4.8.1 Patch - Oracle bug fix/nerf
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Krafty_KutZ
Australia4 Posts
| ||
KappaKingPrime
United States468 Posts
| ||
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
Protoss would need another compensation, or would need to learn new builds. I wish the game would be centered around ground units skirmishes more tho, in the zerg matchups at least its too air focused for T and P. Would be nice if players would trade units somewhat evenly in the early/mid game... like in broodwar Early bcs or banshes, early drops, early oracles and phoenixes. Its getting really annoying... now even ZvZ is almost always fast mutas. | ||
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8738 Posts
On January 12 2019 09:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: Jesus i keep double posting meaning to edit a post and quoting instead, idk why we cant delete our own posts.. sorry i give up ill stop posting im just polluting this forum at this point. Wow, that double post. I hope you really feel bad about what you've done, you're lucky you didn't get insta ban. + Show Spoiler + Seriously tho it's all good, no one care. welcome to TL And yes the "quote" and "edit" button are too close but I heard the TL staff are gonna fix it as soon as they finish the 2016 best games list | ||
col_jung
139 Posts
Does the current attack mechanic of the Oracle contradict the advertised DPS or something? | ||
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
On January 12 2019 10:41 col_jung wrote: Can someone explain to me why this is a "bug"? Does the current attack mechanic of the Oracle contradict the advertised DPS or something? The beam attacks ( oracles, sentries, void rays) currently ignore the attack cooldown on the first attack after they switch target ( i think). Which means in fights where they often switch target, they gain tremendus dps. This is also why on paper hydras destroy oracles and void rays but in mass sometimes its completely one sided on the side of beam units ( many famous pvz offline mass oracle vs hydras had everyone confused) | ||
Kalera
United States338 Posts
On January 12 2019 10:41 col_jung wrote: Can someone explain to me why this is a "bug"? Does the current attack mechanic of the Oracle contradict the advertised DPS or something? Yes, Oracles have significantly higher than expected DPS against groups of units, especially lower health units like workers and lings. | ||
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
I think this isbecause the Stalker more or less is useless and hilariously hard countered by mid game unit compositions like Roach/Hydra or MMM. I see a Protoss going for Stalkers early game and I already feel ahead, lings deal with them even with blink and Hydralisks of course murder them so badly. The Zealot is fine, the Sentry could also stand to probably be buffed up a bit but we'll stick with the Stalker. It's probably time to just do an across the board nerf on Protoss air unit damage, but in return, I'd really appreciate it if Blizzard could make Protoss ground armies great again. The mass air thing is just so lame and it's just a testament to how sloppily the racial balance has been handled from the get go. I mean God what are we on, 2 or 3 Oracle redesigns, 2 or 3 Tempest redesigns, 3 or 4 Disruptor redesigns? I stand firm in my belief that Warp Gate had no place in the game to begin with, and that it's removal (although it's never EVER going to happen clearly if it hasn't happened now) or at least make it a mid game upgrade would make Protoss ground units far easier to balance. | ||
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
On January 11 2019 21:10 Destructicon wrote: Doodads are the small embellishments which can be added to maps for aesthetic reasons, like columns, trees, arches etc. What the change means is that, up till now you had a much smaller cap on doodads. After this change you can put up to 100k on your map. I don't think performance should be impacted unless a map maker really goes out of his way to add a lot of doodads, and even then I'm not sure. How many could you place before that? | ||
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On January 12 2019 11:36 Snakestyle11 wrote: The beam attacks ( oracles, sentries, void rays) currently ignore the attack cooldown on the first attack after they switch target ( i think). Which means in fights where they often switch target, they gain tremendus dps. This is also why on paper hydras destroy oracles and void rays but in mass sometimes its completely one sided on the side of beam units ( many famous pvz offline mass oracle vs hydras had everyone confused) Why did it have to take 3 pages for someone to actually explain the bug? It's a shame that TL doesn't actively try to write about these things, which are as important as player storylines. | ||
InfCereal
Canada1733 Posts
