Photon Cannon Overcharge on pylons

On September 04 2015 14:24 y0su wrote:
temporary tesla coils! :D :D

what original ideas will they think of next

On September 04 2015 15:12 IeZaeL wrote:
just make it work as a shield battery instead of damage plz

On September 04 2015 21:59 weikor wrote:
all you haters just dont understand why blizzard even implemeneted this change.

It has sound logic and i think its great.

You cant target fire a nexus = no counter play to photon overcharge.
You CAN target fire a pylon = some counter play.

Is this the right way of doing it?, probably not.
But i certainly appreciate the fact that blizzard is trying to change things YOU guys always complain about.

On September 04 2015 22:08 Big J wrote:


I think the core issue people are complaining about is that the mothership core is too powerful for it's cost defensively. Blizzard is trying something that provides one or two nice improvments (can be sniped, doesnt counter siege range). But at the core the complaint is that the MSC just shouldnt provide a lot of defense on its own. Protoss should be forced to defend with units and statics to begin with and not just with energy in various forms.

On September 04 2015 22:25 DeadByDawn wrote:

Definitely one issue - but for me the biggest issue is the offensive use of it as an uber-cannon rush . I won't find out until this weekend how much of an issue that is - but I am thinking the cheese is real at the moment.

On September 04 2015 22:34 Big J wrote:


It's not cheese if it is the expected standard playstyle of a race on a certain patch.

On September 04 2015 21:59 weikor wrote:
all you haters just dont understand why blizzard even implemeneted this change.

It has sound logic and i think its great.

You cant target fire a nexus = no counter play to photon overcharge.
You CAN target fire a pylon = some counter play.

Is this the right way of doing it?, probably not.
But i certainly appreciate the fact that blizzard is trying to change things YOU guys always complain about.

On September 04 2015 23:43 Sholip wrote:
I get why cast on Pylons, but why cost 25 energy? 100 may be too much, yes, because Pylons can be sniped, but why decrease it to the quarter suddenly? It should be 50, I think. This is the real problem in my opinion, the fact that it targets Pylons would actually be a good idea otherwise.

On September 04 2015 21:59 weikor wrote:
all you haters just dont understand why blizzard even implemeneted this change.

It has sound logic and i think its great.

You cant target fire a nexus = no counter play to photon overcharge.
You CAN target fire a pylon = some counter play.

Is this the right way of doing it?, probably not.
But i certainly appreciate the fact that blizzard is trying to change things YOU guys always complain about.

On September 05 2015 01:35 [PkF] Wire wrote:
Totally dumb. Classic Blizzard brain fart. I wonder if that was even internally tested two games.

Motherships should no longer be able to cast Photon Overcharge on Pylons.

On September 05 2015 02:44 Scrubwave wrote:

Okay, where are similar aggressive options for zerg and terran?

On September 05 2015 03:06 CheddarToss wrote:


Good question. There is none now, at least for Z. Not after Ovi drops were nerfed. T has the "TOP build", with the proxy starport into Liberator, which wrecks Protoss hard, if they aren't scouting well.

On September 05 2015 03:14 Naracs_Duc wrote:


We just need depots that morph into Supply Fortresses.

On September 05 2015 03:17 Scrubwave wrote:

Yes, clearly proxy starport is similar to proxy pylons + momma core.

On September 05 2015 03:18 CheddarToss wrote:

SC2 is a game with asymmetric race design, which is why I wouldn't like it for T or Z to have the exact same mechanic. But yeah, if the current early game tools for T/Z are not strong enough, I think that they should get something along the the same lines. But don't get me wrong, I'm not mourning the early WoL days, but it seems to that macro play is too strong currently. I just want a better balance between macro play and cheese.


Well, it doesn't have to be. T and P are different races,after all. As long as both builds lead to a loss if held well (meaning that both are all-ins) and are not too easy to execute, I don't have a problem with that.

On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:


Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs.

On September 05 2015 03:32 CheddarToss wrote:

Well there is a big difference between current cheese and the one in the early WoL days. Currently it seems to me that cheese can be too easily held, even if you don't scout it. It seems that weak.

On September 05 2015 03:40 Big J wrote:


People have become good. Back in the days there were far less and far less efficient responses. You literally wom because your opponent had no clue. Nowadays people know which BOs to play so that even unscouted cheese won't be overly effective with the proper response. That's just the nature of the strategy part of the game. Stuff gets figured out and the only way to keep it alive to the same efficieny would be to make it an alternative standard playstyle, but never as cheese.

On September 05 2015 03:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And they expect people to by hyped up for LoTV when they pull this kind of crazy stunt.

On September 05 2015 03:40 GGzerG wrote:
Whoever thought when I started playing StarCraft back in SC1, that one day Pylons would shoot your enemy. Oh lord.

On September 05 2015 04:17 Cloak wrote:
It's not too different from Bunker rushes. Can always build in more weaknesses if number tweaking isn't sufficient. It might just be that it hits too early. Easy ways to fix that.

