|
Since this whole topic degenerated into the usual balance flamefest where every topic ends up if unmoderated it's time for it to clean up. Locking this down for a while. Any posts made after my post [page 233] not addressing the changes in this patch directly and containting flames or general balance whine will get banned for at least a week. ~Nyovne
There is way too much flaming in this thread right now. Calm down before you post! (Page 271) ~iamke55 |
I'm really skeptical of whether the barracks build time nerf will do anything other than screw up terran players' early game build order timings for a week or two till they re-learn optimal openers. Some of these changes seem to be made just for the sake or making a change.
|
On August 26 2011 09:44 Amui wrote:The ramp change is such that almost exactly the top half of the ramp is hidden from view. Vision mechanics for ramps as far as I can tell haven't changed. For PvP purposes you always want to FF the bottom of the ramp because now they cannot warp over the FF. Makes quite a bit worse now though because there is no way to brute force the sentries away from the ramp now if you are paying attention. There are 3 forcefield placements that block enemies from going up a ramp. 2 of them now completely deny warpins and vision so 4gate should officially be dead against any build that incorporates sentries and can stop pylons from going up inside the main base. Doesn't fix tal'darim, but every other map is pretty good. EDIT: added pics. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cfbbv.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uqahl.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HviUX.jpg)
Quoted to make sure more people read this.
This IS the biggest change in the patch. PvP will be changed forever
|
i don't mean to sound negative or anything, but y do i think blizzard will put this live a week before GSL finals. They did before and i just have a bad feeling they will do it again...
|
oh my god you can't blink or warp up a ramp that has a forcefield on it. This is going to be epic
btw only the first pic shown above is blink proof
|
On August 26 2011 09:49 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 09:44 Amui wrote:
The ramp change is such that almost exactly the top half of the ramp is hidden from view. Vision mechanics for ramps as far as I can tell haven't changed. For PvP purposes you always want to FF the bottom of the ramp because now they cannot warp over the FF. Makes quite a bit worse now though because there is no way to brute force the sentries away from the ramp now if you are paying attention. imo making it so low to high ground attacks lose one range would make for a much more dynamic game. Or you know just reintroduce the accuracy drop low to high ground attacks.
My main gripe is that Blizzard said somewhere a year ago that they didn't incorporate Brood Wars 50% accuracy shooting from low to high ground because they didn't like that luck element of the game, and that was the primary reason for them not giving vision on high ground. Of course, changing that would screw up the game dramatically right now, but the same thing could have been accomplished by halving the damage taken from low ground.
|
On August 25 2011 10:18 neobowman wrote:This sounds like an amazing patch. Even as a Zerg player, I'd prefer Fungal being changed from freeze to slow though, and keeping the damage. Warpprisms sound great. And again, as a Zerg player, I think 5 for blue flame is too little. Maybe 7. Seeker missles are great. I have a feeling Blizz is listening to State of the Game  . Immortal and Mothership changes sound awesome while still keeping the game fine. Blink too. Even the Bnet changes are sick!
Yeah I got that feeling too.. State of the game and Funday monday with the overseer nerf lmao.
I wonder how the extra range on immortals will play out. It'll probably change PvP immensly I think.
It's too bad, because I think that'll make expanding a bit harder though, and 1 base 3 gate robo much stronger.
|
Russian Federation899 Posts
On August 26 2011 10:11 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 09:49 ZeromuS wrote:On August 26 2011 09:44 Amui wrote:
The ramp change is such that almost exactly the top half of the ramp is hidden from view. Vision mechanics for ramps as far as I can tell haven't changed. For PvP purposes you always want to FF the bottom of the ramp because now they cannot warp over the FF. Makes quite a bit worse now though because there is no way to brute force the sentries away from the ramp now if you are paying attention. imo making it so low to high ground attacks lose one range would make for a much more dynamic game. Or you know just reintroduce the accuracy drop low to high ground attacks. My main gripe is that Blizzard said somewhere a year ago that they didn't incorporate Brood Wars 50% accuracy shooting from low to high ground because they didn't like that luck element of the game, and that was the primary reason for them not giving vision on high ground. Of course, changing that would screw up the game dramatically right now, but the same thing could have been accomplished by halving the damage taken from low ground.
this article perfectly explains why Blizz guys completely miss the point about the high ground advantage: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116142 . I stringly advice u to check it out.
|
I'm real nervous about new PvZ immortal pushes with the free range upgrade. My only salvation against any number of immortals was getting packs of roaches to focus-fire them while zerglings screwed up their targetting, but with a greater disparity put between their respective ranges, that -should- be fair portions harder.
