that they will abuse them for different cheeses.
Cheeses are supposed to come with a downside. If they are defended the cheeser should be behind. For some reason this does not apply to Protoss.
|
git gud
User was warned for this post.
|
On March 15 2018 02:34 Nars_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 02:18 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On March 15 2018 00:56 Nars_ wrote: While I agree with Blizzard move on the ravens, it is funny that old "terran can whine their way out of every nerf" rule still apply. i don't think they can. had the final 16 of the GSL been all Terran then they'd be getting nerfed no matter how much whining there was by Terrans. Remember GomTvT? But come on now, back then the Terrans were just better than anyone else. All 14+ of them in the RO32 for multiple seasons in a row. Some of them had TheBest micro.
/s
|
but but if the raven gets nerf then what can people complain about that terran have then ?
|
I rather see Blizzard do something about cannon rush into proxy shield battery abuse.
If you do not defend it perfectly you die on the spot.
Do you have any vod ? never seen that before
|
On March 16 2018 04:22 MockHamill wrote: I rather see Blizzard do something about cannon rush into proxy shield battery abuse.
If you do not defend it perfectly you die on the spot. And if you do defend it perfectly (which is hard since they can do so many variations of the cheese like void rays, tempest or warp prism immortals) Protoss are typically ahead in economy. How is that fair?
Why should Terran have to fight for their life just not to die on the spot and still come out behind?
Blizzard please stop giving Protoss defensive tools since they only result is that they will abuse them for different cheeses.
Cheeses are supposed to come with a downside. If they are defended the cheeser should be behind. For some reason this does not apply to Protoss.
Cheese does come with a downside, though? If they invest 750 in cannons and another 400 in shield batteries, they won't really be able to expand (unless they aren't building any units at all)
If you hold, you're golden. And shield battery energy gets sucked absolutely dry in no time.
I'm not sure what you're looking for with these complaints? Do you want the shield battery to not exist? Do you then expect Protoss to not die to early pushes all the time? Because I feel like that's what would happen, now
|
On March 16 2018 06:37 reneg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 04:22 MockHamill wrote: I rather see Blizzard do something about cannon rush into proxy shield battery abuse.
If you do not defend it perfectly you die on the spot. And if you do defend it perfectly (which is hard since they can do so many variations of the cheese like void rays, tempest or warp prism immortals) Protoss are typically ahead in economy. How is that fair?
Why should Terran have to fight for their life just not to die on the spot and still come out behind?
Blizzard please stop giving Protoss defensive tools since they only result is that they will abuse them for different cheeses.
Cheeses are supposed to come with a downside. If they are defended the cheeser should be behind. For some reason this does not apply to Protoss. Cheese does come with a downside, though? If they invest 750 in cannons and another 400 in shield batteries, they won't really be able to expand (unless they aren't building any units at all) If you hold, you're golden. And shield battery energy gets sucked absolutely dry in no time. I'm not sure what you're looking for with these complaints? Do you want the shield battery to not exist? Do you then expect Protoss to not die to early pushes all the time? Because I feel like that's what would happen, now Some people proposed treating shield batteries like pylons in the sense that they would be stronger by the nexus. Specifically, they would start with 0 energy if far away.
Something like that would weaken proxy shield battery cheese without affecting the intended purpose.
|
On March 16 2018 09:19 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2018 06:37 reneg wrote:On March 16 2018 04:22 MockHamill wrote: I rather see Blizzard do something about cannon rush into proxy shield battery abuse.
If you do not defend it perfectly you die on the spot. And if you do defend it perfectly (which is hard since they can do so many variations of the cheese like void rays, tempest or warp prism immortals) Protoss are typically ahead in economy. How is that fair?
Why should Terran have to fight for their life just not to die on the spot and still come out behind?
Blizzard please stop giving Protoss defensive tools since they only result is that they will abuse them for different cheeses.
Cheeses are supposed to come with a downside. If they are defended the cheeser should be behind. For some reason this does not apply to Protoss. Cheese does come with a downside, though? If they invest 750 in cannons and another 400 in shield batteries, they won't really be able to expand (unless they aren't building any units at all) If you hold, you're golden. And shield battery energy gets sucked absolutely dry in no time. I'm not sure what you're looking for with these complaints? Do you want the shield battery to not exist? Do you then expect Protoss to not die to early pushes all the time? Because I feel like that's what would happen, now Some people proposed treating shield batteries like pylons in the sense that they would be stronger by the nexus. Specifically, they would start with 0 energy if far away. Something like that would weaken proxy shield battery cheese without affecting the intended purpose.
Ugh, I'm not a fan of ever increasing complicated rules: the building functions this way, unless it's next to this other building, or a transformed gateway, etc etc.
I like the way shield batteries function, one way to tweak them would increase the energy drained per point of shield restored. Make them function the same way, just drain faster.
|
Is Terran really this powerful?
|
I'm actually so, so sick of people saying that air units are too strong.
This isn't brood war...
There's nothing wrong with late game units like carriers and broodlords being strong.
The point is that they are weak and the start of the game, you can't go straight for them or you die. You transition into them as you head into the late game. There is nothing wrong with wanting the game to evolve into different unit interactions as the game goes on.
Part of the reason mass oracle was so good was because it allowed protoss to transition so fast into mass carrier...
|
On March 17 2018 00:42 youngjiddle wrote: I'm actually so, so sick of people saying that air units are too strong.
This isn't brood war...
There's nothing wrong with late game units like carriers and broodlords being strong.
The point is that they are weak and the start of the game, you can't go straight for them or you die. You transition into them as you head into the late game. There is nothing wrong with wanting the game to evolve into different unit interactions as the game goes on.
Part of the reason mass oracle was so good was because it allowed protoss to transition so fast into mass carrier...
So you find mass air vs air battles exciting? Lategame stalemates a la Neeb vs Rogue is what you want to see in SC2? You're actually the first person I've seen arguing in favor of mass air vs air stalemates being the dominant strategy in lategame
|
carriers are just the worst, so boring to watch
|
Can't get rid of or marginalize mass air without normalising static defense. Check how much the three races spend on static defense per game on average. Check how much the three races gain in damage from static defense per game on average. Balance that - either before or at the same time you look at mass air.
|
Let's face it, in SC2 mass air means horrible gameplay, with the most turtle-deathball gamestyle ever, 100s of spores/canons/turrets and hour long super boring games.
Actually the only fun mass air play from a viewer perspective is with mobile fast and non-deathball units, like mass mutas/phenix/speedshee/oracles. (still, it generally transition into deathaball mass air )
On March 16 2018 04:22 MockHamill wrote: I rather see Blizzard do something about cannon rush into proxy shield battery abuse.
If you do not defend it perfectly you die on the spot. And if you do defend it perfectly (which is hard since they can do so many variations of the cheese like void rays, tempest or warp prism immortals) Protoss are typically ahead in economy. How is that fair?
Why should Terran have to fight for their life just not to die on the spot and still come out behind?
Blizzard please stop giving Protoss defensive tools since they only result is that they will abuse them for different cheeses.
Cheeses are supposed to come with a downside. If they are defended the cheeser should be behind. For some reason this does not apply to Protoss. I'm all for addressing 2 toss rushs: photonrush and shield/VR abuse.
PhotonRush is actually super duper strong in PvP, and probably imba on some maps. Just watch CripSeil wining vs pros with it (and everyone know CripSeil photonush 100% of the time, yet most P pro usually loose). Protoss don't need super early photons to defend nowdays, so we could make the cyber (or gate?) required to build the forge. Only delete cancer play.
Then i'm all for making shield battery don't work with air units. 2in1 : nerfing proxy VR abuse and turtle air nonsens at the same time.
|
On March 17 2018 02:51 Aiobhill wrote: Can't get rid of or marginalize mass air without normalising static defense. Check how much the three races spend on static defense per game on average. Check how much the three races gain in damage from static defense per game on average. Balance that - either before or at the same time you look at mass air. I don't get at all what you want to say
|
On March 17 2018 02:00 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 00:42 youngjiddle wrote: I'm actually so, so sick of people saying that air units are too strong.
This isn't brood war...
There's nothing wrong with late game units like carriers and broodlords being strong.
The point is that they are weak and the start of the game, you can't go straight for them or you die. You transition into them as you head into the late game. There is nothing wrong with wanting the game to evolve into different unit interactions as the game goes on.
Part of the reason mass oracle was so good was because it allowed protoss to transition so fast into mass carrier...
So you find mass air vs air battles exciting? Lategame stalemates a la Neeb vs Rogue is what you want to see in SC2? You're actually the first person I've seen arguing in favor of mass air vs air stalemates being the dominant strategy in lategame
The point I was trying to make was to have the game balanced by letting late game units be strong, but difficult to get to. A game design (example) is a person who rushes BCs will be vulnerable to mid-game, mid-tier units compositions.
