|
Looking for discussion on the topic of the Charge nerf.
Personally, I see it as a massive, massive nerf because it reduced the Zealot's damage after Charge by a whopping 33% and that in turn means they kill units slower which means they're being asked to tank more. A lot more.
We see this reflected in how the Zealot currently operates, before Bio could stutter step and gain value out of it whereas now, Bio can't run but melts Zealots so fast that it doesn't matter. In PvP you almost never see Chargelots now until late game for runby potential and in PvZ Zerglings literally beat Zealots now in moderate numbers and only lose when it's small amounts of units.
So other than the instance of being able to run half your Zealots away from a crappy battle (the other half will still die) how is new Charge a redesign that doesn't culminate in a massive, unjustified nerf?
Even the runby potential is mitigated by getting a Warp Prism or a forward Pylon, both of which take away the power of a faster Zealot - and both of those augmentations are something any Protoss player worth their salt does.
Additionally, since the Charge change, entire play styles have died off, leading to a more streamlined (and stagnant) meta and to what end? I'm not aware of any instances where Charge was so overpowered that it was breaking the game.
So change my mind about Charge redesign being a massive, unjustified nerf. Just remember that we're all people so be civil.  Nobody deserves to be treated poorly for an opinion that they can explain in detail.
|
It is a nerf. I think that much is clear. However, you haven't provided any reasons as to why it is an unjustified nerf. To do that you would have to show unfavorable win rates vs t and/or specific reasons as to why the nerf is unjustifiable.
|
On January 13 2020 05:15 krlwlzn wrote:
It is a nerf. I think that much is clear. However, you haven't provided any reasons as to why it is an unjustified nerf. To do that you would have to show unfavorable win rates vs t and/or specific reasons as to why the nerf is unjustifiable.
Agreed but to my knowledge, there was never a strategy so oppressive involving Charge that it dominated the meta or impacted the pro scene on a major level and win rates as I understand them, reflected this.
If a nerf can't be justified via win rates (or build orders), then why make the nerf? Especially when it kills several strategies and an entire play style.
Redesigns are great but not when they do a ton of damage to meta diversity for a race that already has meta diversity issues nor are they great when they don't consider all the variables and I'm 80% sure the balance team did not consider that a 33% damage nerf is so massive that it impacts the tankiness of said unit indirectly. Speed buffs don't change the loss of that unit role.
|
It is a massive nerf, and one that really doesn't make sense to me.
Gateway heavy styles are fun, give protoss some good "aggressive macro" play, and are now a lot closer to being dead 
It's not like Protoss was overperforming either, nerfing their most basic core unit is really strange.
|
On January 13 2020 05:44 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:It is a massive nerf, and one that really doesn't make sense to me. Gateway heavy styles are fun, give protoss some good "aggressive macro" play, and are now a lot closer to being dead It's not like Protoss was overperforming either, nerfing their most basic core unit is really strange.
That's what kinda gets me too, I don't see a reason for Charge to get nerfed. If it's a matter of it being too effective for the APM investment...which imo is a valid reason, then that design philosophy needs to be applied equally for every race. Start nerfing low skill high damage crap like Widow Mine drops if we're in the that territory (I don't support this, I support consistency in terms of design philosophy which is my biggest beef with the balance team currently, their design philosophy is incoherent).
It killed the one thing that was keeping me in StarCraft 2...fast charge with a quick 3rd.
|
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough.
|
Northern Ireland24239 Posts
Await to see how it pans out.
Protoss could take incredibly greedy 3rds while teching hardcore last patch, arguably too easily specifically in PvT.
|
On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough.
That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors and Vikings while being awful vs anything but Hellions, Hellbats and Marines. EMP wrecks not only HT but also every single Protoss unit and after the upgrade, in a massive AoE. Disruptors are only good vs mech (once you mass them) or someone who can't load up into Medivacs/split. Terran have answers to every single AoE threat that Protoss has - and that's fine, every race should have a clear counter option to every other race's options.
On January 13 2020 06:18 Wombat_NI wrote:
Await to see how it pans out.
