I don't see why people say that psi storm is weaker now than it was in sc1. Since the units bunch up like no other in sc2 compared to sc1, wouldn't it mean that sc2 would have a stronger psi storm?

love1another

United States1844 Posts

June 09 2010 05:52 GMT

It only does 80 damage. Which is < than hydra hp, and only 20 more than marine hp, whereas in BW, storm did almost 3x marine hp and 1.5x hydra hp.

frozenkatkiller

United States168 Posts

June 09 2010 05:53 GMT

Its is because units in general have more hp than they did in broodwar and although storm does more damage, it isn't as much as the increase in the general hp of units.

You make a good point about the units bunching up though, but storms do not stack so the only difference is you would need less storms to cover the same amount of army.

KiWiKaKi

Canada691 Posts

June 09 2010 05:53 GMT

storm is pretty bad in sc2

Licmyobelisk

Philippines3682 Posts

June 09 2010 05:53 GMT

Well it does 80 hp damage overall so it's not definitely weaker nor stronger, it just got a little nicer since smart casting technology had been implemented in the game.

prototype.

Canada4215 Posts

June 09 2010 05:55 GMT

It might be because there are alternatives to storm that are just as effective but come a lot earlier.

Also I've been told the storm radius has been severely reduced. I dunno.. I play terran in sc2.

daewdasd

Germany64 Posts

June 09 2010 05:57 GMT

I think storms in SCBw and Sc2 a pretty much equal. In SCBW they were dealing massive damage but really hard to cast. In SC2 there damage is ok but even silver players can cover the whole screen with a blanket of storms. Also Unita clump togehter much more, but units move in SC2 generally a bit faster then in SCBW.
So in the end storms are as godd as they were before, but in SC2 has with the collosus a good alternative to storms, while reaver in SCBW were most of the time more a harrass unit then a good support for your army.

Sentenal

United States12398 Posts

June 09 2010 05:59 GMT

Storm in BW does alot more damage, and has a larger area of effect. In Starcraft 2, units bunch up better, so that cancels out the fact that its area of effect is smaller. But the fact that it does reduced damage makes it alot worse.

Also, Colossus outclass High Templar for Storm in almost every way. The only way HTs with Storm are better than Colossus, is that HTs can't get killed by Vikings in the Air, or by Corruptors.

Excalibur_Z

United States12237 Posts

June 09 2010 06:00 GMT

On June 09 2010 14:50 zhul4nder wrote:
I don't see why people say that psi storm is weaker now than it was in sc1. Since the units bunch up like no other in sc2 compared to sc1, wouldn't it mean that sc2 would have a stronger psi storm?

Multiple reasons:

1) It literally is weaker, 80 damage instead of 112 (Pre-1.08 it used to be 128!).
2) Many units have much higher hp. Marines have 45 (55). Marauders and Roaches have over 100 and are very early game units. It's still decent because units bunch up tighter than in BW, but it's not the powerhouse it used to be.
3) Smartcasting makes Storm much easier to spam precisely. In BW you either had to position your Templar strategically before casting so that their storms wouldn't overlap when you issued a command with multiple Templar, or you had to quickly individually storm different areas. In SC2 you just T click T click T click T click, and this is even faster with Shift-queuing.

nitdkim

1264 Posts

June 09 2010 06:01 GMT

#10

i dont really think smartcasting is a good argument for making psi storm weaker since the opponent has unlimited selection of units anyway and they can back off from a storm very easily.

Ryuu314

United States12679 Posts

June 09 2010 06:03 GMT

#11

Storm in SC1 and SC2 have the same dps. However, storms in SC1 lasted a lot longer and did less damage per pulse but for more total damage. In SC2, the radius is a LOT smaller, does more damage per pulse, but for less total damage.