On September 05 2015 03:30 Big J wrote:


Cheese by definition is a weak play that only works because of enemy mistakes. If you want stronger cheese you actually want current cheese to not be cheese anymore but standard play like ling/bling attacks are in ZvZ, or 4gate wars were back in the 2010-2011 PvPs.

On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:


No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not.

For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in.

From Liquipedia:

Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute.

I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming.

On September 05 2015 06:42 Bohemond wrote:
A bunker rush is a large investment. Building a few pylons at the Zerg third is not. Just because the bunker isn't expensive doesn't mean executing the build isn't. It'd be like saying a proxy 2gate only costs as much as the zealots.

On September 05 2015 11:04 QSpec wrote:


So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush?

What about the fact that Bunker rush isn't all-in. Two or more forward Pylons pretty much is.

Terran has the type of harass that means you have to pay attention and deal with it, or you lose the game to one or two units. Now Toss has something similar. I don't see much of a problem here.

Like I said, if it needs balancing, then balance it.

On September 05 2015 12:09 TakeDown29 wrote:
I do agree to a certain extent but at the same time it just released so lets give some time for build orders to be adapted.

On September 05 2015 11:42 Bohemond wrote:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Building two/three forward pylons at the Zerg third is all-in? Get over your obvious racial biases.

I'm mostly a spectator, I haven't played SC2 much since Wings (or any video games much, really). I don't give a crap about racial dick waving. Pointing out that overcharging a forward pylon and a bunker rush are exceptionally different in cost and attention required is like saying the sky is blue.

The single reaper + bunker isn't even a real thing vs. Toss anyway. It's only commonly used vs. zerg to force them to make lings instead of drones and delay mining at the natural. And if you start making more reapers, it slows your build down by a large amount. Think about what's good for the game.

On September 05 2015 06:39 QSpec wrote:
It just sounds like Terran are upset that the same shit they get away with is now usable on them.

Liberators on a worker line?

Bunker Rush that costs a whopping 25 minerals + reaper/marine?

If it needs balancing, then balance it... but I don't think it should be removed.

On September 05 2015 15:44 QSpec wrote:


Oh come on, man. Don't be that guy that quotes the wikipedia strawman article. I assumed you were talking about the mechanical requirements because the mineral requirements are lower... that's simply a fact. If they stack it with Reapers, the gas requirements are there, but the mineral costs are still lower. Not to mention that Toss is risking supply on top of whatever mineral cost... and supply at that stage in the game isn't trivial.

And yes, I think due to the upfront cost, the energy cost (leaving Toss's bases open to counter-attack once dealt with), and the potential supply damage, this will turn out to be an all-in.

In any case, not that it's worth responding to, I have zero Toss bias. I despise them as a race. I despise their gameplay. I have no sympathy for them. If I'm ever fighting a bias, it's toward Zerg. So don't hurl baseless accusations that have no bearing here... or do I have to be that guy that links you the ad hominem wikipedia page?

I'm just saying, if it needs balancing the balance it. I think that's perfectly fine for the game. After all, people have been dealing with it in the form of bunker rush and cannon rush since SC2 came out.

So your argument is that Pylon rush shouldn't be allowed because it's mechanically easier than Bunker rush?

On September 05 2015 08:54 TimeSpiral wrote:


Oh gawd ... not a cheese discussion in a strategy game, lol.

I've come to find cheese is anything non-meta. *shrugs*

On September 05 2015 07:02 FabledIntegral wrote:


No, it's not? Cheese has long been defined (and you can check Wikipedia) as a strategy that is strong if unscouted, but very easy to counter if scouted. That's why many cheeses are all-ins, but many are not.

For example, in HOTS building 8 lings and going around a reaper in ZvT was cheesy, because the reaper could simply stay back if it scouted them. However, it definitely wasn't all-in. Similarly, two base DT builds in PvT or PvZ were cheesy, but not all in.

From Liquipedia:

Cheese most often refers to an unexpected strategy that relies in large parts on lack of information and/or psychological impact on the opponent. Cheese build orders typically revolve around an early attack that, if undetected, is more difficult to defend than execute.

I wouldn't say it's "weak play" and "because of enemy mistakes" rather than being unprepared due to lack of info. Same reason why the 1-1-1 in WoL was an all-in if you pulled SCVs, but not a cheese. Strong even if you knew it was coming.

On September 04 2015 16:56 Bohemond wrote:
Literally the first thing I thought when I read the patch notes was 'pylon rush.' I don't get how these types of things get past the brainstorm stage. I had to reread the post twice when I saw it only cost 25 energy. Didn't believe... But, same guys who made the Warhound, Cyclone, and tried to buff DT speed.

I can't even imagine how hard it is to take a 3rd as Zerg right now...

On September 05 2015 17:07 Bohemond wrote:
That's a strawman through and through.

You have no idea what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is attacking a person instead of their argument. I.e. 'you're wrong because you're ugly.' Or, 'you're wrong because you're biased.' What I did was insult you, albeit mildly. It would only be an ad hominem if I were attempting to use the insult to fallaciously refute your argument. A baseless insult is not an ad hominem. It's merely a baseless insult. So, assuming you have no racial bias, my comment is incorrect. But by no means is it an ad hominem.