Protoss could take incredibly greedy 3rds while teching hardcore last patch, arguably too easily specifically in PvT.
To a certain extent I agree but honestly, I'd want to see numbers regarding this. In my personal experience, last season was mostly Terrans doing awful blind 2 base allins which got countered by Charge outside of Hellion Banshee. What I would have done was change Charge's damage from +8 to +5 with +1 per attack upgrade, bringing it back to +8 after tier 3 attack upgrades. Or figured out a balanced way to make them more tanky while moving that damage to the Adept in a non-gimmicky way. So to me, it's mostly the fault of Terrans for doing blind allins which lose to charge openers and segway into a fast 3rd because Terran no longer has the economic capability to punish it after the failed allin...a meta issue, really and one I think the new Thor would have solved along with the easier transition into Libs and super Medivacs in the late game.
|
On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors -
Stopped reading right there.
|
On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there.
Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better,
|
I have yet to see any massive swing in balance that one would naturally expect from a supposedly massive nerf. Protoss seems to be doing just fine, in fact, macro games appear mostly standard and chargelots are made every game.
Of course, this could be for any number of reasons; other buffs/nerfs/meta shifts/whatever. But as long as the game is in a healthy state, which it seems to be, I'm not inclined to complain. That would just be whining for the sake of whining.
Maybe it was a massive nerf. Maybe not. Who cares?
|
On January 13 2020 07:19 pvsnp wrote:
I have yet to see any massive swing in balance that one would naturally expect from a supposedly massive nerf. Protoss seems to be doing just fine, in fact, macro games appear mostly standard and chargelots are made every game.
Of course, this could be for any number of reasons; other buffs/nerfs/meta shifts/whatever. But as long as the game is in a healthy state, which it seems to be, I'm not inclined to complain. That would just be whining for the sake of whining.
Maybe it was a massive nerf. Maybe not. Who cares?
Well, there is an impication in the form of Zealots no longer being used as a breaching round and Charge 1st openers are just dead. As are mass gateway styles and the 2 base 1 gas Charge allin.
It's not that it was a nerf that Protoss couldn't handle, it's that the nerf wasn't based on balance and as a result, Protoss lost a bunch of builds.
I care for one, I was the kind of player who would open fast Charge, take an early 3rd and smother my opponent in Chargelots as I macro'd like a boss, got tech, etc. That kind of style no longer exists for Protoss; an aggressive macro Gateway style. And it didn't die in the name of balance, it died because we have a balance team that is doing weird, inconsistent stuff for funsies.
|
On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better,
All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games.
I suggest you stop grasping at straws.
Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS!
|
On January 13 2020 07:47 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better, All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games. I suggest you stop grasping at straws. Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS!
Colossi are made as a reaction to Bio or as an opener. Thors aren't usually made with bio unless it's a transition. Doesn't mean Thors don't make Colossi absolutely useless nor does it mean someone won't use Thors to beat Colossi.
I aint grasping at straws, you're over elaborating. I'm simply going through counters to Protoss AoE. No more goal post moving please.
Immortals trade evenly with Thors, they don't beat them. The counter to the Thor is lots of Disruptors with support (3 Novas to kill a Thor from full health).
|
Meh. Now you can chase units down better with zealots, and set up flanks better. It probably nerfed your playstyle more than Protoss.
|
On January 13 2020 08:38 ThunderJunk wrote:
Meh. Now you can chase units down better with zealots, and set up flanks better. It probably nerfed your playstyle more than Protoss.
It nerfed Protoss as well because Zealots and certain builds no longer exist. My playstyle is completely dead. Setting up flanks was already pretty easy via warp prisms or scouter pylons, it just makes it easier to be lazy with your flanks.
|
On January 13 2020 07:29 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:19 pvsnp wrote:
I have yet to see any massive swing in balance that one would naturally expect from a supposedly massive nerf. Protoss seems to be doing just fine, in fact, macro games appear mostly standard and chargelots are made every game.
Of course, this could be for any number of reasons; other buffs/nerfs/meta shifts/whatever. But as long as the game is in a healthy state, which it seems to be, I'm not inclined to complain. That would just be whining for the sake of whining.