The biggest reason why storm is considered so much weaker in SC2 than in SC1 is because despite the introduction of smart-casting, the reduced radius of storm requires more castings of storm in order to achieve the same blanket effect you saw in SC1. Additionally, there are many units with the HP capacity to tank storms. In SC1, lack of micro out of storm is absolutely detrimental, whereas in SC2, oftentimes players, whether Zerg, Terran, or even Protoss, can just ignore the storm and just tank it. Additionally, the very small radius of storm makes it extremely easy to dodge, even with smartcast. As a result, storms end up doing a lot less damage and make a smaller impact in battles overall when compared to SC1.

I agree that storm needed to be nerfed from its SC1 incarnation due to smartcasting. However, I feel like they over-nerfed it. It's still strong and viable, but Protoss has many other options that are often better (i.e. Colossus) due to a more reliable damage output.

blade55555

United States17423 Posts

June 09 2010 06:05 GMT

#12

Storm is weaker in damage but I don't get this non sense of "storm sucks" when in pvt I see it do good and I think its severly under rated pvz but I would much rather face storm then colossi. Just my opinion on it and as far as I am concerned P's can keep thinking it sucks makes it predictable what their doing and don't have to worry about it :D.

Despotic

United States10 Posts

June 09 2010 06:07 GMT

#13

Its likely that ai improvements were considered with the initial balancing of various units and abilities. Storm simply just did not scale with smartcasting and unit models/pathing quite as well as say, the removal of siege tank overkill for example. Tbh, its close, and may see some changes in the future.

Sentenal

United States12398 Posts

June 09 2010 06:08 GMT

#14

On June 09 2010 15:05 blade55555 wrote:
Storm is weaker in damage but I don't get this non sense of "storm sucks" when in pvt I see it do good and I think its severly under rated pvz but I would much rather face storm then colossi. Just my opinion on it and as far as I am concerned P's can keep thinking it sucks makes it predictable what their doing and don't have to worry about it :D.

Like you said, you would rather face storm than colossi. So, why would it matter if you can predict the fact that they are going to do something that you would rather not face? Because predict it or not, you would much rather have storm out, than colossi.

zhul4nder

United States189 Posts

June 09 2010 06:15 GMT

#15

I guess storm can still be used as a pushing measure against zerg. As you storm, they run back and you push forward. But one thing though...I have yet to see amazing play with storm and FF. trapping units and storming was the first thing i thought would start happening when sc2 was coming out. I haven't see that happen yet in pro videos :S

jacen

Austria3644 Posts

June 09 2010 06:16 GMT

#16

make it range 8 (or even 9) so these slow ass mofos don't have to travel ages to cast the storm.
really, that annoys me the most about storm.

currently storm is at range 6 which is just as much as upgraded hydras.

aznhockeyboy16

United States558 Posts

June 09 2010 06:16 GMT

#17

It's like how everyone thought tanks sucked at the beginning. The stats are worse, the cost to get it is more, and although the game has changed to make it still viable, there are other options available to a player who wants the I'm gonna crush large swaths of troops simultaneously effect.

-Archangel-

Croatia7457 Posts

June 09 2010 06:19 GMT

#18

Another reason for weaker storm are less and more expensive Zerg units. This storm already kills hydras like crazy, but a stronger storm would be too much. Zerg no longer has T1.5 75/25 1 supply hydra that he can spam like crazy and leave to die in storm because there are already 20 more coming. With the state of Zerg units storm cannot get more powerful, especially since Zerg has no direct counter to it like it does for a Colossi. In SCBW it had spawn Broodling.

Doko

Argentina1737 Posts

June 09 2010 06:24 GMT

#19

once you get the amulet upgrade you can literally warp in storms as long as you have gas. with more damage it would be insane.

I don't agree with hydrass being able to take a full hit and still have 1 hp left though.

prototype.

Canada4215 Posts

June 09 2010 06:28 GMT

#20

On June 09 2010 15:16 aznhockeyboy16 wrote:
It's like how everyone thought tanks sucked at the beginning. The stats are worse, the cost to get it is more, and although the game has changed to make it still viable, there are other options available to a player who wants the I'm gonna crush large swaths of troops simultaneously effect.

What? Who thought tanks sucked?