|
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 |
On September 16 2011 13:25 Xequecal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 13:24 Havefa1th wrote:
I'm sorry, you get the 5 sentries you made at the beginning to stop my all-in/3 gate expand and I need twice as many roaches as you need stalkers to win. You're not counting warp gate, I'm not counting ling speed and an overseer. So assuming that's true, because stalkers cost twice the amount of gas as roaches, this is 750 more gas than you need. This is almost three game minutes with six gas geysers!
You think I'm going 6 gas immediately? that's 6 less drones + I'm starving on minerals. I don't mine gas for as nearly as long as you do, because I can't economically.
And stop saying it's fucking apples and oranges, high gas units are high gas units. I'm tired of every non-Zerg player assuming there can be mass roach/corruptor/infestor/brood lord out at any point of time. Zerg late game is as gas intensive as Protoss or Terran (even more so than Terran), so you can make all these hypothetical situations of where Zerg crush you, but you can't outright assume they cost nothing. Because it's not true.
That's the only reason I'm pursuing this.
Edit: To this person:
"What crazy planet are you from, where you need more roaches than stalkers to win lol?"
BAHAHAHAHA
|
On September 16 2011 13:24 Havefa1th wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 13:21 Xequecal wrote:On September 16 2011 13:16 Havefa1th wrote:On September 16 2011 13:09 Xequecal wrote:On September 16 2011 13:04 Havefa1th wrote:
You think that there's enough gas on three bases to go infestor, energy upgrade and NP after going mass roach, burrow and burrow movement off 3 base? You haven't played enough Zerg and it explains your ramblings. So you don't have enough gas on 3 bases to get infestors, but somehow I have enough gas to get both HTs and colossus? How do you come up with this? My 50 gas stalkers and 100 gas sentries drain a lot more gas than your 25 gas roaches. Come on. You're suggesting burrow-move roaches with infestors with NP. That's easily equivalent to double robo after HT tech on 3 bases. We need 2 tech structures and 5 upgrades for the build you're suggesting, + more roaches than you have stalkers to remain competitive. You need 4 tech structures and 2 upgrades to do the build I'm suggesting, no need to get more than 5 sentries than you had in the beginning. If you want to throw out a super gas heavy build order for Zerg, I can throw one out for Protoss. robofac + robobay + lances + council + archives + storm = 1000 gas. lair + pit + roach speed + burrow move + burrow + glands + parasite = 850 gas. That's not even counting warpgates or the first robo. Also I need to dump a lot more gas into stalkers and sentries than you need to dump into roaches. 150 gas is one more fungal. gg I'm sorry, you get the 5 sentries you made at the beginning to stop my all-in/3 gate expand and I need twice as many roaches as you need stalkers to win. You're not counting warp gate, I'm not counting ling speed and an overseer.
What crazy planet are you from, where you need more roaches than stalkers to win lol?
blink micro ...... backwards.......so sentries and collosus are at front?
|
On September 16 2011 13:31 Havefa1th wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 13:25 Xequecal wrote:On September 16 2011 13:24 Havefa1th wrote:
I'm sorry, you get the 5 sentries you made at the beginning to stop my all-in/3 gate expand and I need twice as many roaches as you need stalkers to win. You're not counting warp gate, I'm not counting ling speed and an overseer. So assuming that's true, because stalkers cost twice the amount of gas as roaches, this is 750 more gas than you need. This is almost three game minutes with six gas geysers! You think I'm going 6 gas immediately? that's 6 less drones + I'm starving on minerals. I don't mine gas for as nearly as long as you do, because I can't economically. And stop saying it's fucking apples and oranges, high gas units are high gas units. I'm tired of every non-Zerg player assuming there can be mass roach/corruptor/infestor/brood lord out at any point of time. Zerg late game is as gas intensive as Protoss or Terran (even more so than Terran), so you can make all these hypothetical situations of where Zerg crush you, but you can't outright assume they cost nothing. Because it's not true. That's the only reason I'm pursuing this. Edit: To this person: "What crazy planet are you from, where you need more roaches than stalkers to win lol?" BAHAHAHAHA
People also seem to think that zerg can make 1000000 units instantly. Not if they are supply blocked. Not if they don't have the required minerals. Taking out a highly expensive zerg army right after the zerg builds it ensures that they can only make mass lings, then you can just lol and make zealots and win. Or lol and make hellion/marine and win.
Zerg plays with the same limitations on resources that the other two race have, and remember, zerg as a race is COST INEFFICIENT.
