Skytoss seems to be the cause of a lot of strife among many players. I will argue a point considered by few: that skytoss should stay in the game, and has it's own distinct beauty.
Skytoss is similar to certain things such as, Marth in Melee, Caitlyn in League, and Mech: in the sense that they are easy to use at a low-mid level, but become very hard at a high level. Similarly to marth, skytoss is very simple to use, has very exploitable strengths at a low level and is hard to play against without a solid understanding of the game and its mechanics. At a low level, all that needs to be done with skytoss is defend, wait for a super-strong army with voids, carriers and templar (archons, oracles and tempest for support) and then push out. The strengths are super-easy to exploit and hard for lower-league people to play against, like a marth spamming forward smashes and tilts. But the thing is that, although marth is easy at a low level, he becomes very hard at a high level. you will hear this from just about every top player, and just look: there aren't that many marth players at a high level, despite him being the 3rd best in the game and having an even or advantageous matchup vs every character (including spacies), save for sheik and possibly yoshi. So what makes marth so hard? Although Marth isn't even close to being as technically demanding as fox, falco, falcon or yoshi (part of why hes easy at a low level), hes hard because players exploit his weaknesses so well and he requires an incredible amount of precision and practice to keep up with the competition. Consider Armada's peach vs PPMD's marth. Armada would kill PP at around 80%, and PP would kill peach at around 150-200% each stock, and despite the amount of work marth has to do, it was an even matchup. Marth has to play so precisely and patiently and not mess up. He doesn't have quick, low lag kill move like many other characters, and must rely on his long range to out-do their enemy.
I believe skytoss is similar: that it will remain very easy to use against low-mid levelers, at a masters-gm level, it will be hard to use because it's weaknesses are so exploitable and it will require a great amount of control, precision and decision making to use. Against zerg, since you need to invest so much into carriers, you dont have much money for defense. As such, securing bases beyond your third becomes difficult, but if you dont, you're gonna get overwhelmed by hydras, corruptors, vipers and ultras if you just turtle on 3 bases. How are you supposed to defend the onslaught of attacks that a zerg can throw at you? Crackling runbys demolish unupgraded gateway units and wont die to a few split-up carriers at each base, and like I said, if you don't get 4 bases you're gonna lose to a zerg army since youre gonna be behind. Even then, the skytoss army doesn't really beat and end-game zerg, so how do you win as skytoss? In theory it sounds impossible, but you need every move to count, and everything to be positioned perfectly or else you die. Although very different to other playstyles, it doesn't mean its bad. I just demolished a skytoss player on bridgehead and he couldnt do anything. I counter-attacked and killed 3 bases, and it felt like he was so powerless. Skytoss might be easy to attack with, but defending with it is a bit trickier. I'm not sure how skytoss does on other matchups.
I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate for this, but I don't see it being nerfed anytime soon so we'll see how things really play out.
I don't think anyone thinks skytoss should be removed. Build diversity is something that everyone can agree on and I don't think any player would argue against mech, bio, skyterran, gateway, robo, skytoss, roach/hydra, muta/ling, etc., being viable.
I think the complaints right now are due to this, which struck out in your post to me:
On October 10 2015 12:11 DilemaH wrote: Even then, the skytoss army doesn't really beat and end-game zerg, so how do you win as skytoss?
How so? Endgame toss army is absolutely unbeatable by Zerg and the race in general struggles with air deathballs. So it's not that people are against skytoss, it's just that zerg has no way to trade resources efficiently or beat that perfect air comp toss can achieve.
Greedy skytoss is extremly vulnerable to ovi drops cos you can't defend 3 bases with 1 single Msc ( map depend of course). Those small ling squad can shred probes quickly and it doesn't cost z that much to say the least. Corruptor + spore +viper seems a reasonable answer from Z and i think skytoss will disapear before the release (expect a nerf here).
On October 10 2015 12:19 phfantunes wrote: I don't think anyone thinks skytoss should be removed. Build diversity is something that everyone can agree on and I don't think any player would argue against mech, bio, skyterran, gateway, robo, skytoss, roach/hydra, muta/ling, etc., being viable.