Combine that with the idea that Protoss could probably transition out of these gateway/immortal pushes into typical colossus play makes it even scarier.
I hate ZvP 
|
All this talk about SOTG influence makes me wonder.. Where the hell is our Terran representative? SOTG is one big protoss fest.
|
On August 26 2011 10:23 razy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 10:11 Blisse wrote:On August 26 2011 09:49 ZeromuS wrote:On August 26 2011 09:44 Amui wrote:
The ramp change is such that almost exactly the top half of the ramp is hidden from view. Vision mechanics for ramps as far as I can tell haven't changed. For PvP purposes you always want to FF the bottom of the ramp because now they cannot warp over the FF. Makes quite a bit worse now though because there is no way to brute force the sentries away from the ramp now if you are paying attention. imo making it so low to high ground attacks lose one range would make for a much more dynamic game. Or you know just reintroduce the accuracy drop low to high ground attacks. My main gripe is that Blizzard said somewhere a year ago that they didn't incorporate Brood Wars 50% accuracy shooting from low to high ground because they didn't like that luck element of the game, and that was the primary reason for them not giving vision on high ground. Of course, changing that would screw up the game dramatically right now, but the same thing could have been accomplished by halving the damage taken from low ground. this article perfectly explains why Blizz guys completely miss the point about the high ground advantage: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116142 . I stringly advice u to check it out.
The article is swinging at strawmen and doesn't actually cover the real advantage of simplifying high ground advantage, I would love to see a source where blizzard said they did it to make the game less random.
The real reason is readability, fog of war and vision is already a well represented concept and one that's easily understood even to someone that's never played the game, if they can provide the same type of gameplay without having to introduce new mechanics, they will it's design by subtraction. One of the few cases where it wasn't working out was PvP because of the fact that forcefield was not preventing ramp sight so could be bypassed by warp-ins, and it's fixed with the patch.
|
the PTR isn't working for me, but some people say it's up.
I don't understand!
|
On August 26 2011 10:00 Fuzzmosis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 09:22 Dommk wrote:On August 26 2011 07:59 Fuzzmosis wrote:On August 26 2011 07:50 Dommk wrote:On August 26 2011 07:43 Fuzzmosis wrote:On August 26 2011 07:35 Dommk wrote:Cast 2 storms on a group of 21 hold position zealots (In shockinlyg perfect formation for this situation) and you kill 21 zealots for 150 energy over 8 seconds.
Cast 2 Seeker Missles on 21 hold position zealots (also, in startlingly tight and perfect formation) and you kill 5 (And leave 8 undamaged) for 250 energy (and in about 1 second unless you cast right over top the unit, which means friendly fire will nuke a Raven)
How did you work this out 0o? I can't find the damage calculations for Seeker as the unit is further away from the centre of the explosion. And by 8 Zealots being undamaged, you mean they only took shield damage correct? But now lets make a comparison, 2 Storms on a group of Zealots running away and you won't scratch them, 2 Seekers on a group of Zealots running away and you still have the same result. 8 seconds is a really LONG time That came from a day when I 2xHSM'ed an attacking Zealot army that was mobile and did around 400 damage, then decided to go to Yee olde Unite Testere (With Extra E's!) And test just how much damage HSM did. It wasn't pretty. Actually, going off memory, I think I couldn't hit 2 zealots with the storms, so only 19 died. My apologies on that. I actually mean that it didn't do any damage at all. Baneling explosion without fall off has a larger damage range than HSM even at it's 25 damage range. Also, you're wrong. 2 Storms on a group of zealots running away and you'll do maybe 40 shield damage to all of them (Kinda similar to what 2 Emps would do). 2 HSM's on a group of zealots running away and you'll do 0 damage because HSM needs to be cast only when someone isn't paying attention or is moving towards you (And because of friendly fire, is very dangerous to cast a HSM on a 150 hp zealot charging towards 6 55 hp marines. It's pretty awkward to need to kite your own spell) I don't understand how it can do 0 damage when the Spell has a 33% greater AOE than Psi-Storm. If Psi-Storm can hit 19 Zealots, then Seeker should be able to hit 25 Seeker Missile is almost 0.25 Speed faster than a Chargelot (0.75 faster than a regular one). If you Seeker Missile a Zealot in the middle of the pack, there is almost no chance it can be micro'd away. But for all intensive purposes, if it can be hit by Storm then it can be hit by Seeker Missile. But different Spells are different. Psi-Storm can only ever do 20DPS per 1.5radious AOE. Multiple Seekers on the other hand can be chained, which makes the spell significantly stronger when the Raven number increases So... let's see here. I cast a