I'd argue that zerg needs more. people seem to ignore that infestors are 150 gas. that all their high tech units are 50-100-150-200 gas. couple this with those same high tech units also having low supply cost, and zerg instantly streams ahead in the gas requirement department. I consistently find myself running low on gas and floating minerals as a zerg. I've even contemplated the efficacy of just trying to take that 1 more expo solely for the gas. Zerg is a gas hog race. I know protossers like to complain, but its so easy to mass VRs or stalkers and mix in immortals. Its less easy to build counter units to those things cost efficiently. Look at the immortal. It owns roaches, its usually protected by stalkers and maybe some zealots to destroy any ling attempts. The immortal is only 100 gas, yet it requires an investment like the infestor with NP, or 3 hydras per immortal, or about 12 lings, just to kill it. And the hydra and lings get chewed up if there's a colossus nearby.
protoss units are good at forcing zerg to build lots of something to counter a very few specific units that P has on the field, and then zerg doesn't get the ability to have a bigger army than it currently does, meaning that it does invest heavily into counters that are torn apart by other aspects of the P ball.
Thats why people have swtiched to mass lingfestor.
if it wasn't the most effective unit comp, people wouldn't be using it so much. Therefore it stands to reason, the rest of the zerg army cant field the numbers or the firepower and health to deal with it.
If Zerg was supposed to be based around numbers, and health is not something we want to add to zerg, we have to admit that we should lower the supply costs and make zerg slightly more gas efficient.
|
The thing is Blizzard will have to do all these patch all over again when 2 expansions come with a new unit... and we will get to argue about the balance for the next 3-4 years.
|
|
|
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost.
|
On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost.
This is why zergs almost always take one more base than a protoss. Since you are using that extra hatch for unit production purposes, there is no need to synergize with the output of a base. You can choose whether you mine gas, minerals, or both. In BW, zergs would take bases almost solely for the gas.
And your ratios don't prove anything, since you conveniently leave out most of the protoss units that cost a lot of gas (sentry/HT/DT/Colo/Phoenix/Carrier/Mothership).
And the big one- OBSERVER! 300% gas!!!!!!! See why ratios don't tell the whole story?
|
1:1 mineral to gas ratio means 50% gas ;p
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 16 2011 12:05 Lomak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 12:03 Whitewing wrote:On September 16 2011 11:46 iamke55 wrote:On September 16 2011 10:59 Nemireck wrote:On September 16 2011 10:57 Xequecal wrote:
You guys are completely missing the point here. Zerg can't be given an efficient colossus counter. It can only have inefficient ones. Colossi and immortals are the only units Protoss has that can beat roaches. Roaches are a straight-up hard counter to basically every Protoss unit or combination of units except immortals and colossi, and immortals aren't that good against them either.. That's ridiculous. 20 blink stalkers can kill 20 roaches incredibly efficiently. Sentries in the mix can all but guarantee that not a single blink stalker will be lost vs roaches. Next time someone says blink is good vs broodlords I will tell them 20 broodlords kill 20 blink stalkers incredibly efficiently. Seriously. Cost of 20 Roaches: 1500 minerals, 500 gas. Cost of 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas. The stalkers cost way way more. A better comparison would be: 33 roaches: 2475 minerals, 825 gas 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas Which is a much closer fight, and the 20 stalkers is still more expensive. Then remember that zerg has more money than protoss available to him at most points in time. That, by itself, is making a lot of assumptions about what happened in the game up to that point.
True, although it is true for the overwhelming majority of PvZs. That said, it doesn't in any way contradict my point about unit costs, 20 stalkers are way way more expensive than 20 roaches, and are in fact more expensive than 33 roaches by a fair amount.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost.
Way to leave out a shit ton of protoss units from that list that are very gas heavy:
Sentry: 200% gas
Observer: 300% gas
High Templar: 300% gas
dark Templar: 100% gas
Colossi: 66% gas
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 16 2011 14:13 Blackk wrote:
1:1 mineral to gas ratio means 50% gas ;p
Yeah, if he was using any normal mathematics notation he'd have done it that way. My previous post just follows through with his established convention for this conversation.
|
I don't really get the point there. You're saying that if you avoid building your most gas-costly unit, you won't have enough gas to build a bunch of other, less gas-costly units? Or do you have too much gas?
I guess it never really clicked with me what a great mineral dump roaches are, too.
|
On September 16 2011 12:08 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 12:05 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 12:03 Whitewing wrote:On September 16 2011 11:46 iamke55 wrote:On September 16 2011 10:59 Nemireck wrote:On September 16 2011 10:57 Xequecal wrote:
You guys are completely missing the point here. Zerg can't be given an efficient colossus counter. It can only have inefficient ones. Colossi and immortals are the only units Protoss has that can beat roaches. Roaches are a straight-up hard counter to basically every Protoss unit or combination of units except immortals and colossi, and immortals aren't that good against them either.. That's ridiculous. 20 blink stalkers can kill 20 roaches incredibly efficiently. Sentries in the mix can all but guarantee that not a single blink stalker will be lost vs roaches. Next time someone says blink is good vs broodlords I will tell them 20 broodlords kill 20 blink stalkers incredibly efficiently. Seriously. Cost of 20 Roaches: 1500 minerals, 500 gas. Cost of 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas. The stalkers cost way way more. A better comparison would be: 33 roaches: 2475 minerals, 825 gas 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas Which is a much closer fight, and the 20 stalkers is still more expensive. Then remember that zerg has more money than protoss available to him at most points in time. That, by itself, is making a lot of assumptions about what happened in the game up to that point. It's assuming a normal game. If there is a point that the protoss has hindered the zerg to make him not ahead at that point in time, that means the protoss is outplaying him and deserves the win barring a huge error. Zergs will just continue to try and act like the matchup is protoss-favored despite zerg having been ahead in international winrates since April.