I think the complaints right now are due to this, which struck out in your post to me:
On October 10 2015 12:11 DilemaH wrote: Even then, the skytoss army doesn't really beat and end-game zerg, so how do you win as skytoss?
How so? Endgame toss army is absolutely unbeatable by Zerg and the race in general struggles with air deathballs. So it's not that people are against skytoss, it's just that zerg has no way to trade resources efficiently or beat that perfect air comp toss can achieve.
On October 10 2015 12:19 phfantunes wrote: How so? Endgame toss army is absolutely unbeatable by Zerg and the race in general struggles with air deathballs. So it's not that people are against skytoss, it's just that zerg has no way to trade resources efficiently or beat that perfect air comp toss can achieve.
I think its actually fairly even if plaayed right. zerg might lose a straightup fight, but with the AOE of ravagers, fungal and parasitic bombs, combined with ultras to zone-out the templar (which cant be killed by anything) and hydras and corruptors for supporting damage, its much more even than it seems.
it was fine but the carrier build time decrease gives less of room to maneuver before the critical number of if hits. Once it gets rolling, its hard to stop
combine it with early defensive tools and adepts makes it really hard to deal with. Carrier build time should really be upped a little.
On October 10 2015 12:19 phfantunes wrote: How so? Endgame toss army is absolutely unbeatable by Zerg and the race in general struggles with air deathballs. So it's not that people are against skytoss, it's just that zerg has no way to trade resources efficiently or beat that perfect air comp toss can achieve.
I think its actually fairly even if plaayed right. zerg might lose a straightup fight, but with the AOE of ravagers, fungal and parasitic bombs, combined with ultras to zone-out the templar (which cant be killed by anything) and hydras and corruptors for supporting damage, its much more even than it seems.
EDIT: Plus zerg has remaxes
issue is zerg need so many tech paths and alot of gas for an army like that. toss can reach it quicker with carriers and if zerg doesnt have the units its over.
On October 10 2015 12:19 phfantunes wrote: How so? Endgame toss army is absolutely unbeatable by Zerg and the race in general struggles with air deathballs. So it's not that people are against skytoss, it's just that zerg has no way to trade resources efficiently or beat that perfect air comp toss can achieve.
I think its actually fairly even if plaayed right. zerg might lose a straightup fight, but with the AOE of ravagers, fungal and parasitic bombs, combined with ultras to zone-out the templar (which cant be killed by anything) and hydras and corruptors for supporting damage, its much more even than it seems.
EDIT: Plus zerg has remaxes
issue is zerg need so many tech paths and alot of gas for an army like that. toss can reach it quicker with carriers and if zerg doesnt have the units its over.
And that isn't really a bad thing if protoss has this late-game timing push since they're so vulnerable early on. If zerg can win the game before that timing, or injure protoss enough that they reach their end game when protoss has their lategame, then thats well played from the zerg.
On October 10 2015 12:19 phfantunes wrote: How so? Endgame toss army is absolutely unbeatable by Zerg and the race in general struggles with air deathballs. So it's not that people are against skytoss, it's just that zerg has no way to trade resources efficiently or beat that perfect air comp toss can achieve.
I think its actually fairly even if plaayed right. zerg might lose a straightup fight, but with the AOE of ravagers, fungal and parasitic bombs, combined with ultras to zone-out the templar (which cant be killed by anything) and hydras and corruptors for supporting damage, its much more even than it seems.
EDIT: Plus zerg has remaxes
issue is zerg need so many tech paths and alot of gas for an army like that. toss can reach it quicker with carriers and if zerg doesnt have the units its over.
And that isn't really a bad thing if protoss has this late-game timing push since they're so vulnerable early on. If zerg can win the game before that timing, or injure protoss enough that they reach their end game when protoss has their lategame, then thats well played from the zerg.
I think you didn't watch True vs Neeb in the last olimoleague was 3 days ago.
