EPTwhy is psi storm weaker now? - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
zhul4nder
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On June 09 2010 15:19 -Archangel- wrote: 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. No one ever used spawn brooding to counter storm. It was possible, but rarely (if ever) used. The counter to storm in SC1 was micro and muta-micro. Not spawn broodling. Storms don't kill hydras in 1 hit even if they just sit in it and that's a pretty big disadvantage for storm. Additionally, roaches are a very good counter to storm. If a Zerg just switches over to roaches or an even roach/hydra composition, storm tech becomes practically worthless simply because roaches have so much hp. Additionally, storm is not like tanks in that tanks actually received multiple buffs in response to its resource nerfs. Not only was the AI improved, but the damage was jacked up by a LOT. Tanks now do a flat 50 damage to everything, whereas in SC1 zealots and other small units could withstand tank fire pretty well. Storm was buffed in terms of UI through smartcasting, but it was also nerfed in damage AND radius. The cost is still the same as SC1 and so the potential of smartcasting in blanketing the battlefield in storm is quite nullified as it takes more storms to cover the same area and do the same total damage, while the resource cost has not been changed at all (the cooldown time also hurts that but it's not as big an issue). In high level play with good macro, it is very unlikely that the Protoss player will have enough high templar to utilize the potential of smartcasting. @ zhul4nder: That would be a good strategy (FF+storm) except for the fact that both sentries and HTs cost an insane amount of gas. In order to get enough sentries and HTs to pull off a force field block along with storm would require a prohibitively large amount of gas. Additionally, in that orb vod, he (orb) was very ahead in army size and could've won without the cute FF surround and storm. | ||
|
RoieTRS
United States2569 Posts
just vs protoss because they have chargelots and blikstalkers and immortals and every unit P makes are really good vs tanks. | ||
|
zhul4nder
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
nujgnoy
United States204 Posts
| ||
|
squintz
Canada217 Posts
| ||
|
Neon_Monkey
United States270 Posts
However I think the ability to warp in and immediately cast storm anywhere you have power is incredibly useful, the only problem is surviving the huge investment needed to get that far into the tech tree without dieing or falling behind in expos. I think that problem would be taken care of if they just got rid of the Dark Shrine... | ||
|
YoureFired
United States822 Posts
On June 09 2010 15:15 zhul4nder wrote: 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 Two casters makes things a lot more hectic, especially when were so used to simply having to Fspam or Tspam | ||
|
SLChem
United States6 Posts
| ||
|
Phootaba
Sweden28 Posts
6range for storm is a bit weak imo, like someone said, hydras can have 6 range :< The second is that storm have a lot larger animation then the area of effect. Storm have some 1.5 radious if I recall correctly. But the animation seems to have 2-2.5 radious. That just seems stupid to me. They could shrink the thor accordigly, why can't they shrink the storm? | ||
|
zhul4nder
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
ZnAkE
Denmark6 Posts
| ||
|
Merikh
United States918 Posts
 . I think orb was the only person who only used just sentry's and high templars (That's when he started to get known for his rage).@Znake - no they don't stack Personally I think the sentry play had a huge role in the change. As you can see in that video. Sentry's also had a roll in the mothership nerf that "removed" forcefields when in present. (Because of the whole Forcefield around the vortex then collosus rape the bunched up ball) | ||
|
PhiliBiRD
United States2643 Posts
| ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On June 09 2010 15:19 -Archangel- wrote: 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. Will I would say for SCBW it was more muta  . | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
Oh and make archons good again | ||
|
SkyTheUnknown
Germany2065 Posts
| ||
Hyde
Australia14568 Posts
On June 09 2010 16:11 ZnAkE wrote: Does storms have the abillity to stack in SC2? Since you can spam them like crazy, it could help a bit. Storm does not currently stack in SC2, I think it would be too good if it did and would probably receive a nerf if it were allowed to stack. Stacking is not the answer. | ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
I think that the changes to Psionic Storm in SC2 are short-sighted and just make the game worse. Why should it have higher dps for lower total damage? All that does is make Psionic Storm a spell that is impossible to micro out from under. This discourages army control and micro entirely. Similarly, Colossi were given faster attack speed but lower attack. This only makes them less useful with micro and encourages less control. It's depressing, but most units are moving towards higher hitpoints, less damage in favor of higher damage per second, and very homogeneous movement and attack styles, which both kills off micro and tense situations that hinge on army control. Personally, I really REALLY despise these design choices. Incidentally, that video of orb is more a testament to the power of Force Field rather than Psionic Storm. | ||
|
Boonbag
France3318 Posts
On June 09 2010 17:25 LunarC wrote: In my opinion, Psionic Storm in Brood War is OP. But it was accepted, because it was hard to get enough High Templar to use it often and could be out-microed against both because it was hard to cast and was possible to dodge. I think that the changes to Psionic Storm in SC2 are short-sighted and just make the game worse. Why should it have higher dps for lower total damage? All that does is make Psionic Storm a spell that is impossible to micro out from under. This discourages army control and micro entirely. Similarly, Colossi were given faster attack speed but lower attack. This only makes them less useful with micro and encourages less control. It's depressing, but most units are moving towards higher hitpoints, less damage in favor of higher damage per second, and very homogeneous movement and attack styles, which both kills off micro and tense situations that hinge on army control. Personally, I really REALLY despise these design choices. Incidentally, that video of orb is more a testament to the power of Force Field rather than Psionic Storm. Well MMO spirit seems to live on in their game design. WoW ftl | ||
| ||