Maybe it was a massive nerf. Maybe not. Who cares? Well, there is an impication in the form of Zealots no longer being used as a breaching round and Charge 1st openers are just dead. As are mass gateway styles and the 2 base 1 gas Charge allin. It's not that it was a nerf that Protoss couldn't handle, it's that the nerf wasn't based on balance and as a result, Protoss lost a bunch of builds. I care for one, I was the kind of player who would open fast Charge, take an early 3rd and smother my opponent in Chargelots as I macro'd like a boss, got tech, etc. That kind of style no longer exists for Protoss; an aggressive macro Gateway style. And it didn't die in the name of balance, it died because we have a balance team that is doing weird, inconsistent stuff for funsies.
Well I hate to break it to you, but the balance team neither knows nor cares about your individual games. Their job is to create a healthy game for the bulk of the playerbase, including pros, and as far as pretty much everyone else is concerned, the new charge serves that purpose and serves it well.
This simply is not the problem that you pretend it is.
|
On January 13 2020 09:02 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:29 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 07:19 pvsnp wrote:
I have yet to see any massive swing in balance that one would naturally expect from a supposedly massive nerf. Protoss seems to be doing just fine, in fact, macro games appear mostly standard and chargelots are made every game.
Of course, this could be for any number of reasons; other buffs/nerfs/meta shifts/whatever. But as long as the game is in a healthy state, which it seems to be, I'm not inclined to complain. That would just be whining for the sake of whining.
Maybe it was a massive nerf. Maybe not. Who cares? Well, there is an impication in the form of Zealots no longer being used as a breaching round and Charge 1st openers are just dead. As are mass gateway styles and the 2 base 1 gas Charge allin. It's not that it was a nerf that Protoss couldn't handle, it's that the nerf wasn't based on balance and as a result, Protoss lost a bunch of builds. I care for one, I was the kind of player who would open fast Charge, take an early 3rd and smother my opponent in Chargelots as I macro'd like a boss, got tech, etc. That kind of style no longer exists for Protoss; an aggressive macro Gateway style. And it didn't die in the name of balance, it died because we have a balance team that is doing weird, inconsistent stuff for funsies. Well I hate to break it to you, but the balance team neither knows nor cares about your individual games. Their job is to create a healthy game for the bulk of the playerbase, including pros, and as far as pretty much everyone else is concerned, the new charge serves that purpose.
Serves what new purpose though? Warp Prisms and spotter pylons allowed for flanks and runbys already. All that's left is Zealots can now retreat at the massive cost which is a 33% damage nerf, which in turn impacts what they can tank.
Did Protoss players ever say to themselves "Gee, I really wish I could save my mineral sink units, even if it cost me 33% of their damage to get that buff".
I get the feeling that the balance team wanted to rotate the damage of Charge to the Adept, which would have made sense but they kinda botched that concept by making the additional damage exceedingly gimmicky and restrictive, meanwhile you still have the issue of Zealots being made of tissue paper in the mid game due to the loss of damage.
It's a massive, massive nerf that killed multiple builds, killed an aggressive macro-orientated playstyle and didn't offer anything new except the ability to run away more easily and to save 100-250 minerals by skipping a spotter pylon or warp prism to enable the same plays.
Maybe I'm missing something here but overall I'd say this is a significantly worse direction to head toward, a meta where Protoss either cheese/allin or deathball. The same meta Protoss had in WoL and HotS...I enjoyed Protoss being able to play aggressively, delaying tech to provide faster economy and relying on threatening gateway compositions to bully the opponent..now you can't do that. At all.
|
On January 13 2020 09:13 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 09:02 pvsnp wrote:On January 13 2020 07:29 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 07:19 pvsnp wrote:
I have yet to see any massive swing in balance that one would naturally expect from a supposedly massive nerf. Protoss seems to be doing just fine, in fact, macro games appear mostly standard and chargelots are made every game.