Watch the Vods, see how true harass but still loses vs carriers.
parasitic bomb doesn't do much damage if the person just spreads their fleet out before engagement which isn't a hard thing to do
I think the best way to deal with it currently is to go corruptor spore viper + melee upgrades to harass his economy which is the most vital part of carrier play
On October 10 2015 14:31 BigRedDog wrote: why use abduct, just parasitic bomb the fleet.
That's the spell what zerg needs to break skytoss.
Actually PB doesn't work. Carriers don't naturally clump like mutas or liberators so there is only little AOE effect. Cast 10 PB on 10 different carriers and not a single one dies.
On October 10 2015 12:11 DilemaH wrote:Even then, the skytoss army doesn't really beat and end-game zerg, so how do you win as skytoss?
Most people saying that skytoss is beatable don't have in mind that carrier are like tempest but with much higher DPS and now much higher range. Nothing in the zerg arsenal can reach the carrier fast enough : -vipers can't grab or cast PB - hydralisks can't reach carriers so they fight interceptors but it's not efficient -corruptors may reach carriers but they die way too fast -Infestors are almost useless, fungal doesn't work against opponents that split their carrier/interceptors, neural is impossible because the range is too short and infestor is a high priority target for the ai, and infested terrans are... lol
I have no problems with skytoss being viable but it should never be the best/only option to play. Mass air battles are just FAR less interesting then ground battles because positioning doesn't matter and there's less micro potential.
Carriers are completely and utterly overpowered. I'm fine with skytoss in general, but there's a reason that it's not that popular (outside of the currently broken carrier). It's because protoss air units are really boring to play with and against from the Toss/Zerg perspective. There's really that much going on here. To win you really have to gain some sort of momentum.
It's really dumb that Protoss has an air unit that is so powerful that there is no composition Zerg can make which can stand on even ground or trade cost efficiently against it. You go skytoss with a composition that isn't carriers? Sure, but you're probably not going to win. Skytoss really isn't that interesting without the carrier, but as of right now the unit is fucking ridiculous.
I think you confuse viability at a high level with difficulty to play. In my opinion skytoss is easy to play at all levels; it's not very hard to position a flying army, you just need 1-2 control groups and one spell to cast, big high hp units are easier to micro. I used skytoss quite a bit against zerg when i offraced and i found it very easy to beat averge master zergs. It becomes weaker at a much higher level because zergs will start doing all the right things not because the composition becomes harder to use.
It's broken and not fun. If Blizzard find a way to make it more fun then just nerf it. Air units are inherently less interesting because they ignore terrain and units collision. So you have to do a lot to make them as interesting as ground battles. Perhaps if Blizzard introduced very good GtA units for all races. Now you have to make air units to deal with air units, so the dynamics is the worst possible.
It could be me, but as a general rule: no 'only make one unit' composition should ever be viable. When we talk about skytoss, we are talking about 'make pure carrier', possibly a void ray, and when we get really fancy, high templars.
That's an issue.
(I also share the 'air compositions should not be the way to go' sentiment.)
As a protoss player, i personally don't like skytoss being such a viable option. I like having it as a niche strategy that is viable, but not so viable that it overtakes ground toss as the predominant strategy. For example, i liked sky toss's place in HotS, it was very common at the beginning of HotS, but by the end, it was a very uncommon strategy that could still work, but was a lot rarer.
In LotV, skytoss is just hands down the strongest style. And it's not even particularly difficult to play (HotS sky toss was much harder). Seeing skytoss every game is just really boring, especially cos LotV sky toss is a lot more stale than the HotS variant which was actually played somewhat aggressive. I'd really like to see the style get toned down a lot. Sky toss should not be the most predominant style for Protoss.