missile that is 9 distance away from an already retreating zealot, moving .75 speed faster. You're saying that in 12 seconds, the zealots cannot be scattered. I'm worried about your opinion of protoss players. Again, if they are charging or not retreating, different story, but this is your example. (IF they have charge, if they are retreating, they can't even be hit if durable materials DOUBLED the length because the missile craps out) For the damage range, I have no idea why. I did the test in a unit tester. Maybe the map maker modified the HSM in that case, but storm was more effective than HSM period for less energy. Even 1 cast. You're free to clump up high HP units (And low HP units) and give it your own test. You may come back and say "Fuzzy, you screwed up, clearly you did it wrong" or "Huh. That's stupid". Either or, but please do try it since your other explanations have worried me. Oh cool, so you start talking shots at me as well. Guess I see where this is going. First part is obviously wrong, which is worrying when a Terran player doesn't even know the cast range of their own spells nor the mechanics... Second part, it makes no sense what so ever that in YOUR example there were MORE Zealots that took NO damage from HS than with Psi Storm. Hunter Seeker has a _33%_ greater AOE. So all it means is your tests were incredibly faulty when something basic as a spell with greater AOE hitting less units standing still than a Spell with smaller AOE. I really can't take your "Tests" very seriously at all, sorry NInja Edit, like you!
Yes, Psi Storm does have the potential to hit your own zealots. Not going to even try to deny that. But being a cheap, instant cast that can be produced easier than a Raven (Less Gas, less wait, 5 second summon) that does more damage over an area (You keep calling that into question, I keep telling you to test) doing friendly fire or a suicide attack is better than a detector with other useful spells suiciding because of a terrible, terrible spell. In addition, you need to march your own units into the spell. HSM can be led into your own units (Assuming amazing Micro, or amazing luck). I'm sorry, you may act like I'm being snide by disregarding your "Tests", but they ARE faulty. I mean, a spell with 1.5 AOE hits more units than a spell with 2.0 AOE. I can't understand how when something as basic as that is wrong that you wouldn't somehow think you fucked up your tests in one way or another. High Tempalrs put a 45second cooldown on warpgates. Protoss does have flexibility with warpgate units, but you just can't create whatever you want whenever you want, you have to juggle cooldowns to create a proper balanced army. A raven costs 50/50 more than a Templar, but the benefits? It provides Detection, most almost twice as fast, it can fly AND has other spells which can greatly benefit the Terran army. Obviously due to the convenience of Tech labs and such compared to Warpgates, a Protoss WILL have more Templars in their army, but there is nothing wrong with that. Different races will have different units, but at least damage wise, Seeker Missile has the same energy efficiency as a 3second Storm which is pretty goddamn good if you consider that all its damage is BURST as opposed to a 20dps AOE--you would except something that does it's damage over a longer period of time with a smaller AOE in a static location would be more efficient if a unit stands in it for the full duration. A Hunter Seeker could be lead into your army, but the only Melee unit Terran actually has is an SCV--good luck trying to lead Seeker Missile into ranged Units that move faster than it and have soo much DPS that they can almost instantly snipe whatever that unit is Guess what I did? I tested. You are correct, and the raven does have a larger splash radius. For instance, If a group of 35 zerglings are clumped up, 22 will survive but all take damage, whereas for a storm, 16 will survive but not take any damage (Unless they, you know, run through the storm, seeing as they only lasted 2 seconds). I apologize for that inconsistancy, you are entirely correct that the range is larger. I suppose I remembered wrong. Now, try it out for yourself. Do it. (Note, clumped up means a perfect circle, not like a wave which is how zerglings/zealots will be clumped up. So, now we've come to these conclusions: A 3 second AOE spell that costs 75 energy will do more damage than a 125 energy spell that has a higher cost to cast it/build. It will also be more likely fatal units who don't move. A Raven can only cast a HSM and one other spell (after waiting for 125-150 energy from spawn). A templar can cast 2 storms and one feedback, then merge from more safe distances assuming he's not alone. (Generally, merging is unsafe but provides a damage soaker if combat is initiated). As I said before, I would love to Ape someone who's using HSM's well, but their cost to potential ratio is extremely sad. Just a random note: That sudden burst of speed is at very close range. Like, 1. You're given 6 in game seconds if you're running to do some form of reaction, which is far more than you get from a storm (You instantly react, or take 50-100% damage). You argue in a strange fashion how good HSM is by pointing out how weak it is.