On January 12 2019 17:16 opisska wrote: Why did it have to take 3 pages for someone to actually explain the bug? It's a shame that TL doesn't actively try to write about these things, which are as important as player storylines. There was a popular video explaining it a few weeks back. Honestly I can't believe people are defending it. It gives the oracle a free attack when switching targets. It completely removes the attack delay between shots after killing a unit. That's not "Oh the unit was balanced around it", that's "The oracle has been a in a state of contention since it's release, and we've finally figured out *why*" | ||
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On January 12 2019 20:37 InfCereal wrote: There was a popular video explaining it a few weeks back. Honestly I can't believe people are defending it. It gives the oracle a free attack when switching targets. It completely removes the attack delay between shots after killing a unit. That's not "Oh the unit was balanced around it", that's "The oracle has been a in a state of contention since it's release, and we've finally figured out *why*" No that is absolutely "it was balanced around it". The game isn't (only) balanced around the actual unit numbers in a vacuum, it is balanced around the actual unit performances seen in the games. Even if it means that the theoretical analysis of oracle vs X would have been off, the actual games we had played in the meantime were considered fine in relation to the oracle. Now i would totally prefer an oracle which doesn't kill an entire worker line in seconds when there is nothign to defend it, but that's not the game sc2 is and has to be with current unit interactions and matchup blueprints. | ||
StasisField
United States1061 Posts
On January 12 2019 20:37 InfCereal wrote: There was a popular video explaining it a few weeks back. Honestly I can't believe people are defending it. It gives the oracle a free attack when switching targets. It completely removes the attack delay between shots after killing a unit. That's not "Oh the unit was balanced around it", that's "The oracle has been a in a state of contention since it's release, and we've finally figured out *why*" Except it actually was balanced around it because units are balanced based on how they perform in tournament settings. Who knows if the dps nerf that made Marines and SCVs take 3 shots to kill instead of 2 would have been necessary if the Oracle had not been bugged? Also, I figured the Starcraft community of all communities would understand bugs being part of balance, considering Brood War. I mean, I guess they should scrub that game clean of those game-changing bugs based on your logic. The game hasn't been balanced around those bugs, all of those units have just been in contention for years now. Now, you wouldn't disagree with this statement and contradict yourself, would you? | ||
TheWildShooter
79 Posts
Sure, the actual DPS dealt by units with beam attacks is a bit bigger depending on the HP of the target than the theoretical value calculated from the formula DPS = Damage / Cooldown. But these units don't become suddenly OP, because they were balanced on their actual performances in the game. There is no any erratic behavior in the beam weapon mechanic (the case where you break through shield batteries is another separate bug not directly related to beam weapons) and if you look again at the video demonstration in the first post, doesn't old oracle weapon feel more natural in the sense that it actualy simulates constant beam, rather than new one? Don't you think original developers conceived it this way? And lastly, let's take a look at the definition of "bug": an error in a computer program or system (according to Oxford dictionary). Thus, to know for sure we have to ask the guys who originaly worked on SC2 9 years ago whether it is "bug" or a feature of the beam weapon, because present team working on the game already discredited itself several times by being clueless about what actually is going on in the game. | ||
StasisField
United States1061 Posts
On January 13 2019 01:30 TheWildShooter wrote: Everyone here is talking about "Bug", but is it really? Yes because getting a free shot is an unintended consequence of the way beam weapons are programmed. There is no delay between shots on beam attacks when a beam kills a target which is not how attacks are meant to operate. Blizzard also listed it as a bug fix in the patch notes when they originally fixed it. It is a bug. Now, I think the real discussion is whether or not this bug makes the game better. Bugs can improve a product and I think that should be the determining factor in whether Blizzard should remove it. Personally, I like the Oracle and I enjoy the bug. I am biased since I play Protoss, but the Oracle did look like a clunky, bad unit in those gifs for the short time the bug was fixed. The affect this has on PvZ balance is important because the Oracle is commonly used to help defend against ling floods, whether that be at the natural or at a constructing third base. If the bug is fixed, buffs will more than likely be necessary. | ||
stilt
France2624 Posts