Of course, this could be for any number of reasons; other buffs/nerfs/meta shifts/whatever. But as long as the game is in a healthy state, which it seems to be, I'm not inclined to complain. That would just be whining for the sake of whining.
Maybe it was a massive nerf. Maybe not. Who cares? Well, there is an impication in the form of Zealots no longer being used as a breaching round and Charge 1st openers are just dead. As are mass gateway styles and the 2 base 1 gas Charge allin. It's not that it was a nerf that Protoss couldn't handle, it's that the nerf wasn't based on balance and as a result, Protoss lost a bunch of builds. I care for one, I was the kind of player who would open fast Charge, take an early 3rd and smother my opponent in Chargelots as I macro'd like a boss, got tech, etc. That kind of style no longer exists for Protoss; an aggressive macro Gateway style. And it didn't die in the name of balance, it died because we have a balance team that is doing weird, inconsistent stuff for funsies. Well I hate to break it to you, but the balance team neither knows nor cares about your individual games. Their job is to create a healthy game for the bulk of the playerbase, including pros, and as far as pretty much everyone else is concerned, the new charge serves that purpose. Serves what new purpose though? Warp Prisms and spotter pylons allowed for flanks and runbys already. All that's left is Zealots can now retreat at the massive cost which is a 33% damage nerf, which in turn impacts what they can tank. Did Protoss players ever say to themselves "Gee, I really wish I could save my mineral sink units, even if it cost me 33% of their damage to get that buff". I get the feeling that the balance team wanted to rotate the damage of Charge to the Adept, which would have made sense but they kinda botched that concept by making the additional damage exceedingly gimmicky and restrictive, meanwhile you still have the issue of Zealots being made of tissue paper in the mid game due to the loss of damage. It's a massive, massive nerf that killed multiple builds, killed an aggressive macro-orientated playstyle and didn't offer anything new except the ability to run away more easily and to save 100-250 minerals by skipping a spotter pylon or warp prism to enable the same plays.
If you're going to talk about a "massive, massive nerf" that has little to no effect on Protoss winrates, Protoss armies, and Protoss players, then you should be prepared for some healthy skepticism. Protoss still makes chargelots. Protoss still wins games. Protoss complaints about charge have been nonexistent compared to the Oracle changes (that were recently fixed).
You're free to embark on a one-man crusade if you like, but don't expect everyone–or anyone–else to care.
|
On January 13 2020 08:02 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:47 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better, All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games. I suggest you stop grasping at straws. Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS! Colossi are made as a reaction to Bio or as an opener. Thors aren't usually made with bio unless it's a transition. Doesn't mean Thors don't make Colossi absolutely useless nor does it mean someone won't use Thors to beat Colossi.I aint grasping at straws, you're over elaborating. I'm simply going through counters to Protoss AoE. No more goal post moving please. Immortals trade evenly with Thors, they don't beat them. The counter to the Thor is lots of Disruptors with support (3 Novas to kill a Thor from full health).
The fact that Thors aren't usually made with bio means that Thors don't affect Colossi in 90% of bio vs protoss at pro-level. Please show me a pro-level bio game where "someone" used thors to beat Colossi. You're literally grasping for counters to colossi from thin air without any grounded basis in actual professional game-play.
I've held my goal post at your comment on how Thors counter Colossi.
|
|
|
On January 13 2020 09:27 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 08:02 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 07:47 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better, All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games. I suggest you stop grasping at straws. Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS! Colossi are made as a reaction to Bio or as an opener. Thors aren't usually made with bio unless it's a transition. Doesn't mean Thors don't make Colossi absolutely useless nor does it mean someone won't use Thors to beat Colossi.I aint grasping at straws, you're over elaborating. I'm simply going through counters to Protoss AoE. No more goal post moving please. Immortals trade evenly with Thors, they don't beat them. The counter to the Thor is lots of Disruptors with support (3 Novas to kill a Thor from full health). The fact that Thors aren't usually made with bio means that Thors don't affect Colossi in 90% of pro-level games. Please show me a pro-level bio game where "someone" used thors to beat Colossi. You're literally grasping for counters to colossi from thin air without any grounded basis in actual professional game-play. I've held my goal post at your comment on how Thors counter Colossi.