I'm not trying to say HSM is as good as Psi-Storm, what I'm saying that comparatively, it is not that worse. The spells shouldn't be equivalent. Psi-Storm SHOULD be stronger than HSM because of how reliant Protoss are on it.
Psi-Storm, just like Fungal are two of the strongest spells in the game, so much so that Protoss and Zerg really can't function in the late game without them.
But Terran DOES NOT NEED a Fungal or a Psi-Storm, they are completely capable of making it into the late game without the need of a strong spell. If HSM was as strong as either of those two spells then Terran would undoubtedly be _overpowered_.
But HSM isn't significantly worse, just looking at its limitations, stats, damage and other uses of a Raven, HSM is a _GOOD_ spell. There are situations that HSM is going to be stronger than Psi-Storm, very common situations.
The random speed is within _2 range_, not 1. Not that the Spell should somehow guarantee 100% AOE if it is casted, that is absurd. Ofcourse people have time to split units at max distance and are retreating, if they couldn't then the spell would be ridiculous, but there _are_ going to be situations where people just won't have the time to split i.e Speedlots/Lings/Banes charging in
|
I really think there are more important issues to address then mothership at this point good to see blizzard As there priorities together
|
On August 26 2011 10:31 Dingobloo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 10:23 razy wrote:On August 26 2011 10:11 Blisse wrote:On August 26 2011 09:49 ZeromuS wrote:On August 26 2011 09:44 Amui wrote:
The ramp change is such that almost exactly the top half of the ramp is hidden from view. Vision mechanics for ramps as far as I can tell haven't changed. For PvP purposes you always want to FF the bottom of the ramp because now they cannot warp over the FF. Makes quite a bit worse now though because there is no way to brute force the sentries away from the ramp now if you are paying attention. imo making it so low to high ground attacks lose one range would make for a much more dynamic game. Or you know just reintroduce the accuracy drop low to high ground attacks. My main gripe is that Blizzard said somewhere a year ago that they didn't incorporate Brood Wars 50% accuracy shooting from low to high ground because they didn't like that luck element of the game, and that was the primary reason for them not giving vision on high ground. Of course, changing that would screw up the game dramatically right now, but the same thing could have been accomplished by halving the damage taken from low ground. this article perfectly explains why Blizz guys completely miss the point about the high ground advantage: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=116142 . I stringly advice u to check it out. The article is swinging at strawmen and doesn't actually cover the real advantage of simplifying high ground advantage, I would love to see a source where blizzard said they did it to make the game less random. The real reason is readability, fog of war and vision is already a well represented concept and one that's easily understood even to someone that's never played the game, if they can provide the same type of gameplay without having to introduce new mechanics, they will it's design by subtraction. One of the few cases where it wasn't working out was PvP because of the fact that forcefield was not preventing ramp sight so could be bypassed by warp-ins, and it's fixed with the patch.
What exactly are you saying here?
|
high diamond here was number 1 last week(school about to start) just tried the 1,1,1 allin on PTR vs someone who was high diamond as well. the hold for protoss was pretty one sided. immortal range is really good and the g shield was really effecting the damage my tanks were doing. which also worries me that bio mech for tvp might be doomed. to soon to tell but the buff is working wonders.
|
Canada13404 Posts
On August 26 2011 10:33 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 10:00 Fuzzmosis wrote:On August 26 2011 09:22 Dommk wrote:On August 26 2011 07:59 Fuzzmosis wrote:On August 26 2011 07:50 Dommk wrote:On August 26 2011 07:43 Fuzzmosis wrote:On August 26 2011 07:35 Dommk wrote:Cast 2 storms on a group of 21 hold position zealots (In shockinlyg perfect formation for this situation) and you kill 21 zealots for 150 energy over 8 seconds.