Balance is skewed when you have some maps like neon violet square that greatly favor terran mech super turtle mode, for example...
Also, watch Rouge destroy Classic late game by never letting him get a 5th-6th base up, it's not all sitting back and doing nothing.
Anyways, it's hard to defend my point after the team made changes to the game speed with the worker start, meaning there is a much tighter early game.
|
On March 17 2018 02:53 xongnox wrote: PhotonRush is actually super duper strong in PvP, and probably imba on some maps. Just watch CripSeil wining vs pros with it (and everyone know CripSeil photonush 100% of the time, yet most P pro usually loose). Protoss don't need super early photons to defend nowdays, so we could make the cyber (or gate?) required to build the forge. Only delete cancer play.
Please don't do that. It shuts down an entire set of potential openings. Forge first may not be in style in PvZ right now, but it needs to be a possibility to stop Zergs from playing crazy greedy. Without the threat of cannons, Zerg could double hatch before pool every game safely.
Both cannon rushes and proxy stargate/shield battery stuff can be stopped with scouting and appropriate preparation/reaction. In the past, if there has been a spot on a map that has shown to be too good for cannon rushing, it has usually been fixed. There have been very few cases of that ever happening because usually.
Shield battery rushes are no different than Protoss facing bunker-based all-ins. If you scout them and know what's happening, they are possible to stop, but if you don't scout them until after the bunkers are built, things become much more difficult to handle.
|
On March 17 2018 05:07 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 02:53 xongnox wrote: PhotonRush is actually super duper strong in PvP, and probably imba on some maps. Just watch CripSeil wining vs pros with it (and everyone know CripSeil photonush 100% of the time, yet most P pro usually loose). Protoss don't need super early photons to defend nowdays, so we could make the cyber (or gate?) required to build the forge. Only delete cancer play.
Please don't do that. It shuts down an entire set of potential openings. Forge first may not be in style in PvZ right now, but it needs to be a possibility to stop Zergs from playing crazy greedy. Without the threat of cannons, Zerg could double hatch before pool every game safely. If forge was the way to punish 3hatch before pool, you would see both forge and 3hatch in ANY pro games. What actually happens is that 3hatch isn't much if any better than hatch gas pool hatch vs gateway expand (because adepts wreck slowlings)
I wouldn't personally remove possibility of cannon rushing just based on the rule of "git gud", but is indeed one of the most infuriating things in PvP.
|
I really don't mind. I like the game as it evolves. Just keeps getting better.
|
On March 17 2018 05:07 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 02:53 xongnox wrote: PhotonRush is actually super duper strong in PvP, and probably imba on some maps. Just watch CripSeil wining vs pros with it (and everyone know CripSeil photonush 100% of the time, yet most P pro usually loose). Protoss don't need super early photons to defend nowdays, so we could make the cyber (or gate?) required to build the forge. Only delete cancer play.
Please don't do that. It shuts down an entire set of potential openings. Forge first may not be in style in PvZ right now, but it needs to be a possibility to stop Zergs from playing crazy greedy. Without the threat of cannons, Zerg could double hatch before pool every game safely. Both cannon rushes and proxy stargate/shield battery stuff can be stopped with scouting and appropriate preparation/reaction. In the past, if there has been a spot on a map that has shown to be too good for cannon rushing, it has usually been fixed. There have been very few cases of that ever happening because usually. Shield battery rushes are no different than Protoss facing bunker-based all-ins. If you scout them and know what's happening, they are possible to stop, but if you don't scout them until after the bunkers are built, things become much more difficult to handle.
-We never see forge PvZ openings in pro games yet 2hatchs before pool is nearly non-existent. In fact in LOTV it brings little to nothing for Z vs other greed openings. It slow down everything to get nearly nothing (more larva ? not really with way later queens). Btw i bet 2gates adepts opening into expand then oracle would be way better than canon rushing vs 2hatch before pool. Or maybe even the standard proxy stargate after FE.
-When you see CripSeil in action you understand LOTV canonrush is probably imba in PvP on most maps. Btw he's by far the best canonrusher in the world. He know every abusive spot on every map. He wins pro like DNS or Drogo, and they 100% know he will canonrush. TheMusZero is another GM photonrusher. He's not even good at it, but excels at the follow proxy BS+shield+canons.
Btw analogy with bunker rush vs P is very, very bad. Scouted bunker rax rushs is like auto-win for P. Even non-scouted it's very far for an automatic T win, even some 1base protoss play can do a lot (thx to WP and immortal mainly). In fact in LOV, i have only saw it works on 1 map with an abusive spot (neon violet) vs no-scout. SouL vs Stats. Bunker rush still need units in them, etc. It's not like a 14 probes dude spawning 4tower/minutes (that is, more healthpoints/sec than the DPS of 2 stalkers ) in you base off one building and zero unit. This shit is not even starcraft or decent RTS for me. Last but not least, bunker rush got a hard nerf (in early WOL, beta i think) by requiring supply before rax (yep, people bunker rushed with a rax at 6 back then, or you could do a 8/8 before depot). Back then, people would argue 8/8 bunker rush was a necessary way to meta-prevent the "way too greedy" 14 hatch first.
I don't know why pro players don't photonrush anymore in PvP. Kind of a gentleman agreement i guess. Last time i was it it was Zest, but he was as bad as ever at photonrushing. Maybe $o$ will bring it back one day and win some hundreds hundreds bucks for free.
|
On March 17 2018 04:40 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 02:00 Charoisaur wrote:On March 17 2018 00:42 youngjiddle wrote: I'm actually so, so sick of people saying that air units are too strong.
This isn't brood war...
There's nothing wrong with late game units like carriers and broodlords being strong.
The point is that they are weak and the start of the game, you can't go straight for them or you die. You transition into them as you head into the late game. There is nothing wrong with wanting the game to evolve into different unit interactions as the game goes on.
Part of the reason mass oracle was so good was because it allowed protoss to transition so fast into mass carrier...
So you find mass air vs air battles exciting? Lategame stalemates a la Neeb vs Rogue is what you want to see in SC2? You're actually the first person I've seen arguing in favor of mass air vs air stalemates being the dominant strategy in lategame The point I was trying to make was to have the game balanced by letting late game units be strong, but difficult to get to. A game design (example) is a person who rushes BCs will be vulnerable to mid-game, mid-tier units compositions. Balance is skewed when you have some maps like neon violet square that greatly favor terran mech super turtle mode, for example... Also, watch Rouge destroy Classic late game by never letting him get a 5th-6th base up, it's not all sitting back and doing nothing. Anyways, it's hard to defend my point after the team made changes to the game speed with the worker start, meaning there is a much tighter early game. I see your point and don't mind the concept of strong difficult to get to units but because of the way air units work in sc2 mass air vs air battles tend to be boring snorefests.
|
On March 15 2018 02:55 yangluphil wrote: Pitiful. Might as well disband the dev team and let PMs handle the balance.
User was warned for this post
I was warned for balance whining. Mod read: I'm all for buffing terran in other ways. But ravens as is need to change; you don't have to be a terran hater to see that. It's kind of obvious. Again, this is not about balance in the first place
User was warned for this post.
|
Actually moving cannon requirement to gate or core is a great idea.
|
On March 17 2018 16:12 insitelol wrote: Actually moving cannon requirement to gate or core is a great idea. Wow excellent suggestion. Really well thought out.
|
On March 17 2018 16:22 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 16:12 insitelol wrote: Actually moving cannon requirement to gate or core is a great idea. Wow excellent suggestion. Really well thought out. Thanks!
|
Serral usually tries to drag the game long if he gets ahead, since he is used to being the stronger late game player. He needs to learn the killer mindset to finish his opponent right when he's ahead 'enough'. You don't win vs your equals without taking risks.
|
oh sorry wrong thread - nvm
|
I think we have a real problem with maru being able to control his high end 200 supply army so damn well. Its so hard but when you can, it is too strong atm because of the raven. In the last game today serral found some solution in banelings before the bio switch happened. But i still think that the armor missile needs a nerf. Maybe down to 20 would already be enough. But on the other hand maru is the only terran around in the last tournaments who was able to survive to the quarter finals. And i know as a high master terran myself, that on the lower end skill level it looks completely different :D. But well the game has to be balanced based on the top level.
But i have to say, even though i think the missile needs the nerf, the splits of serral were HORRIBLE. i think he didnt split at all but moved a whole control group into one direction.
|
On March 17 2018 18:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think we have a real problem with maru being able to control his high end 200 supply army so damn well. Its so hard but when you can, it is too strong atm because of the raven. In the last game today serral found some solution in banelings before the bio switch happened. But i still think that the armor missile needs a nerf. Maybe down to 20 would already be enough. But on the other hand maru is the only terran around in the last tournaments who was able to survive to the quarter finals. And i know as a high master terran myself, that on the lower end skill level it looks completely different :D. But well the game has to be balanced based on the top level.