High damage+11 range vs low damage+9 range. For the Colossi to get in range, they have to take shots and when they're in range, they tickle Thors. We weren't talking about if Thors interact with Colossi reliably, they don't unless you have Colossi left over from earlier on or have some weird scenario that almost never plays out. But that doesn't matter because we weren't discussing whether Thors have the chance to counter Colossi. We were discussing counters and the Thor can hard counter Colossi if the situation presents itself.
Again you've goal post changed. We went from general unit interactions to pros using Thors to beat Colossi to Thors in bio being used to counter Colossi. I will have no part in that nonsense so shape up or get out. Thanks for understanding.
|
On January 13 2020 09:27 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 08:02 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 07:47 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better, All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games. I suggest you stop grasping at straws. Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS! Colossi are made as a reaction to Bio or as an opener. Thors aren't usually made with bio unless it's a transition. Doesn't mean Thors don't make Colossi absolutely useless nor does it mean someone won't use Thors to beat Colossi.I aint grasping at straws, you're over elaborating. I'm simply going through counters to Protoss AoE. No more goal post moving please. Immortals trade evenly with Thors, they don't beat them. The counter to the Thor is lots of Disruptors with support (3 Novas to kill a Thor from full health). The fact that Thors aren't usually made with bio means that Thors don't affect Colossi in 90% of bio vs protoss at pro-level. Please show me a pro-level bio game where "someone" used thors to beat Colossi. You're literally grasping for counters to colossi from thin air without any grounded basis in actual professional game-play. I've held my goal post at your comment on how Thors counter Colossi.
My understanding of the original post is that babelfish listed terran units that beat individual aoe/splash units of protoss. Thors do indeed beat colossus.
Your request for a professional game with thor used to counter colossus is not constructive to the discussion since a) the original example had no other unit interaction and b) the overall discussion includes non-pros as well.
On to my thoughts on the charge change:
Zealots are worse in a straight up fight. That is consistent with the long term feedback updates, where the strength of zealots in PvT has been under scrutiny. Zealots have been deemed too strong.
Zealots are better at disengagement. This is also consistent with the feedback updates, though not as often mentioned as the PvT strength. Zealots were too slow to save themselves in PvZ.
The charge change was justified by a long term analysis.
Additional effects of the change includes more unit trading with terran (zealots die in fight, bio dies in flight) and amassed zealots can more easily be used for harassment (the 20 zealots that defended your base can pressure an enemy expansion). The mentioned "prisms and scouting pylons" do nothing to help the zealots that already exist. Well, 4 can go with the prism but the majority cannot.
Additionally, the balance of marines, zealots and zerglings are now more even. I like that lings have a shot vs zealots. I like that zealots don't massacre marines in equal mineral investment.
|
On January 13 2020 10:31 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 09:27 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 08:02 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 07:47 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better, All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games. I suggest you stop grasping at straws. Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS! Colossi are made as a reaction to Bio or as an opener. Thors aren't usually made with bio unless it's a transition. Doesn't mean Thors don't make Colossi absolutely useless nor does it mean someone won't use Thors to beat Colossi.I aint grasping at straws, you're over elaborating. I'm simply going through counters to Protoss AoE. No more goal post moving please. Immortals trade evenly with Thors, they don't beat them. The counter to the Thor is lots of Disruptors with support (3 Novas to kill a Thor from full health). The fact that Thors aren't usually made with bio means that Thors don't affect Colossi in 90% of bio vs protoss at pro-level. Please show me a pro-level bio game where "someone" used thors to beat Colossi. You're literally grasping for counters to colossi from thin air without any grounded basis in actual professional game-play. I've held my goal post at your comment on how Thors counter Colossi. My understanding of the original post is that babelfish listed terran units that beat individual aoe/splash units of protoss. Thors do indeed beat colossus. Your request for a professional game with thor used to counter colossus is not constructive to the discussion since a) the original example had no other unit interaction and b) the overall discussion includes non-pros as well. On to my thoughts on the charge change: Zealots are worse in a straight up fight. That is consistent with the long term feedback updates, where the strength of zealots in PvT has been under scrutiny. Zealots have been deemed too strong. Zealots are better at disengagement. This is also consistent with the feedback updates, though not as often mentioned as the PvT strength. Zealots were too slow to save themselves in PvZ. The charge change was justified by a long term analysis. Additional effects of the change includes more unit trading with terran (zealots die in fight, bio dies in flight) and amassed zealots can more easily be used for harassment (the 20 zealots that defended your base can pressure an enemy expansion). The mentioned "prisms and scouting pylons" do nothing to help the zealots that already exist. Well, 4 can go with the prism but the majority cannot. Additionally, the balance of marines, zealots and zerglings are now more even. I like that lings have a shot vs zealots. I like that zealots don't massacre marines in equal mineral investment.