Cast 2 Seeker Missles on 21 hold position zealots (also, in startlingly tight and perfect formation) and you kill 5 (And leave 8 undamaged) for 250 energy (and in about 1 second unless you cast right over top the unit, which means friendly fire will nuke a Raven)
How did you work this out 0o? I can't find the damage calculations for Seeker as the unit is further away from the centre of the explosion. And by 8 Zealots being undamaged, you mean they only took shield damage correct? But now lets make a comparison, 2 Storms on a group of Zealots running away and you won't scratch them, 2 Seekers on a group of Zealots running away and you still have the same result. 8 seconds is a really LONG time That came from a day when I 2xHSM'ed an attacking Zealot army that was mobile and did around 400 damage, then decided to go to Yee olde Unite Testere (With Extra E's!) And test just how much damage HSM did. It wasn't pretty. Actually, going off memory, I think I couldn't hit 2 zealots with the storms, so only 19 died. My apologies on that. I actually mean that it didn't do any damage at all. Baneling explosion without fall off has a larger damage range than HSM even at it's 25 damage range. Also, you're wrong. 2 Storms on a group of zealots running away and you'll do maybe 40 shield damage to all of them (Kinda similar to what 2 Emps would do). 2 HSM's on a group of zealots running away and you'll do 0 damage because HSM needs to be cast only when someone isn't paying attention or is moving towards you (And because of friendly fire, is very dangerous to cast a HSM on a 150 hp zealot charging towards 6 55 hp marines. It's pretty awkward to need to kite your own spell) I don't understand how it can do 0 damage when the Spell has a 33% greater AOE than Psi-Storm. If Psi-Storm can hit 19 Zealots, then Seeker should be able to hit 25 Seeker Missile is almost 0.25 Speed faster than a Chargelot (0.75 faster than a regular one). If you Seeker Missile a Zealot in the middle of the pack, there is almost no chance it can be micro'd away. But for all intensive purposes, if it can be hit by Storm then it can be hit by Seeker Missile. But different Spells are different. Psi-Storm can only ever do 20DPS per 1.5radious AOE. Multiple Seekers on the other hand can be chained, which makes the spell significantly stronger when the Raven number increases So... let's see here. I cast a missile that is 9 distance away from an already retreating zealot, moving .75 speed faster. You're saying that in 12 seconds, the zealots cannot be scattered. I'm worried about your opinion of protoss players. Again, if they are charging or not retreating, different story, but this is your example. (IF they have charge, if they are retreating, they can't even be hit if durable materials DOUBLED the length because the missile craps out) For the damage range, I have no idea why. I did the test in a unit tester. Maybe the map maker modified the HSM in that case, but storm was more effective than HSM period for less energy. Even 1 cast. You're free to clump up high HP units (And low HP units) and give it your own test. You may come back and say "Fuzzy, you screwed up, clearly you did it wrong" or "Huh. That's stupid". Either or, but please do try it since your other explanations have worried me. Oh cool, so you start talking shots at me as well. Guess I see where this is going. First part is obviously wrong, which is worrying when a Terran player doesn't even know the cast range of their own spells nor the mechanics... Second part, it makes no sense what so ever that in YOUR example there were MORE Zealots that took NO damage from HS than with Psi Storm. Hunter Seeker has a _33%_ greater AOE. So all it means is your tests were incredibly faulty when something basic as a spell with greater AOE hitting less units standing still than a Spell with smaller AOE. I really can't take your "Tests" very seriously at all, sorry NInja Edit, like you!
Yes, Psi Storm does have the potential to hit your own zealots. Not going to even try to deny that. But being a cheap, instant cast that can be produced easier than a Raven (Less Gas, less wait, 5 second summon) that does more damage over an area (You keep calling that into question, I keep telling you to test) doing friendly fire or a suicide attack is better than a detector with other useful spells suiciding because of a terrible, terrible spell. In addition, you need to march your own units into the spell. HSM can be led into your own units (Assuming amazing Micro, or amazing luck). I'm sorry, you may act like I'm being snide by disregarding your "Tests", but they ARE faulty. I mean, a spell with 1.5 AOE hits more units than a spell with 2.0 AOE. I can't understand how when something as basic as that is wrong that you wouldn't somehow think you fucked up your tests in one way or another. High Tempalrs put a 45second cooldown on warpgates. Protoss does have flexibility with warpgate units, but you just can't create whatever you want whenever you want, you have to juggle cooldowns to create a proper balanced army. A raven costs 50/50 more than a Templar, but the benefits? It provides Detection, most almost twice as fast, it can fly AND has other spells which can greatly benefit the Terran army. Obviously due to the convenience of Tech labs and such compared to Warpgates, a Protoss WILL have more Templars in their army, but there is nothing wrong with that. Different races will have different units, but at least damage wise, Seeker Missile has the same energy efficiency as a 3second Storm which is pretty goddamn good if you consider that all its damage is BURST as