But i have to say, even though i think the missile needs the nerf, the splits of serral were HORRIBLE. i think he didnt split at all but moved a whole control group into one direction. Is the top level the top 10 players, the top 5 players or the top 1 player?
|
On March 17 2018 18:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think we have a real problem with maru being able to control his high end 200 supply army so damn well. Its so hard but when you can, it is too strong atm because of the raven. In the last game today serral found some solution in banelings before the bio switch happened. But i still think that the armor missile needs a nerf. Maybe down to 20 would already be enough. But on the other hand maru is the only terran around in the last tournaments who was able to survive to the quarter finals. And i know as a high master terran myself, that on the lower end skill level it looks completely different :D. But well the game has to be balanced based on the top level.
But i have to say, even though i think the missile needs the nerf, the splits of serral were HORRIBLE. i think he didnt split at all but moved a whole control group into one direction.
The problem is that its not possible to split vs AAM just as it was possible vs Seeker Missile. Today's gsmes of Maru shiwed another proof that Anti Armour Missile is ballshit and needs to be toned down.
Also they showed that Terran has very strong lategame, but u have to know how to use it, not whine at forums to buff Terran more.
|
On March 17 2018 19:27 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 18:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think we have a real problem with maru being able to control his high end 200 supply army so damn well. Its so hard but when you can, it is too strong atm because of the raven. In the last game today serral found some solution in banelings before the bio switch happened. But i still think that the armor missile needs a nerf. Maybe down to 20 would already be enough. But on the other hand maru is the only terran around in the last tournaments who was able to survive to the quarter finals. And i know as a high master terran myself, that on the lower end skill level it looks completely different :D. But well the game has to be balanced based on the top level.
But i have to say, even though i think the missile needs the nerf, the splits of serral were HORRIBLE. i think he didnt split at all but moved a whole control group into one direction. The problem is that its not possible to split vs AAM just as it was possible vs Seeker Missile. Today's gsmes of Maru shiwed another proof that Anti Armour Missile is ballshit and needs to be toned down. Also they showed that Terran has very strong lategame, but u have to know how to use it, not whine at forums to buff Terran more. Actually it looked like serral just got out played, I dont think anyone can say maru won cause of raven missiles.
|
On March 17 2018 20:22 WidowMineHero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 19:27 hiroshOne wrote:On March 17 2018 18:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think we have a real problem with maru being able to control his high end 200 supply army so damn well. Its so hard but when you can, it is too strong atm because of the raven. In the last game today serral found some solution in banelings before the bio switch happened. But i still think that the armor missile needs a nerf. Maybe down to 20 would already be enough. But on the other hand maru is the only terran around in the last tournaments who was able to survive to the quarter finals. And i know as a high master terran myself, that on the lower end skill level it looks completely different :D. But well the game has to be balanced based on the top level.
But i have to say, even though i think the missile needs the nerf, the splits of serral were HORRIBLE. i think he didnt split at all but moved a whole control group into one direction. The problem is that its not possible to split vs AAM just as it was possible vs Seeker Missile. Today's gsmes of Maru shiwed another proof that Anti Armour Missile is ballshit and needs to be toned down. Also they showed that Terran has very strong lategame, but u have to know how to use it, not whine at forums to buff Terran more. Actually it looked like serral just got out played, I dont think anyone can say maru won cause of raven missiles. Maru won because stim researches too quickly. Double stim research time and Maru won't be able to hit such a sharp Bio timing like he did in the last game.
|
On March 17 2018 20:22 WidowMineHero wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 19:27 hiroshOne wrote:On March 17 2018 18:11 SpecKROELLchen wrote: I think we have a real problem with maru being able to control his high end 200 supply army so damn well. Its so hard but when you can, it is too strong atm because of the raven. In the last game today serral found some solution in banelings before the bio switch happened. But i still think that the armor missile needs a nerf. Maybe down to 20 would already be enough. But on the other hand maru is the only terran around in the last tournaments who was able to survive to the quarter finals. And i know as a high master terran myself, that on the lower end skill level it looks completely different :D. But well the game has to be balanced based on the top level.
But i have to say, even though i think the missile needs the nerf, the splits of serral were HORRIBLE. i think he didnt split at all but moved a whole control group into one direction. The problem is that its not possible to split vs AAM just as it was possible vs Seeker Missile. Today's gsmes of Maru shiwed another proof that Anti Armour Missile is ballshit and needs to be toned down. Also they showed that Terran has very strong lategame, but u have to know how to use it, not whine at forums to buff Terran more. Actually it looked like serral just got out played, I dont think anyone can say maru won cause of raven missiles. That is true. The first game was really balanced but Maru won because he was better.
And anyway, Zerg players are complaining about mass ravens, but Zergs are doing mass vypers and mass infestors, see the game we are talking about.
The game was ravens/ghosts vs Vypers/infestors. Maru just outplayed Serral.
|
Maru won because stim researches too quickly. Double stim research time and Maru won't be able to hit such a sharp Bio timing like he did in the last game.
While the timing he hit was quite sharp, I dont think that stim research timme needs to be longer. That would make it nigh impossible for terran to be the agressor which terran absolutley has to be against Z.
|
And atm all the best terrans : Gumiho, Innovation, Byun, Ty are losing and not doing well in tournaments. Only Maru is succeeding. So talking about nerfing ravens because one player is using them well is non sense. That is good Blizzard backed off with that nerf.
Anyway Serral shew us Zerg can use mass Vipers and Infestors and be as deadly as Ravens in late game.
The game was balanced but Maru played a bit better and also Serral is a foreigner.
In any matchups Koreans are almost better than foreigners.
|
Worth noting that Maru rolled Serral even harder when he just made marines and tanks than mass raven. Using that series to prove ravens are op is stupid.
|
On March 17 2018 23:22 Fango wrote: Worth noting that Maru rolled Serral even harder when he just made marines and tanks than mass raven. Using that series to prove ravens are op is stupid. That's a stupid argument, of course bio will end the game before a mech composition does.
|
Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens.
|
On March 17 2018 23:27 Durnuu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:22 Fango wrote: Worth noting that Maru rolled Serral even harder when he just made marines and tanks than mass raven. Using that series to prove ravens are op is stupid. That's a stupid argument, of course bio will end the game before a mech composition does.
It's not about game length, it's about competitiveness. The mech and raven games were close to some degree. The bio game was a roflstomp. If anything this series shows bio is stronger than mech/sky.
Also games with an obvious skill difference shouldn't really be used in balance discussions. Unless the weak player wins I guess.
|
On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens.
If Blizzard provide an effective alternative then I agree, No viking hp buff at any amount will achieve that.
|
Serral vs Maru was not as onesided as u think. Those macro games could go both way. Serral just couldn't engage Maru's army mainly because of spammable Anti Rmour Missiles, which wrecked everything.
|
On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens. Watching mass queens, infestors, or vipers is terrible, but we can't touch Zerg's precious spellcasters!
|
The game should force your opponent to gg once you have a hive. David Kim pls.
User was warned for this post
|
Ravens have always been an issue it always once a terran gets X amount of ravens its a win for the terran unless they have very sloppy control. whether it would be mass PDD spam or Hunter seeker missle spam to now anti armor spam were you just blanket the army in it and boop there goes the army
|
On March 18 2018 04:44 Carminedust wrote: Ravens have always been an issue it always once a terran gets X amount of ravens its a win for the terran unless they have very sloppy control. whether it would be mass PDD spam or Hunter seeker missle spam to now anti armor spam were you just blanket the army in it and boop there goes the army
Kind of like psi storm.
|
On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens.
it's only possible when terran is untouched for 15 minutes, so Z and P must move their asses sometime.
|
On March 18 2018 00:36 RoflStomped wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens. If Blizzard provide an effective alternative then I agree, No viking hp buff at any amount will achieve that. +200 viking HP wouldn't achieve that?
|
I do think only Maru could pull it off so well, but still, the missile feels a bit too safe.
I would either reduce the casting range a bit, so its not so safe to use.
Decreasing the damage a bit is an alternative, but I think lower range would keep the style alive but it would be a bit less hard to counter
|
On March 18 2018 05:32 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 00:36 RoflStomped wrote:On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens. If Blizzard provide an effective alternative then I agree, No viking hp buff at any amount will achieve that. +200 viking HP wouldn't achieve that?
Constructive conversation as always.
|
On March 18 2018 05:50 RoflStomped wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 05:32 Charoisaur wrote:On March 18 2018 00:36 RoflStomped wrote:On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens. If Blizzard provide an effective alternative then I agree, No viking hp buff at any amount will achieve that. +200 viking HP wouldn't achieve that? Constructive conversation as always. okay, replace 200 with 20-50.
|
On March 18 2018 05:34 pereza0 wrote: I do think only Maru could pull it off so well, but still, the missile feels a bit too safe.