'you're wrong because you're biased.

Get over your obvious racial biases.

Perhaps what you meant to say was that you have 'zero bias in favor of Toss'?

This whole thing stems from a misunderstanding by me. When I said that a bunker rush was a larger investment than a pylon rush, it was because I assumed you were referring to a more cheesy from of bunker rush than the one reaper + one SCV variety. Such as proxy rax or multiple reapers.

Comparing a minor form of harassment (1 reaper + 1 scv + bunker) to the potential abuse and cheese opened up by PO on pylons is so stupid it didn't occur to me that it was what you meant (this is an insult, I'm saying what you said is too stupid to bother with, I am not putting forth an argument of any kind, fallacious or otherwise).

It's not a strawman at all. It was at worst a misunderstanding... just like you made in your original post regarding my post. So let's just move on here.

The implication is that I'm biased, so I can't possibly be right about this. So yes, assuming I have no racial bias, your comment is incorrect... and it is also an ad hominem. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Isn't that what I *effectively* said?

You imply I have a bias in favor of Toss. I tell you I despise the race (implying that I don't have a bias in favor of Toss)

a remarkably viable way shutting down expansions, forcing units, or otherwise being a pretty massive econ sink (relative to the early game), all we are discussing is balance.

all we are discussing is balance

And for the record, you are putting forth an argument. Hand-waiving it away as an insult doesn't stop it from being an argument... It's just an unimpressive argument that makes you look petty and cunty.

On September 06 2015 18:11 oGoZenob wrote:
this thread is hilarious ^^ you're all reacting like the game is coming out tomorrow. Well guess what, it's not. They are testing stuff, if they find out that it's op after thousands of games has been played, they will change it.

On September 05 2015 23:15 Jarree wrote:
I've always thought photon overcharge was cancer. So apparently I was right, since it's spreading to pylons.

On September 06 2015 21:07 Nyast wrote:
Here's an idea:

- remove the MScore ( or keep it only for recall ? )
- bring back energy on nexus ( not for chronos, only for PO ).
- nexus can cast PO on any pylon within a 9 range
- ability costs 50 energy

Consequence: no more agressive pylons PO shit, while keeping a pretty strong defense.

On September 06 2015 21:07 Nyast wrote:
Here's an idea:

- remove the MScore ( or keep it only for recall ? )
- bring back energy on nexus ( not for chronos, only for PO ).
- nexus can cast PO on any pylon within a 9 range
- ability costs 50 energy

Consequence: no more agressive pylons PO shit, while keeping a pretty strong defense.

On September 06 2015 21:54 DeadByDawn wrote:

Fairly obvious idea. I do not mean this as a dig towards you - but why the hell do the people paid to design and balance the game come up with dumb ass ideas but some community members come up with perfectly sound alternatives.

All of us said that PO would be used offensively, adding more gimmicks to the gimmicky race. Kimbo, this is where the perception of Protoss being a gimmicky race originates from - you and your teams ideas.

On September 06 2015 22:47 KeksX wrote:


Isn't the current disruptor essentially a community suggestion?

On September 06 2015 23:17 [PkF] Wire wrote:

They try hard to look smart and independent, coming up with their own very personal ideas, but sometimes even they have to admit their very personal ideas were shit .

I'm pretty sure in the end LotV will be OK, maybe even good, but God is the process slow and painful. So much time wasted.

On September 06 2015 23:25 andrewlt wrote:

Blizzard only wants the community to give feedback on problems, not suggest solutions. They don't want to implement community suggested solutions.

On September 06 2015 23:57 Lexender wrote:


Lol you think pylon rushing only work against builds like that, thats cute.

On September 07 2015 00:41 Belha wrote:
Things like this are irrefutable proof that the Blizz design team not a freaking clue of what are they doing.

On September 04 2015 14:08 WhiteLuminous wrote:
...I feel like the level of band-aiding is just ridiculously out of control at this point.

On September 15 2015 17:51 Sholip wrote:

No, no, no, you left out two steps:

1) think of something "super mega cool bro"
2) implement it and make it mega strong
3) see what happens
4) realize it is way too OP
5) nerf the hell out of it
6) realize it's so weak noone uses it now
7) patch the game in 10 different ways
8) doesn't work out
9) complete redesign
etc.

On September 15 2015 18:48 shin_toss wrote:
lol wow so many experts in game design. reapers doesn't take away defenders advantage lol You can actually kill the reaper lolz... and the current warpgate doesn't too either. UNLESS they are risking and committing to it.

On September 16 2015 03:18 NKexquisite wrote:
It's perhaps the stupidest thing Blizzard has ever implemented

On September 16 2015 04:21 RoomOfMush wrote:

You mean worse then +30 damage on chargelots? LOL, 30 damage. What were they thinking?
Was there ANYBODY at blizzard who could not see how this miiiiiight be sliiiiightly broken?
I guess not...

On September 16 2015 06:21 KT_Elwood wrote:
You Guys talk about a game the want to sell. Marketing worked.
Have faith that it's gonna be balanced some how, Morrow even thinks if the ramp was away from the natural choke in map design, it would not work.