opposed to a 20dps AOE--you would except something that does it's damage over a longer period of time with a smaller AOE in a static location would be more efficient if a unit stands in it for the full duration. A Hunter Seeker could be lead into your army, but the only Melee unit Terran actually has is an SCV--good luck trying to lead Seeker Missile into ranged Units that move faster than it and have soo much DPS that they can almost instantly snipe whatever that unit is Guess what I did? I tested. You are correct, and the raven does have a larger splash radius. For instance, If a group of 35 zerglings are clumped up, 22 will survive but all take damage, whereas for a storm, 16 will survive but not take any damage (Unless they, you know, run through the storm, seeing as they only lasted 2 seconds). I apologize for that inconsistancy, you are entirely correct that the range is larger. I suppose I remembered wrong. Now, try it out for yourself. Do it. (Note, clumped up means a perfect circle, not like a wave which is how zerglings/zealots will be clumped up. So, now we've come to these conclusions: A 3 second AOE spell that costs 75 energy will do more damage than a 125 energy spell that has a higher cost to cast it/build. It will also be more likely fatal units who don't move. A Raven can only cast a HSM and one other spell (after waiting for 125-150 energy from spawn). A templar can cast 2 storms and one feedback, then merge from more safe distances assuming he's not alone. (Generally, merging is unsafe but provides a damage soaker if combat is initiated). As I said before, I would love to Ape someone who's using HSM's well, but their cost to potential ratio is extremely sad. Just a random note: That sudden burst of speed is at very close range. Like, 1. You're given 6 in game seconds if you're running to do some form of reaction, which is far more than you get from a storm (You instantly react, or take 50-100% damage). You argue in a strange fashion how good HSM is by pointing out how weak it is. I'm not trying to say HSM is as good as Psi-Storm, what I'm saying that comparatively, it is not that worse. The spells shouldn't be equivalent. Psi-Storm SHOULD be stronger than HSM because of how reliant Protoss are on it. Psi-Storm, just like Fungal are two of the strongest spells in the game, so much so that Protoss and Zerg really can't function in the late game without them. But Terran DOES NOT NEED a Fungal or a Psi-Storm, they are completely capable of making it into the late game without the need of a strong spell. If HSM was as strong as either of those two spells then Terran would undoubtedly be _overpowered_. But HSM isn't significantly worse, just looking at its limitations, stats, damage and other uses of a Raven, HSM is a _GOOD_ spell. There are situations that HSM is going to be stronger than Psi-Storm, very common situations. The random speed is within _2 range_, not 1. Not that the Spell should somehow guarantee 100% AOE if it is casted, that is absurd. Ofcourse people have time to split units at max distance and are retreating, if they couldn't then the spell would be ridiculous, but there _are_ going to be situations where people just won't have the time to split i.e Speedlots/Lings/Banes charging in
So this is where the reaver went. He now flies and hits 100% of the time ! :D :/ Terran dont need a reaver.
|
How is the ramp change going to affect scouting? People normally suicide a scv or something to the ramp to scout their opponents unit composition. Isn't this change going to make that much harder and result in scouting much harder. Perhaps Blizzard considered this and that's why they changed the cost of observers and overseers but I think they would come too late anyway.
|
HSM will still be useless outside of lategame T v T, I don't even understand why they changed it. It's the 2nd worst spell in the game after 250mm cannons.
|
On August 26 2011 10:46 makk wrote:
How is the ramp change going to affect scouting? People normally suicide a scv or something to the ramp to scout their opponents unit composition. Isn't this change going to make that much harder and result in scouting much harder. Perhaps Blizzard considered this and that's why they changed the cost of observers and overseers but I think they would come too late anyway.
dont think it'll make much of a difference as your worker would probably die before reaching the top of the ramp. you can still scout their unit composition by seeing the weapons that fire at you. you dont need vision up a high ground to see the animation of the units. the ramp change was only meant for pvp balance purposes
|
On August 26 2011 10:52 dbddbddb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 10:46 makk wrote:
How is the ramp change going to affect scouting? People normally suicide a scv or something to the ramp to scout their opponents unit composition. Isn't this change going to make that much harder and result in scouting much harder. Perhaps Blizzard considered this and that's why they changed the cost of observers and overseers but I think they would come too late anyway. dont think it'll make much of a difference as your worker would probably die before reaching the top of the ramp. you can still scout their unit composition by seeing the weapons that fire at you. you dont need vision up a high ground to see the animation of the units. the ramp change was only meant for pvp balance purposes
Yeah it was obviously intended for that but doesn't mean it isn't going to have over consequences like not being able to scout a fast CC
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