On January 12 2019 15:55 jpg06051992 wrote: This nerf should be re applied after the upcoming tournament, but it should be compensated with both a Stalker buff and a Tempest nerf to make it less broken in TvT. Oracles are critical to Protoss securing bases and some form of map control against Zerg, so this heavy of a nerf (even if it is technically a bug fix) is going to really make securing a third a nightmare for Protoss. As a Zerg player, I'd say that in general, while Protoss air is almost unbeatable in high supply. the ground army feels incredibly weak. I think this isbecause the Stalker more or less is useless and hilariously hard countered by mid game unit compositions like Roach/Hydra or MMM. I see a Protoss going for Stalkers early game and I already feel ahead, lings deal with them even with blink and Hydralisks of course murder them so badly. The Zealot is fine, the Sentry could also stand to probably be buffed up a bit but we'll stick with the Stalker. It's probably time to just do an across the board nerf on Protoss air unit damage, but in return, I'd really appreciate it if Blizzard could make Protoss ground armies great again. The mass air thing is just so lame and it's just a testament to how sloppily the racial balance has been handled from the get go. I mean God what are we on, 2 or 3 Oracle redesigns, 2 or 3 Tempest redesigns, 3 or 4 Disruptor redesigns? I stand firm in my belief that Warp Gate had no place in the game to begin with, and that it's removal (although it's never EVER going to happen clearly if it hasn't happened now) or at least make it a mid game upgrade would make Protoss ground units far easier to balance. Buffing stalker means making mass blink stalkers great again and this is really a terrible idea to have an all rounded unit who dominates the field, 2015 pvz was cancer and made a lot of players leave the game. | ||
NonY
8713 Posts
On January 12 2019 08:45 KappaKingPrime wrote: Wasn't the game balanced around this bug and shouldn't they complansate this with buffing damage/speed accordingly? Yeah, I think they should make some attempt at compensation. I don't understand why they choose not to when it's clearly a significant balance issue. My first draft would be to increase attack speed so that it's slightly lower than it effectively was against low health units and slightly higher than it effectively was against high health units. It'd still be a nerf against low health units, which is what the oracle primarily attacks, but it wouldn't be as big of a nerf and at least there'd be some compensation against high health targets. As for whether it's a bug, it's a bug if Blizzard says it is. They could have intended beam attacks to behave this way. It seems strange for them to come out 8.5 years after the game came out and say this was never intended but I guess it's possible they never noticed. | ||
franzji
United States580 Posts
On January 12 2019 15:55 jpg06051992 wrote: This nerf should be re applied after the upcoming tournament, but it should be compensated with both a Stalker buff and a Tempest nerf to make it less broken in TvT. Oracles are critical to Protoss securing bases and some form of map control against Zerg, so this heavy of a nerf (even if it is technically a bug fix) is going to really make securing a third a nightmare for Protoss. As a Zerg player, I'd say that in general, while Protoss air is almost unbeatable in high supply. the ground army feels incredibly weak. I think this isbecause the Stalker more or less is useless and hilariously hard countered by mid game unit compositions like Roach/Hydra or MMM. I see a Protoss going for Stalkers early game and I already feel ahead, lings deal with them even with blink and Hydralisks of course murder them so badly. The Zealot is fine, the Sentry could also stand to probably be buffed up a bit but we'll stick with the Stalker. It's probably time to just do an across the board nerf on Protoss air unit damage, but in return, I'd really appreciate it if Blizzard could make Protoss ground armies great again. The mass air thing is just so lame and it's just a testament to how sloppily the racial balance has been handled from the get go. I mean God what are we on, 2 or 3 Oracle redesigns, 2 or 3 Tempest redesigns, 3 or 4 Disruptor redesigns? I stand firm in my belief that Warp Gate had no place in the game to begin with, and that it's removal (although it's never EVER going to happen clearly if it hasn't happened now) or at least make it a mid game upgrade would make Protoss ground units far easier to balance. The issue with buffing the stalker is that if buffed more, it starts to rape terran in the early game too much. But then if it doesn't rape terran it sucks elsewhere . Something no one has proposed is another lategame upgrade that could make the stalker more viable. Blizzard is quick to try out new upgrades for terran and zerg (raven, widow mine, medivac, lurker, ultralisk), I would be curious as to how useful a late game stalker upgrade would be. They already have played with some ideas in co-op. | ||
insitelol
845 Posts
You can't deny that just for the sake of "it wasn't inteneded by the developers". BW wasnt intended by blizzard to become an esport legend. While warhound was actually intended to be a part of the game. Let's bring it back! | ||
| ||