I would either reduce the casting range a bit, so its not so safe to use.
Decreasing the damage a bit is an alternative, but I think lower range would keep the style alive but it would be a bit less hard to counter
decreased cast range it's like equivalent to 0 damage missile, parasitic already almost one hitting ravens, really down it do 10-15 damage would be perfect.
|
On March 18 2018 06:37 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 05:34 pereza0 wrote: I do think only Maru could pull it off so well, but still, the missile feels a bit too safe.
I would either reduce the casting range a bit, so its not so safe to use.
Decreasing the damage a bit is an alternative, but I think lower range would keep the style alive but it would be a bit less hard to counter decreased cast range it's like equivalent to 0 damage missile, parasitic already almost one hitting ravens, really down it do 10-15 damage would be perfect. If by one hitting you mean the full duration of a parasitic bomb does not kill a raven, then yes. How many ravens went down in the Maru vs Serral game to parasitic bombs? Ravens have a sight of 11 and range on missile is 10, PB with 8 range is not the counter to ravens
|
Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese?
|
On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese?
LOL hopefully not. Series went exactly as expected tbh..im just so happy for Maru..the balls rofl. Dark was not gonna be stopped by Ravens..not even close..so Maru summoned MVP
|
On March 18 2018 19:36 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 06:37 SCHWARZENEGGER wrote:On March 18 2018 05:34 pereza0 wrote: I do think only Maru could pull it off so well, but still, the missile feels a bit too safe.
I would either reduce the casting range a bit, so its not so safe to use.
Decreasing the damage a bit is an alternative, but I think lower range would keep the style alive but it would be a bit less hard to counter decreased cast range it's like equivalent to 0 damage missile, parasitic already almost one hitting ravens, really down it do 10-15 damage would be perfect. If by one hitting you mean the full duration of a parasitic bomb does not kill a raven, then yes. How many ravens went down in the Maru vs Serral game to parasitic bombs? Ravens have a sight of 11 and range on missile is 10, PB with 8 range is not the counter to ravens
when terran can afford losing 20 ravens and making 9 nukes at once, then you know his opponent is messed up. at 19;00 mark in g3 you can see most of ravens are killed by vipers.
|
On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread
|
On March 18 2018 22:01 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread
LOL. Zerg tears bc Dark made dealing with ravens look easy. Game 1 was really bad to watch tho. But its crystal clear that the problem is on both sides. Any matchup where both players have incentive not to attacknl is bad.. but the early game helped set that up. Rest of the games were relatively entertaining but im not a big fan of mech v z myself.
|
On March 18 2018 22:01 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread And recent tournaments clearly show that Ravens aren't nearly as oppresive as people made them out to be, so the balance team considering removing them from the game so fast was wrong in the first place.
|
On March 18 2018 22:13 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 22:01 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread LOL. Zerg tears bc Dark made dealing with ravens look easy. Game 1 was really bad to watch tho. But its crystal clear that the problem is on both sides. Any matchup where both players have incentive not to attacknl is bad.. but the early game helped set that up. Rest of the games were relatively entertaining but im not a big fan of mech v z myself. That s exactly what im saying. But it s funny how salty terrans are that Maru won, not that most of them are discouraged to still cry "underpowered" as TL and reddit has shown today.
|
On March 18 2018 22:20 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 22:13 DomeGetta wrote:On March 18 2018 22:01 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread LOL. Zerg tears bc Dark made dealing with ravens look easy. Game 1 was really bad to watch tho. But its crystal clear that the problem is on both sides. Any matchup where both players have incentive not to attacknl is bad.. but the early game helped set that up. Rest of the games were relatively entertaining but im not a big fan of mech v z myself. That s exactly what im saying. But it s funny how salty terrans are that Maru won, not that most of them are discouraged to still cry "underpowered" as TL and reddit has shown today.
Yah you can't necessarily dismiss that though - he did win - but he was getting handled - and resigned to all in cheese the last 2 games - dark scouts better or opens pool first either game and he wins. The macro games Dark was dominating pretty hard outside of the Marine/Tank game - not that that means Z OP Dark is a fucking monster - but it's still pretty clear to me that the original proposed patch would be crippling to Terran at this point.
|
On March 18 2018 22:30 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 22:20 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 22:13 DomeGetta wrote:On March 18 2018 22:01 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread LOL. Zerg tears bc Dark made dealing with ravens look easy. Game 1 was really bad to watch tho. But its crystal clear that the problem is on both sides. Any matchup where both players have incentive not to attacknl is bad.. but the early game helped set that up. Rest of the games were relatively entertaining but im not a big fan of mech v z myself. That s exactly what im saying. But it s funny how salty terrans are that Maru won, not that most of them are discouraged to still cry "underpowered" as TL and reddit has shown today. Yah you can't necessarily dismiss that though - he did win - but he was getting handled - and resigned to all in cheese the last 2 games - dark scouts better or opens pool first either game and he wins. The macro games Dark was dominating pretty hard outside of the Marine/Tank game - not that that means Z OP Dark is a fucking monster - but it's still pretty clear to me that the original proposed patch would be crippling to Terran at this point. Do you make the same argument when a top Zerg eliminates a top Protoss in a close series, with resorting to ravager allins or lingfloods? Cuz i seem to recall a number of series that went this way. Is that a testimony to Zerg being the underdog in the PVZ matchup?
Sure, if Dark goes pool first he probably wins. But then again, if in one of those macro wins, he went pool first, he could have lost. It s just unfair to ignore these wins. Dark is so crazy in macrogames cuz when he goes macro mode, he s greedy and most of the time gets away with it. Maru probably studied the shit out of Dark s playstyle, builds and scouting patterns, seeing as he s going up against him in the GSL semis + he was the only top korean Zerg present at this tournament. Havent seen a winner s interview, if there is one, please link it, but i dont think Maru cheesed out of desperation.
|
On March 18 2018 22:46 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 22:30 DomeGetta wrote:On March 18 2018 22:20 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 22:13 DomeGetta wrote:On March 18 2018 22:01 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread LOL. Zerg tears bc Dark made dealing with ravens look easy. Game 1 was really bad to watch tho. But its crystal clear that the problem is on both sides. Any matchup where both players have incentive not to attacknl is bad.. but the early game helped set that up. Rest of the games were relatively entertaining but im not a big fan of mech v z myself. That s exactly what im saying. But it s funny how salty terrans are that Maru won, not that most of them are discouraged to still cry "underpowered" as TL and reddit has shown today. Yah you can't necessarily dismiss that though - he did win - but he was getting handled - and resigned to all in cheese the last 2 games - dark scouts better or opens pool first either game and he wins. The macro games Dark was dominating pretty hard outside of the Marine/Tank game - not that that means Z OP Dark is a fucking monster - but it's still pretty clear to me that the original proposed patch would be crippling to Terran at this point. Do you make the same argument when a top Zerg eliminates a top Protoss in a close series, with resorting to ravager allins or lingfloods? Cuz i seem to recall a number of series that went this way. Is that a testimony to Zerg being the underdog in the PVZ matchup? Sure, if Dark goes pool first he probably wins. But then again, if in one of those macro wins, he went pool first, he could have lost. It s just unfair to ignore these wins. Dark is so crazy in macrogames cuz when he goes macro mode, he s greedy and most of the time gets away with it. Maru probably studied the shit out of Dark s playstyle, builds and scouting patterns, seeing as he s going up against him in the GSL semis + he was the only top korean Zerg present at this tournament. Havent seen a winner s interview, if there is one, please link it, but i dont think Maru cheesed out of desperation.
Yah it doesn't look like they did any winner interviews - no idea why - list of things that were not ideal imo about how this tourny was put together. I'm sure Maru did study Dark - but back to back proxy in games 6 and 7 I would be shocked if was pre-planned - if his other stuff was working I gotta believe he woulda went with it. Either way I think we agree - Spectator stand point - Raven (among a number of Zerg and Protoss units) not so great - but balance stand point necessary at this point without some other big changes.
And yeah tbh - I tend to keep consistent logic in my thought process - same applies in Zvp - again not saying Tvz matchup is broken - just saying still feels slightly skewed toward Z which isnt horrible because the game is never totally balanced - but it does make it the wrong time to heavily nerf either side.
On a more positive note - how sick is it that we get to watch a rematch of this in 5 days! All whines considered - pretty great time for SC2 imo.
|
On March 18 2018 06:06 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 05:50 RoflStomped wrote:On March 18 2018 05:32 Charoisaur wrote:On March 18 2018 00:36 RoflStomped wrote:On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens. If Blizzard provide an effective alternative then I agree, No viking hp buff at any amount will achieve that. +200 viking HP wouldn't achieve that? Constructive conversation as always. okay, replace 200 with 20-50.