… before Bio could stutter step and gain value out of it whereas now, Bio can't run but melts Zealots so fast that it doesn't matter...
Thors are not viable in bio-Terran comps.
|
Pentarp is correct. No one builds thors if they're sticking to mainly bio. Storm, disrupt and colossi do shred bio.
The new zealot passive speed buff upgrade has its advantages, particular in the hands of a capable protoss. Is it still a nerf overall? Maybe to lower leaguers. In the pro scene, we have yet to see how it pans out.
|
On January 13 2020 07:47 Pentarp wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better, All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games. I suggest you stop grasping at straws. Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS!
I guess you missed all those GSL games where TY stomped Protoss with bio into mech with Thors lol
|
I love these threads, it lets me know who to ignore in other discussion threads.
|
On January 13 2020 09:13 BabelFish1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 09:02 pvsnp wrote:On January 13 2020 07:29 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 07:19 pvsnp wrote:
I have yet to see any massive swing in balance that one would naturally expect from a supposedly massive nerf. Protoss seems to be doing just fine, in fact, macro games appear mostly standard and chargelots are made every game.
Of course, this could be for any number of reasons; other buffs/nerfs/meta shifts/whatever. But as long as the game is in a healthy state, which it seems to be, I'm not inclined to complain. That would just be whining for the sake of whining.
Maybe it was a massive nerf. Maybe not. Who cares? Well, there is an impication in the form of Zealots no longer being used as a breaching round and Charge 1st openers are just dead. As are mass gateway styles and the 2 base 1 gas Charge allin. It's not that it was a nerf that Protoss couldn't handle, it's that the nerf wasn't based on balance and as a result, Protoss lost a bunch of builds. I care for one, I was the kind of player who would open fast Charge, take an early 3rd and smother my opponent in Chargelots as I macro'd like a boss, got tech, etc. That kind of style no longer exists for Protoss; an aggressive macro Gateway style. And it didn't die in the name of balance, it died because we have a balance team that is doing weird, inconsistent stuff for funsies. Well I hate to break it to you, but the balance team neither knows nor cares about your individual games. Their job is to create a healthy game for the bulk of the playerbase, including pros, and as far as pretty much everyone else is concerned, the new charge serves that purpose. Serves what new purpose though? Warp Prisms and spotter pylons allowed for flanks and runbys already. All that's left is Zealots can now retreat at the massive cost which is a 33% damage nerf, which in turn impacts what they can tank. Did Protoss players ever say to themselves "Gee, I really wish I could save my mineral sink units, even if it cost me 33% of their damage to get that buff". I get the feeling that the balance team wanted to rotate the damage of Charge to the Adept, which would have made sense but they kinda botched that concept by making the additional damage exceedingly gimmicky and restrictive, meanwhile you still have the issue of Zealots being made of tissue paper in the mid game due to the loss of damage. It's a massive, massive nerf that killed multiple builds, killed an aggressive macro-orientated playstyle and didn't offer anything new except the ability to run away more easily and to save 100-250 minerals by skipping a spotter pylon or warp prism to enable the same plays. Maybe I'm missing something here but overall I'd say this is a significantly worse direction to head toward, a meta where Protoss either cheese/allin or deathball. The same meta Protoss had in WoL and HotS...I enjoyed Protoss being able to play aggressively, delaying tech to provide faster economy and relying on threatening gateway compositions to bully the opponent..now you can't do that. At all.