Let me see if I've got this right:
Zerg has an economic advantage in any "normal" game where neither side has harassed the other nor any major macro mistakes have occurred.
If the Protoss -does- manage to upset this balance and reduce the Zerg to an -equal- economy, the Zerg should by all rights lose the game.
So if Zerg does not have an economic advantage, Zerg should lose more often than not. This is your argument for the matchup being in Zerg's favour? That if they don't have more supply and resources spent into economy they should lose because... the other dude's playing protoss?
Cool story bro. I like that our advantage isn't even an advantage at all, because by your logic if we're on equal ground, I'm behind.
|
On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost.
LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much?
Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%
Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%
Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%
High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this
Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%
Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%
TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information.
Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much
cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units.
|
This thread is just full of whining about EVERYTHING. Makes me fucking sick. The thing I don't get at all is that in community shouldn't people try to find best ways instead of bashing every race allover again... and again... and again.
Whats the latest shit in this thread? GAS COSTS WHAT THE HELL. Why do people even start to compare gas costs? It is so much complicated than they look. People should take in consideration unit class THEN start comparing them THEN comparing THEIR abilities AND THEIR armor/hp/attack and so on.
I bet there aren't page without a single whine post. It is great to have constructive criticism and have a chat about the changes, but every single nerf and every single buff that comes to different race THAT IS NOT THE PLAYERS MAIN RACE will cause a shitstorm around here.
|
On September 16 2011 14:33 Staboteur wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 12:08 Heavenly wrote:On September 16 2011 12:05 Lomak wrote:On September 16 2011 12:03 Whitewing wrote:On September 16 2011 11:46 iamke55 wrote:On September 16 2011 10:59 Nemireck wrote:On September 16 2011 10:57 Xequecal wrote:
You guys are completely missing the point here. Zerg can't be given an efficient colossus counter. It can only have inefficient ones. Colossi and immortals are the only units Protoss has that can beat roaches. Roaches are a straight-up hard counter to basically every Protoss unit or combination of units except immortals and colossi, and immortals aren't that good against them either.. That's ridiculous. 20 blink stalkers can kill 20 roaches incredibly efficiently. Sentries in the mix can all but guarantee that not a single blink stalker will be lost vs roaches. Next time someone says blink is good vs broodlords I will tell them 20 broodlords kill 20 blink stalkers incredibly efficiently. Seriously. Cost of 20 Roaches: 1500 minerals, 500 gas. Cost of 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas. The stalkers cost way way more. A better comparison would be: 33 roaches: 2475 minerals, 825 gas 20 Stalkers: 2500 minerals, 1000 gas Which is a much closer fight, and the 20 stalkers is still more expensive. Then remember that zerg has more money than protoss available to him at most points in time. That, by itself, is making a lot of assumptions about what happened in the game up to that point. It's assuming a normal game. If there is a point that the protoss has hindered the zerg to make him not ahead at that point in time, that means the protoss is outplaying him and deserves the win barring a huge error. Zergs will just continue to try and act like the matchup is protoss-favored despite zerg having been ahead in international winrates since April. Let me see if I've got this right: Zerg has an economic advantage in any "normal" game where neither side has harassed the other nor any major macro mistakes have occurred. If the Protoss -does- manage to upset this balance and reduce the Zerg to an -equal- economy, the Zerg should by all rights lose the game. So if Zerg does not have an economic advantage, Zerg should lose more often than not. This is your argument for the matchup being in Zerg's favour? That if they don't have more supply and resources spent into economy they should lose because... the other dude's playing protoss? Cool story bro. I like that our advantage isn't even an advantage at all, because by your logic if we're on equal ground, I'm behind.
It was like that in BW, too.
|
Russian Federation473 Posts
so guys - 9000 posts and 1 000 000 views - we've been trolled hard by mr. kim =))))))
|
On September 16 2011 14:37 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2011 14:00 Truedot wrote:
I want to clarify where I said it was easy to mass VRs or put some immortals in a stalker ball.