Revelation + tempest + storm will always kill any amount of viking with any amount of HP.
|
On March 18 2018 22:46 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 22:30 DomeGetta wrote:On March 18 2018 22:20 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 22:13 DomeGetta wrote:On March 18 2018 22:01 Geo.Rion wrote:On March 18 2018 19:42 ihatevideogames wrote: Are we really still talking about Ravens, when the first terran tournament win in months comes from a bio/tank push and 2 consecutive games of cheese? This thread is still about the proposed/withdrawn Raven changes, so yeah. If u want to cry about how underpowered Terran is because it could only win the Bo7 grandfinals for 200k$ with certain strat, find the appropriate thread LOL. Zerg tears bc Dark made dealing with ravens look easy. Game 1 was really bad to watch tho. But its crystal clear that the problem is on both sides. Any matchup where both players have incentive not to attacknl is bad.. but the early game helped set that up. Rest of the games were relatively entertaining but im not a big fan of mech v z myself. That s exactly what im saying. But it s funny how salty terrans are that Maru won, not that most of them are discouraged to still cry "underpowered" as TL and reddit has shown today. Yah you can't necessarily dismiss that though - he did win - but he was getting handled - and resigned to all in cheese the last 2 games - dark scouts better or opens pool first either game and he wins. The macro games Dark was dominating pretty hard outside of the Marine/Tank game - not that that means Z OP Dark is a fucking monster - but it's still pretty clear to me that the original proposed patch would be crippling to Terran at this point. Do you make the same argument when a top Zerg eliminates a top Protoss in a close series, with resorting to ravager allins or lingfloods? Cuz i seem to recall a number of series that went this way. Is that a testimony to Zerg being the underdog in the PVZ matchup? Sure, if Dark goes pool first he probably wins. But then again, if in one of those macro wins, he went pool first, he could have lost. It s just unfair to ignore these wins. Dark is so crazy in macrogames cuz when he goes macro mode, he s greedy and most of the time gets away with it. Maru probably studied the shit out of Dark s playstyle, builds and scouting patterns, seeing as he s going up against him in the GSL semis + he was the only top korean Zerg present at this tournament. Havent seen a winner s interview, if there is one, please link it, but i dont think Maru cheesed out of desperation.
dark used to play pool first often in the past and it's not putting zerg behind that much to be a reason for losing a macro game, maru used at least whole 5 different builds in tvz at wesg, can't remember such diversity since hots, he clearly just tried to be as unpredictable as possible so thats why he went for 2 proxy in a row, nobody play 2 proxy rax even in a single set in lotv, dark just got mindgamed hard.
|
blizzard needs to leave the raven missile alone. Zerg and toss have aoe casters, so should terran. Zerg/toss aoe casters deal substantially more damage on their own than the raven and those casters can be massed substantially faster than the raven. Zerg players need to learn how to split vs the raven missile just like terran players split vs banelings or parasitic bomb or storm. There should be zero double standards here when it comes to balance. From a spectator standpoint, the raven is no different than storms, fungals or parasitic bombs(o yeah, zerg has 2 casters). It's completely fine. Leave the raven alone.
Leave the raven alone and get the whiners a muzzle.
|
On March 18 2018 23:51 ReachTheSky wrote: blizzard needs to leave the raven missile alone. Zerg and toss have aoe casters, so should terran. Zerg/toss aoe casters deal substantially more damage on their own than the raven and those casters can be massed substantially faster than the raven. Zerg players need to learn how to split vs the raven missile just like terran players split vs banelings or parasitic bomb or storm. There should be zero double standards here when it comes to balance. From a spectator standpoint, the raven is no different than storms, fungals or parasitic bombs(o yeah, zerg has 2 casters). It's completely fine. Leave the raven alone.
Leave the raven alone and get the whiners a muzzle.
You sound like if one race has something, the other races need something of the same kind. Game design is not that simple. Terran units are the most efficient in terms of DPS per resource and what they lack is not another tool to deal damage. Now what makes the Raven broken is that there's zero direct counter play. The best example should probably be HoTS force fields, except missiles have no counter play even in the late game and they trade energy for 50 army supply at a time. Sure you need to have good early/mid game to get to Raven, but it should not be an auto-win once you get there. Terran being underpowered also has nothing to do with this particular spell. There are many good ways to buff Terran; raven missile is not one of them.
|
On March 19 2018 02:02 yangluphil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2018 23:51 ReachTheSky wrote: blizzard needs to leave the raven missile alone. Zerg and toss have aoe casters, so should terran. Zerg/toss aoe casters deal substantially more damage on their own than the raven and those casters can be massed substantially faster than the raven. Zerg players need to learn how to split vs the raven missile just like terran players split vs banelings or parasitic bomb or storm. There should be zero double standards here when it comes to balance. From a spectator standpoint, the raven is no different than storms, fungals or parasitic bombs(o yeah, zerg has 2 casters). It's completely fine. Leave the raven alone.
Leave the raven alone and get the whiners a muzzle. You sound like if one race has something, the other races need something of the same kind. Game design is not that simple. Terran units are the most efficient in terms of DPS per resource and what they lack is not another tool to deal damage. Now what makes the Raven broken is that there's zero direct counter play. The best example should probably be HoTS force fields, except missiles have no counter play even in the late game and they trade energy for 50 army supply at a time. Sure you need to have good early/mid game to get to Raven, but it should not be an auto-win once you get there. Terran being underpowered also has nothing to do with this particular spell. There are many good ways to buff Terran; raven missile is not one of them.
I'd say what dark did counts as counter play. The most recent TvZ matches have shown mass ravens absolutely destroyed by parasitic bomb, we going to now say that has no counter play?
It's a dried up old argument that doesn't have any legs. I Think the AAM needs a tweak but to say there is no counter play couldn't be further from the truth.
|
On March 19 2018 02:12 RoflStomped wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 02:02 yangluphil wrote:On March 18 2018 23:51 ReachTheSky wrote: blizzard needs to leave the raven missile alone. Zerg and toss have aoe casters, so should terran. Zerg/toss aoe casters deal substantially more damage on their own than the raven and those casters can be massed substantially faster than the raven. Zerg players need to learn how to split vs the raven missile just like terran players split vs banelings or parasitic bomb or storm. There should be zero double standards here when it comes to balance. From a spectator standpoint, the raven is no different than storms, fungals or parasitic bombs(o yeah, zerg has 2 casters). It's completely fine. Leave the raven alone.
Leave the raven alone and get the whiners a muzzle. You sound like if one race has something, the other races need something of the same kind. Game design is not that simple. Terran units are the most efficient in terms of DPS per resource and what they lack is not another tool to deal damage. Now what makes the Raven broken is that there's zero direct counter play. The best example should probably be HoTS force fields, except missiles have no counter play even in the late game and they trade energy for 50 army supply at a time. Sure you need to have good early/mid game to get to Raven, but it should not be an auto-win once you get there. Terran being underpowered also has nothing to do with this particular spell. There are many good ways to buff Terran; raven missile is not one of them. I'd say what dark did counts as counter play. The most recent TvZ matches have shown mass ravens absolutely destroyed by parasitic bomb, we going to now say that has no counter play? It's a dried up old argument that doesn't have any legs. I Think the AAM needs a tweak but to say there is no counter play couldn't be further from the truth.
Read again: zero 'direct' counter play. In G1 Dark had a massive advantage leading the game towards a stage where he could do contain Maru on 5 bases and won (barely, as he also mined out and depleted his own bank). The other two games that Dark won was more due to fortune or Maru's own mistake than the contain strategy.
|
On March 19 2018 02:32 yangluphil wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 02:12 RoflStomped wrote:On March 19 2018 02:02 yangluphil wrote:On March 18 2018 23:51 ReachTheSky wrote: blizzard needs to leave the raven missile alone. Zerg and toss have aoe casters, so should terran. Zerg/toss aoe casters deal substantially more damage on their own than the raven and those casters can be massed substantially faster than the raven. Zerg players need to learn how to split vs the raven missile just like terran players split vs banelings or parasitic bomb or storm. There should be zero double standards here when it comes to balance. From a spectator standpoint, the raven is no different than storms, fungals or parasitic bombs(o yeah, zerg has 2 casters). It's completely fine. Leave the raven alone.