It is not called aggressive macro-oriented play style, it is called how to get away with greed, without basically taking any risk, since your described "Chargelot early game" was so op, especially at lower levels (below gsl level basically).
To be honest your cry describes why Terrans were crying for months, they could not handle protoss greed, because they could not punish it without taking HUGE risks, while if they play greedy -> terrans die vs protoss against semi aggressive builds instantly. In my eyes this is what called "trying to balance the game"..
|
In PvT I'd be more than fine if the zelot nerf remained as it is and to actually allow zelots to use they new speed for retreat by deleting Concussive Shells upgrade from the game 
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On January 13 2020 12:49 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2020 07:47 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 07:04 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:57 Pentarp wrote:On January 13 2020 06:36 BabelFish1 wrote:On January 13 2020 06:16 Pentarp wrote:
Protoss need more counters to bio because storms, collosi, disruptors are simply not enough. That's not really part of the topic but if we're really going there, Colossi get shredded by Thors - Stopped reading right there. Thors with HIP have 11 range. Colossi with Extended Thermal Lance have 9 range. I suggest stopping the low effort meme crap and actually think things through a bit. It's fine if you don't know stuff but being flippant in a thread where I made it perfectly clear that it's not okay to be flippant in, is not. Be better, All those bio TvP games with thors in them. Must be GSL code S+ level games. I suggest you stop grasping at straws. Or let's play your silly game: WELL IMMORTALS BEAT THORS! I guess you missed all those GSL games where TY stomped Protoss with bio into mech with Thors lol
So then it's not that hard to post the pro game which was asked
Edit> To be fair it would be nice to post some games for the hardcounters just to show it to tha audience, it would show the problem more properly.
|
It was the best and most meaningful change of the patch, Chargelots were waaaaaaaaaaaay too strong for the moment they were available in game.
|
It's a nerf, and protoss needs nerfing. You might be sad that you can't mass zealots as effectively, but aggressive gateway style still exists. Blink stalker still exists. Also that "Change my mind" in the title. Like really? We know you wouldn't change your mind from your posts.
|
This thread is just a balance cry for Protoss who want a buff. The latest period for Aligulac shows PvsT at 50.10%: http://aligulac.com/periods/258/
I hope the mods realize that PvsT is balanced for this period, according to Aligulac, and that Protoss players are whining for buffs. This thread should be removed unless the statistics show there is an imbalance with PvsT.
|
It's a nerf, the movement speed thing is just a small compensation. The zealot back before legacy of the void had neither the damage on charge nor the extra speed it has now it had the old movement speed boost and no damage on charge. In legacy of the void start, the charge upgrade was originally just the +8 damage for 200/200 in 2017 it got reworked to 100/100 to deal with tank pushes on maps like Abyssal reef, acolyte, ascension to aiur and other maps (as far as I know at least) But before that toss was doing fine in TvP. Now while it is true this nerf does affect the massgate style heavily it is still viable. And it still sees play and wins games. The way I'd look at it at least for PvT is that you have 2 styles of playing. A colossus based style or the massgate style. Similarly Terran has Bio and Mech. For obvious reasons, one does not work nearly as well as the other but one is still viable and a solid way of playing (Bio and colossus style) And as a Terran player you'll probably hear this a lot and it is whine but I did not find it fun to just kite an entire fire while dying to units behind the zealots or doing a small drop only for it to be cleared by a few zealots. Which actually is the biggest thing I did notice from this nerf. One warp in of zealots isn't enough anymore to clear drops which I think actually is a great thing it puts toss in a role where they have to be ready and in position ahead of time and adds extra incentive to Terran drop play. Outside of that though I would also not be against bringing back charge damage to the zealot if the map pool choices were to drastically change. Most of 2019 had pretty garbage maps for TvP, lacked dead airspace or they just had the same linear line of expansions that made dropping in between bases a suicide mission.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36947 Posts
Alright... This thread has run its course. Change my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