Look at this:
baneling 50/25. 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 1/2 supply. 50% gas
roach 75/25 3:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 33% gas
hydra 100/50 2:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 50% gas
infestor 100/150 2:3 mineral/gas ratio. 2 133% gas
muta 100/100 1:1 mineral/gas ratio. 2 100% gas
corruptor 150/100 3:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 66% gas
brood lord 300/250 6:5 mineral/gas ratio 4 83% gas
Ultralisk 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66% gas
Stalker 125/50 5:2 mineral/gas ratio. 2 40% gas
immortal 250/100 5:2 mineral/gas ratio 4 40% gas
void ray 250/150 5:3 mineral/gas ratio 3 60% gas
Im going to stop there. I hope it illustrates that the cost efficiency of gas is far in favor of the protoss army.
which Race is more likely to synergize with the ~840 mineral output and ~ 240 gas output of a single base?
its not Zerg.
This is the reason why infestor mass was used. Getting it nerfed will not cause zerg to pick up other ways to fight the P ball, because there is no other way because zerg units are too inefficient and weak for their inefficiency and their supply cost. LOL, stop right when its convenient for you. Hippocracy much? Colossus 300/200 3:2 mineral/gas ratio 6 66%Carrier 350/250 3.5:2.5 mineral/gas ratio 6 71%Dark Templar 125/125 1:1 ratio 2 100%High Templar 50/150 1:3 ratio 2 300% gas !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No other zerg unit even comes close to this Phoenix 150/100 3:2 ratio 2 66%Observer 25/75 1:3 ratio 1 300% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sentry 50/100 1:2 ratio 2 200%TLDR; Stop making up meaningless, retarded numbers (which have very little bearing on game balance). If you insist on actually using irrelevant numbers, then atleast have the integrity to do the right thing and post entire information. Edit: If anything I would argue that higher tier zerg units should be costlier in terms of gas (more than what they currently cost), because their lower tier, core ranged unit (roaches ) are much cheaper in terms of gas when compared to Stalker, so they get a higher amount of leftover gas to spend on higher tier units.
this comparison is stupid and says nothing of worth (ok, ill give you that this shows you how much gas you should mine per mineral mined to be able to mass a certain unit type, it says nothing regarding balance), this is what it says:
minerals / gas: this gives an index of gas intensity, but does not say how expensive the unit is.
(notice this claims siege tanks are less gas-intense than dark templars)
(this claims vikings are equally gas intense as a single baneling)
(this claims mutalisks are more gas-intense than carriers)
some better comparisons would be:
gas/supply : this shows how much a 200/200 army (of the single unit type aka not very useful unless used realistically) costs in gas compared to other races
(gas+minerals)/supply : this shows how much an army (same thing about a single unit type) costs compared to the other races
(minerals / gas) * supply = gas intensity * supply: this gives an index of the "importance" of the unit.
(notice this claims siege tanks are more important than dark templars)
(this claims vikings are more important than single banelings)
(this claims mutalisks are less important than carriers)
*this can also be called the "required tech-investment" into the unit
p.s. I am not a whiner nor a balance complainer, just thought I would try to turn the attention away from useless facts.
|
Neural now has range 7 instead of 9 - It will be really hard to use infestor neural now, i am a platinum zerg, I feel as if I will stop using them completely cause I can't get them close enough to the important units to use neural on before they are shreded
|
New Neural Change makes Neural brutally aweful vs Tanks and Colossi, and now it has the same range as Thor, but I guess it still works vs Thors, so it should be OK...
I just wish that this patch wouldn't cater Protoss players that are aweful in microing colossi.
I would have appreciated a buff for Ps (Feedback +1range anyone?) instead of nerfing Zerg, which will influence ZvT (slightly over 50% winrate in all tournaments for Terran already) and ZvZ as well. (Broodlords will be brutal hard to NP --> more Ultras in ZvZs --> more 1a, instead of well positioned Broodlord + support armies)
All in all, I guess Infestorplay will still make sense after that patch, but 1a-deathballs will just be way harder to deal with it, as they will randomly kill your infestors now, instead of requiering that on right click to snipe the Infestor...
On September 16 2011 16:23 Fym wrote:
Neural now has range 7 instead of 9 - It will be really hard to use infestor neural now, i am a platinum zerg, I feel as if I will stop using them completely cause I can't get them close enough to the important units to use neural on before they are shreded
In ZvZ you will still need it midgame against roaches (and a possible muta switch). Fungal also still offers like 500 Million more dps than the Hydralisk alternative, for it's costs.
In ZvP you can still go banelingdrops, the important thing is, that Infestors still handle Zealot/Archon.
For ZvT... The only 2 units to neural would be tanks and thor. It wasn't really important for tanks anyway, so it leaves thor-centric play. 7range vs 7range doesn't feel like a counter anymore, still thors are really clumpy and unlike colossi can't just walk over everything to snipe your infestors, so I guess it is still OK...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