Leave the raven alone and get the whiners a muzzle. You sound like if one race has something, the other races need something of the same kind. Game design is not that simple. Terran units are the most efficient in terms of DPS per resource and what they lack is not another tool to deal damage. Now what makes the Raven broken is that there's zero direct counter play. The best example should probably be HoTS force fields, except missiles have no counter play even in the late game and they trade energy for 50 army supply at a time. Sure you need to have good early/mid game to get to Raven, but it should not be an auto-win once you get there. Terran being underpowered also has nothing to do with this particular spell. There are many good ways to buff Terran; raven missile is not one of them. I'd say what dark did counts as counter play. The most recent TvZ matches have shown mass ravens absolutely destroyed by parasitic bomb, we going to now say that has no counter play? It's a dried up old argument that doesn't have any legs. I Think the AAM needs a tweak but to say there is no counter play couldn't be further from the truth. Read again: zero 'direct' counter play. In G1 Dark had a massive advantage leading the game towards a stage where he could do contain Maru on 5 bases and won (barely, as he also mined out and depleted his own bank). The other two games that Dark won was more due to fortune or Maru's own mistake than the contain strategy.
And Maru v Serral Game 3? they were both even in income and supply and Serral completely annihilated Maru's air army and that game was on even footing. Losing 40 supply in a few seconds. I still don't see your point.
|
I have to say: the Maru v. Dark series is evidnece that between players of comparable skill, parasitic bomb can completely annihilate mass ravens.
|
On March 19 2018 02:02 yangluphil wrote:
You sound like if one race has something, the other races need something of the same kind. Game design is not that simple. Terran units are the most efficient in terms of DPS per resource and what they lack is not another tool to deal damage. Now what makes the Raven broken is that there's zero direct counter play. The best example should probably be HoTS force fields, except missiles have no counter play even in the late game and they trade energy for 50 army supply at a time. Sure you need to have good early/mid game to get to Raven, but it should not be an auto-win once you get there. Terran being underpowered also has nothing to do with this particular spell. There are many good ways to buff Terran; raven missile is not one of them.
I see your point completely. I do think we need the 1 second seeker missile delay so that there's time to split. I also think storm should be delayed by 1 second, and fungal and parasitic bomb should be delayed by one second.
However, much of what you write is straight-up not true. Banelings are the proven most DPS unit per resource in the game. No direct counterplay to ravens - > Just two fungals, or two parasitic bombs. Dark did it. Also, the biggest evidence is this: try playing the strat you consider OP yourself. See if you can even get there without dying. And then see if you can actually pull of the micro you object to.
When I have complaints about Protoss and Zerg, I offrace and see if I can imitate the thing I'm complaining about. Usually I'm wrong - I can't do it. Sometimes I'm right, and it is indeed OP.
|
On March 17 2018 23:35 DSh1 wrote: Still, like I am sure other people mentioned the Raven missilie has to go. It's just bad to play and watch massing ravens.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Are you claiming that you actally have the skill as a Terran player to survive the early and mid-game against Protoss and Zerg AND manage to perfectly micro ghosts, marauders, vikings, ravens, tanks, marines, and medivacs without any mis-steps?
"Bad to play" my foot. "Insanely difficult to play" would be better.
"Bad to watch" really? Would you rather watch ling-floods and zealot-archon boringness?
|
On March 19 2018 02:43 RoflStomped wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 02:32 yangluphil wrote:On March 19 2018 02:12 RoflStomped wrote:On March 19 2018 02:02 yangluphil wrote:On March 18 2018 23:51 ReachTheSky wrote: blizzard needs to leave the raven missile alone. Zerg and toss have aoe casters, so should terran. Zerg/toss aoe casters deal substantially more damage on their own than the raven and those casters can be massed substantially faster than the raven. Zerg players need to learn how to split vs the raven missile just like terran players split vs banelings or parasitic bomb or storm. There should be zero double standards here when it comes to balance. From a spectator standpoint, the raven is no different than storms, fungals or parasitic bombs(o yeah, zerg has 2 casters). It's completely fine. Leave the raven alone.
Leave the raven alone and get the whiners a muzzle. You sound like if one race has something, the other races need something of the same kind. Game design is not that simple. Terran units are the most efficient in terms of DPS per resource and what they lack is not another tool to deal damage. Now what makes the Raven broken is that there's zero direct counter play. The best example should probably be HoTS force fields, except missiles have no counter play even in the late game and they trade energy for 50 army supply at a time. Sure you need to have good early/mid game to get to Raven, but it should not be an auto-win once you get there. Terran being underpowered also has nothing to do with this particular spell. There are many good ways to buff Terran; raven missile is not one of them. I'd say what dark did counts as counter play. The most recent TvZ matches have shown mass ravens absolutely destroyed by parasitic bomb, we going to now say that has no counter play? It's a dried up old argument that doesn't have any legs. I Think the AAM needs a tweak but to say there is no counter play couldn't be further from the truth. Read again: zero 'direct' counter play. In G1 Dark had a massive advantage leading the game towards a stage where he could do contain Maru on 5 bases and won (barely, as he also mined out and depleted his own bank). The other two games that Dark won was more due to fortune or Maru's own mistake than the contain strategy. And Maru v Serral Game 3? they were both even in income and supply and Serral completely annihilated Maru's air army and that game was on even footing. Losing 40 supply in a few seconds. I still don't see your point. I thought Maru grouped up all his ravens on purpose to kill them off as a BM move. It looked to me as that game 3 was almost all BM from Maru. How many nukes did he waste? Why did he continouosly group up the ravens after they got PB'd? It all looked like Maru intended for the marine switch to happen.
|
On March 19 2018 03:03 KR_4EVR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 02:02 yangluphil wrote:
You sound like if one race has something, the other races need something of the same kind. Game design is not that simple. Terran units are the most efficient in terms of DPS per resource and what they lack is not another tool to deal damage. Now what makes the Raven broken is that there's zero direct counter play. The best example should probably be HoTS force fields, except missiles have no counter play even in the late game and they trade energy for 50 army supply at a time. Sure you need to have good early/mid game to get to Raven, but it should not be an auto-win once you get there. Terran being underpowered also has nothing to do with this particular spell. There are many good ways to buff Terran; raven missile is not one of them. I see your point completely. I do think we need the 1 second seeker missile delay so that there's time to split. I also think storm should be delayed by 1 second, and fungal and parasitic bomb should be delayed by one second. However, much of what you write is straight-up not true. Banelings are the proven most DPS unit per resource in the game. No direct counterplay to ravens - > Just two fungals, or two parasitic bombs. Dark did it. Also, the biggest evidence is this: try playing the strat you consider OP yourself. See if you can even get there without dying. And then see if you can actually pull of the micro you object to. When I have complaints about Protoss and Zerg, I offrace and see if I can imitate the thing I'm complaining about. Usually I'm wrong - I can't do it. Sometimes I'm right, and it is indeed OP.
I was saying Terran as a race have units that deal highest DPS per resource among races. My bad for not making it more clear.
Parasitic bomb has a range of 8 while AAM has a range of 10. Can you show me a clip where maru did not mis-position his vikings and got his mass ravens annihilated by parasitic bombs? Because I hope you don't show me the end of G5 where Maru's ravens got destroyed by PB when he was already down to 100 supply and typed GG 1 second after. I did say Dark won the other 2 games on luck and Maru's mistake. For example G5 where after Maru holds, he expands on two locations without getting his army in position to defend them, meanwhile Dark just attacked the same expansion twice in a row (completely failed the first time and then Maru repositioned his army). Everything else including ravens fell apart in that fight. Let's not use a misplay to justify the point we are making here.
As for 'biggest evidence', that is not a serious argument, is it?
|
Way too much balance whine after a nailbiting 4-3 victory for Maru that owed a lot to luck, Dark's scouting, and SCV RNG–Dark would've won the last game and the series if the SCV didn't move to the other side.
TvZ in its current form is well balanced, as demonstrated by Maru vs Dark, Aligulac for the past few months, and recent tournaments. Anyone balance whining about that matchup is just being salty, or stupid, or both. While I agree that AAM is poorly designed, it is nonetheless balanced.
The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins).
|
On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening.
|
On March 17 2018 21:08 bObA wrote: And atm all the best terrans : Gumiho, Innovation, Byun, Ty are losing and not doing well in tournaments. Only Maru is succeeding. So talking about nerfing ravens because one player is using them well is non sense. That is good Blizzard backed off with that nerf.
Anyway Serral shew us Zerg can use mass Vipers and Infestors and be as deadly as Ravens in late game.
The game was balanced but Maru played a bit better and also Serral is a foreigner.
In any matchups Koreans are almost better than foreigners.
That was what I said.
I have just watched the first game between Maru and Dark and even with mass ravens Dark killed Maru easily. No need to nerf Ravens. And guess what, to avoid ravens missile damage, Dark was doing simple moves what all terrans have been learning for 10 years to be in Master league : splitting and spreading units !
|
On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance.
PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives.
|
On March 19 2018 06:36 bObA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2018 21:08 bObA wrote: And atm all the best terrans : Gumiho, Innovation, Byun, Ty are losing and not doing well in tournaments. Only Maru is succeeding. So talking about nerfing ravens because one player is using them well is non sense. That is good Blizzard backed off with that nerf.
Anyway Serral shew us Zerg can use mass Vipers and Infestors and be as deadly as Ravens in late game.
The game was balanced but Maru played a bit better and also Serral is a foreigner.
In any matchups Koreans are almost better than foreigners.
That was what I said. I have just watched the first game between Maru and Dark and even with mass ravens Dark killed Maru easily. No need to nerf Ravens. And guess what, to avoid ravens missile damage, Dark was doing simple moves what all terrans have been learning for 10 years to be in Master league : splitting and spreading units ! you probably didnt watch the first game, Dark pretty much won with ravager bust, then Maru clang on for dear life, from a massively disadvantageous position. Sure he managed to crawl up to 200 vs 200, but while he had no bank and no mapcontrol, Dark was sitting on 10k resources and the entire map was covered with creep, mining from 8 and a half bases while Maru has been on 5 untill he mined them all out. This way Dark could afford to carefully take like 10 trades (all of them cost-inefficient still) and win, but by the end he was out of resources as well, his massive bank down to almost 0.
If anything Maru vs Dark g1 is a very good argument to rethink the missile, cuz i dont think that s the way to go, you almost kill the Terran but if he refuses to leave then u have to starve them out until they have no more resources in their bases. The units lost tab clearly showed how cost effective Maru could be with that composition, even from a very bad position, against a very good and careful opponent.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed))
|
On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras.
A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ.
|
On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ.
Doesn't a marauder buff mostly mean the all-ins get better?
And the colossus revert is the obvious choice since it has the benefit of barely affecting PvZ at all. I'm not sure it would be enough of a change though--terran might need more than that.
|
On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ. I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd.
|
On March 19 2018 10:09 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ. I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd. I've said it before, give Liberator AtG 5 damage back so that they two-shot Stalkers at +1 instead of +2. Protoss has better chronoboost and better stalkers now, so this gives Terrans some initiative in the midgame even when they're behind a set of upgrades. It's a small, targeted change that's unlikely to affect any other matchup.
|
On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. Whether Blizzard should make one change or multiple depends on the size of the change and the size of the problem needing fixing. I don't see the dropperlord change as being massive while the issues with PvZ are. I'd like to see some more, small changes.
The idea of buffing storm so that it did either more damage to burrowed units or put a slow debuff on burrowed units has been floating in my head as a way to help Protoss deal with Lurkers without deleting them entirely from the match up and not really impacting PvT. (Yeah, Widow mines, but using storm to kill them would be a super niche strat)
|
On March 19 2018 11:44 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 10:09 seemsgood wrote:On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ. I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd. I've said it before, give Liberator AtG 5 damage back so that they two-shot Stalkers at +1 instead of +2. Protoss has better chronoboost and better stalkers now, so this gives Terrans some initiative in the midgame even when they're behind a set of upgrades. It's a small, targeted change that's unlikely to affect any other matchup.
I agree a Liberator (or perhaps Widow Mine) tweak would be much better than reverting back to the old Marauder which would only further incentivize more all-ins from Terran.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On March 19 2018 13:37 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 11:44 Athenau wrote:On March 19 2018 10:09 seemsgood wrote:On March 19 2018 09:26 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 08:17 deacon.frost wrote:On March 19 2018 07:23 pvsnp wrote:On March 19 2018 05:28 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 04:47 pvsnp wrote: The matchups with real balance problems are PvZ (which Blizzard already addressed) and PvT (which is just Terran allins). Moving back dropperlords doesn't instantly solve all of the PvZ issues. The best case scenario is it lets Protoss open with something other than Stargate without the risk of an instant build order loss which could let Protoss players figure out a build that helps mitigate the glaring mid and lategame issues in the matchup. That solution if it even exists would likely be an all-in or timing attack which would then become the one required opening. Addressing a major point of imbalance like dropperlords is definitely a good start, if nothing else. It's also the most you can reasonably expect Blizzard to do at once–multiple changes at the same time are very rarely a good idea when it comes to balance. PvT on the other hand has just been languishing in Terran 2-base allins for months. Kudos for Blizzard in achieving a state of pseudobalance around that, but the matchup as a whole definitely needs attention. As Artosis put it, the PvT meta is just whether Terran can kill Protoss before 2/2 arrives. PvT "imbalance" lies in the PvZ. Any P nerf would make PvZ instaloss. Not sure how fragile is TvZ with Terran buffs, I can think of some (shorter stim research, medevacs without the need of factory(starport after rax, but only medevacs allowed)) Colossus revert is what the Unity teamhouse pros agreed on, iirc. It vaporizes marines too fast. Alternatively, I think a Marauder revert would go a lot further in PvT than TvZ, especially with the current TvZ meta going for BL instead of Ultras. A very simple, if inelegant, solution would just be to add some (+shield) damage buffs, which obviously has no effect on TvZ. I rather have old liberators back.Current liberators were fine in last year but now they got powercreep'd. I've said it before, give Liberator AtG 5 damage back so that they two-shot Stalkers at +1 instead of +2. Protoss has better chronoboost and better stalkers now, so this gives Terrans some initiative in the midgame even when they're behind a set of upgrades. It's a small, targeted change that's unlikely to affect any other matchup. I agree a Liberator (or perhaps Widow Mine) tweak would be much better than reverting back to the old Marauder which would only further incentivize more all-ins from Terran. I believe that Blizzard doesn't want to buff units which are annoying. And flying siege tank is annoying. It's similar to the Oracle. IMO
|
Terran need better bio vsP, not libs. And libs actually are more present in terran all-ins than maraudeurs, so i don't get your point.
Libs are dead vP not only because they were nerfed and stalkers buffed, but because the free Recall. Let's say you turtle to liberator range. If the P isn't tech ready but position himself aggressively he simply win time, then basetrade you, then recall. With protoss being on more nexus etc it' a 100% legit move.
Globally recall is maybe needed vs Z but is a huge concern vs T. It feels really unfair, and smashing the opponents units after the recall seems OP, at least the opponent should have more time to react and go away.
|
Recall needs to be 125 Energy and with a shared global cooldown for both Nexus and Mothership.
Freely teleportering units anywhere on the map is bad for the game. Being out of position should have consequences.
Protoss may need to have single recall for balance reasons but it should be a long time between uses so that it becomes more important when to use it.
|
i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range
|
On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range
Bunker rushes are nothing compared to what they were. If you die to a bunker rush these days you deserve the loss. They are easy to scout and easy to hold. Once they are held, it's pretty much an auto loss for terran. Bunker rushes are a gigantic gamble these days that rarely pays off. Maru got extremely lucky.
|
What if Armory cost and build time were reduced, so terran could start 2/2 infantry a bit faster? Would faster terran infantry upgrades and faster upgrades for mech have too big ramifications for TvZ?
|
On March 19 2018 20:03 MockHamill wrote: Recall needs to be 125 Energy and with a shared global cooldown for both Nexus and Mothership.
Freely teleportering units anywhere on the map is bad for the game. Being out of position should have consequences.
Protoss may need to have single recall for balance reasons but it should be a long time between uses so that it becomes more important when to use it.
Watch Serral Neeb on Acid Plant and imagine how that game would play out if Neeb had even LESS mobility.
|
On March 19 2018 08:03 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 06:36 bObA wrote:On March 17 2018 21:08 bObA wrote: And atm all the best terrans : Gumiho, Innovation, Byun, Ty are losing and not doing well in tournaments. Only Maru is succeeding. So talking about nerfing ravens because one player is using them well is non sense. That is good Blizzard backed off with that nerf.
Anyway Serral shew us Zerg can use mass Vipers and Infestors and be as deadly as Ravens in late game.
The game was balanced but Maru played a bit better and also Serral is a foreigner.
In any matchups Koreans are almost better than foreigners.
That was what I said. I have just watched the first game between Maru and Dark and even with mass ravens Dark killed Maru easily. No need to nerf Ravens. And guess what, to avoid ravens missile damage, Dark was doing simple moves what all terrans have been learning for 10 years to be in Master league : splitting and spreading units ! you probably didnt watch the first game, Dark pretty much won with ravager bust, then Maru clang on for dear life, from a massively disadvantageous position. Sure he managed to crawl up to 200 vs 200, but while he had no bank and no mapcontrol, Dark was sitting on 10k resources and the entire map was covered with creep, mining from 8 and a half bases while Maru has been on 5 untill he mined them all out. This way Dark could afford to carefully take like 10 trades (all of them cost-inefficient still) and win, but by the end he was out of resources as well, his massive bank down to almost 0. If anything Maru vs Dark g1 is a very good argument to rethink the missile, cuz i dont think that s the way to go, you almost kill the Terran but if he refuses to leave then u have to starve them out until they have no more resources in their bases. The units lost tab clearly showed how cost effective Maru could be with that composition, even from a very bad position, against a very good and careful opponent.
I politely disagree.
Maru didn't crawl back because his units were better but because Dark lost broadness of vision. With his bank, he could have been doing simultaneous lurker drops in the main, ling floods around the sides, and threatening with parasitic bomb (but not actually attacking) at the same time. He became too focused and kept hitting the rock that was a solid position on the map. What Dark did was a really advanced version of trying to run 100 marines again and again into 15 lurkers. But just because it was an advanced composition, that doesn't change anything from a tactical standpoint.
Move then to the later games. Dark evolved. He did learn how to break the Raven/ghost combo. You could see how without the ghosts, ravens die, and without the ravens, ghosts die. But that's not why he won. He also started attacking more than one objective on the map simultaneously. Consider the burrowed roach game. That was won because Dark could do more things than Maru could respond to - that's how Zerg is supposed to win, and he did.
|
On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range.
|
On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range.
Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on.
|
On March 19 2018 21:35 ihatevideogames wrote: What if Armory cost and build time were reduced, so terran could start 2/2 infantry a bit faster? Would faster terran infantry upgrades and faster upgrades for mech have too big ramifications for TvZ?
Making bio 2/2 upgrade faster is very interesting idea. Cheaper and faster armory might be problematic due to faster access to helbats and thors. Maybe simple solution would be to postpone armory requirement, so you would need it only for 3/3.
|
Bisutopia19033 Posts
On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats.
|
On March 19 2018 23:27 fds wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 21:35 ihatevideogames wrote: What if Armory cost and build time were reduced, so terran could start 2/2 infantry a bit faster? Would faster terran infantry upgrades and faster upgrades for mech have too big ramifications for TvZ? Making bio 2/2 upgrade faster is very interesting idea. Cheaper and faster armory might be problematic due to faster access to helbats and thors. Maybe simple solution would be to postpone armory requirement, so you would need it only for 3/3.
I don't think armory should be a requirement for bio upgrades at all.
|
On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats.
Except that if you make this change to the terran bunker, It removes terran aggression options and makes the game less interactive. Less interactive games=bad for viewership because they are boring to watch and we aren't here to watch someone play simcity or listen to pointless caster banter for the first several minutes of a game.
|
On March 20 2018 00:34 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats. Except that if you make this change to the terran bunker, It removes terran aggression options and makes the game less interactive. Less interactive games=bad for viewership because they are boring to watch and we aren't here to watch someone play simcity or listen to pointless caster banter for the first several minutes of a game. So you're for letting overlord drop T1 ? because it's exactly the same
|
|
On March 20 2018 04:18 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 00:34 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats. Except that if you make this change to the terran bunker, It removes terran aggression options and makes the game less interactive. Less interactive games=bad for viewership because they are boring to watch and we aren't here to watch someone play simcity or listen to pointless caster banter for the first several minutes of a game. So you're for letting overlord drop T1 ? because it's exactly the same Lmao ling drops and bunker rushes are as different as they get. Basically a perfect antithesis.
Stationary defense structure for ranged units against melee
vs
Mobile transport unit for melee units against ranged
|
On March 20 2018 04:18 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 00:34 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats. Except that if you make this change to the terran bunker, It removes terran aggression options and makes the game less interactive. Less interactive games=bad for viewership because they are boring to watch and we aren't here to watch someone play simcity or listen to pointless caster banter for the first several minutes of a game. So you're for letting overlord drop T1 ? because it's exactly the same
I personally prefer zerg to still have it in their bag of goodies since it's fun to execute and fun to watch. Maybe they should have buffed the sentry to allow protoss the early scouting instead, who knows. I've heard some protosses say they will still go stargate anyway due to the benefits it offers. I can't say which solution is the best in the long run. I think with the change blizzard made toss gets to play even greedier now.
|
On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats. if maru had to do that first, he would have lost the finals and 120000 US $ if i am right. there is no income while floating the CC and no scvs can be produced. ________________ and if you have to build a hatch first, you need to spend 300 minerals. and if you want to get creep from overlords, you need to have a lair first! and the terran player gets a refund for the bunker... you can't compare spine crawler with bunker rush at all.
|
On March 20 2018 00:34 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats. Except that if you make this change to the terran bunker, It removes terran aggression options and makes the game less interactive. Less interactive games=bad for viewership because they are boring to watch and we aren't here to watch someone play simcity or listen to pointless caster banter for the first several minutes of a game. the World Electronic Sports Games 2017 finals game 7 was a disaster for the viewership. totally disapointing.
|
On March 20 2018 09:58 ypslala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 00:34 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats. Except that if you make this change to the terran bunker, It removes terran aggression options and makes the game less interactive. Less interactive games=bad for viewership because they are boring to watch and we aren't here to watch someone play simcity or listen to pointless caster banter for the first several minutes of a game. the World Electronic Sports Games 2017 finals game 7 was a disaster for the viewership. totally disapointing. Can you back that up with a survey?
|
Raven missile in it's current state is just bad for the game, there is no counterplay to it for zerg at least. It outranges most units and the missiles travel way too fast to make proper splitting possible (even the best zergs can't manage to split against it as we saw many times). Can't believe they really wanna keept it, they should rather buff terran in other ways, if their winrate is really that bad.
|
On March 20 2018 00:07 WaesumNinja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2018 23:27 fds wrote:On March 19 2018 21:35 ihatevideogames wrote: What if Armory cost and build time were reduced, so terran could start 2/2 infantry a bit faster? Would faster terran infantry upgrades and faster upgrades for mech have too big ramifications for TvZ? Making bio 2/2 upgrade faster is very interesting idea. Cheaper and faster armory might be problematic due to faster access to helbats and thors. Maybe simple solution would be to postpone armory requirement, so you would need it only for 3/3. I don't think armory should be a requirement for bio upgrades at all.
Personally I think that a lot of balance issues in TvP could be solved by halving the reactor build time.
|
On March 21 2018 03:39 JayuSC2 wrote: Raven missile in it's current state is just bad for the game, there is no counterplay to it for zerg at least. It outranges most units and the missiles travel way too fast to make proper splitting possible (even the best zergs can't manage to split against it as we saw many times). Can't believe they really wanna keept it, they should rather buff terran in other ways, if their winrate is really that bad.
First, It's not strictly uncounterable. Use fungals and parasitic bombs to decimate multiple ravens. Second, I agree that there should be a brief delay to enable splitting.
|
On March 20 2018 09:58 ypslala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2018 00:34 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 23:29 BisuDagger wrote:On March 19 2018 22:58 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 19 2018 22:40 Boggyb wrote:On March 19 2018 20:27 ypslala wrote: i have a suggestion: the function of the bunker is to defend a terran base. bunkers should not be allowed for offensive purporses - especially in early game. to avoid bunker rush/cheese they need to be in range of a command center. for example like 15 range The function of spore crawlers and spine crawlers is to defend Zerg bases. Neither should be allowed for offensive purposes. To avoid misuse of the buildings, they need to be in range of a hatchery. For example, like 15 range. Nothing is stopping a zerg from building a hatchery anywhere on the map to create creep for the spines/spores to burrow on. Float a command center across the map and build bunkers wherever it floats. Except that if you make this change to the terran bunker, It removes terran aggression options and makes the game less interactive. Less interactive games=bad for viewership because they are boring to watch and we aren't here to watch someone play simcity or listen to pointless caster banter for the first several minutes of a game. the World Electronic Sports Games 2017 finals game 7 was a disaster for the viewership. totally disapointing.
How do you mean? Most tournament games with best of 7 have at least 2 rush games. This one had 3. Re-watch both of $O$'s Blizzcon finals.
In terms of viewer numbers, I think that a lot of people found the time of broadcast inconvenient; that's all.
|
On March 21 2018 03:39 JayuSC2 wrote: Raven missile in it's current state is just bad for the game, there is no counterplay to it for zerg at least. It outranges most units and the missiles travel way too fast to make proper splitting possible (even the best zergs can't manage to split against it as we saw many times). Can't believe they really wanna keept it, they should rather buff terran in other ways, if their winrate is really that bad.
Why do people keep parroting this nonsense?
Did you even watch WESG finals?
If you did and you are still saying this it's really bizarre.
I'm OK if you don't like watching it (yet some how I bet you enjoy watching Broods a move across the map), but to say it has no counter is straight up wrong - watch the games rofl.
|
On March 21 2018 03:39 JayuSC2 wrote: Raven missile in it's current state is just bad for the game, there is no counterplay to it for zerg at least. It outranges most units and the missiles travel way too fast to make proper splitting possible (even the best zergs can't manage to split against it as we saw many times). Can't believe they really wanna keept it, they should rather buff terran in other ways, if their winrate is really that bad. Dark's counterplay was to split and friendly fire onto SCVs:
Instead of screaming how broken it is on the forums, try watching what the pros like Dark do. Anyone who actually watched the WESG finals knows that Maru didn't rely on Ravens to win at all.
|
|
|
|