i don't like air armies in general. the idea that any late macro game is likely to just end up being a race to obscenely powerful sky units (tempests, ravens, BCs in hots; carriers, liberators in lotv and often mass corruptors and vipers countering them) doesn't make the game enjoyable for me. the game slows down and map presence/positioning become less relevant as terrain no longer affects movement or engagement
it's actually one of the reasons i really favor zerg, because i feel zerg traditionally has the most reward for playing a mobile style with mid tech units and not rushing to air. sure broodlords are good in some situations but they also get countered and you have to continue on with your game plan and usually manage a ground army as well
i like air units that are fragile and mobile like oracles, mutas, banshees, etc, and i think they're great for the game. you can argue about how strong harass should be, but the unit control is satisfying and the fragility of the units feels appropriate. capital ships and "positional" air units i'm not so sure about. i honestly wouldn't mind playing a version of starcraft with a separate air supply cap, but obviously it's too late for that kind of change
almost all zergs just dont use neural parasite when 5-6 infestors with NP can easily turn the tide when they take almost half of the protoss air army and screw with their targeting.
In LotV, skytoss is just hands down the strongest style. And it's not even particularly difficult to play (HotS sky toss was much harder). Seeing skytoss every game is just really boring, especially cos LotV sky toss is a lot more stale than the HotS variant which was actually played somewhat aggressive. I'd really like to see the style get toned down a lot. Sky toss should not be the most predominant style for Protoss.
You can't blame players for using the style that is the strongest, especially considering that Protoss ground is now the weakest of all 3 races.
On October 10 2015 20:08 EleanorRIgby wrote: almost all zergs just dont use neural parasite when 5-6 infestors with NP can easily turn the tide when they take almost half of the protoss air army and screw with their targeting.
How exactly is a zerg army supposed to maintain a neural for more than 2 seconds against a maxed carrier army with High Templars storming and using feedback and carriers killing infestors in a few seconds time?
On October 10 2015 20:08 EleanorRIgby wrote: almost all zergs just dont use neural parasite when 5-6 infestors with NP can easily turn the tide when they take almost half of the protoss air army and screw with their targeting.
How exactly is a zerg army supposed to maintain a neural for more than 2 seconds against a maxed carrier army with High Templars storming and using feedback and carriers killing infestors in a few seconds time?
It can't be done, which is why no one is using Infestors vs Skytoss.
The right course of action is to out expand Protoss and throw multiple waves of units at him - either mass Speedling/Queen + Spores, or mass Hydra. The idea is to do either direct eco damage, by killing probes and buildings (Speedlings) or to engage Carriers with a lot of stuff (Hydra) and trade. Hydras require that you hit the right timing. You have to engage while the Carrier count is still relatively low. You don't have to downright annihilate P's air army. It is enough if you kill even a couple of Carriers and almost all interceptors, which is doable. But you have to have better eco than P and do it multiple times. Eventually he won't have enough minerals to rebuild his interceptors.
Zergs: Just go watch ViBe stream how he dismantle skytosses armies left and right and stop whining
This. A bunch of GM zerg don't have any issue fighting pure carrier just watch streams and learn before crying ....
same thing was said about mech in hots. just cause higher level players can do it doesnt mean lower level players can. its easier to play skytoss than it is to verse it.
Zergs: Just go watch ViBe stream how he dismantle skytosses armies left and right and stop whining
This. A bunch of GM zerg don't have any issue fighting pure carrier just watch streams and learn before crying ....
same thing was said about mech in hots. just cause higher level players can do it doesnt mean lower level players can. its easier to play skytoss than it is to verse it.
It is easier to play against Skytoss than it ever was to play against BL/Infestor or SH. The reason for that is, that while with those compositions Zerg had free units and could trade endlessly for real units of the opponent, Carriers cost a lot of minerals in the long run. Even if you don't lose Carriers, you are bound to lose interceptors. And for every Carrier that needs to rebuild its interceptors you are looking at a cost of 200 minerals. Thus, when playing against Skytoss, it is very well possible to bleed the Protoss out, if you out expand him and trade well. It wasn't possible to bleed the Zerg with BL/Inf or SHs out, because he had an endless amount of free units. You had to kill him in one attack or die slowly.
And as for Skytoss being easier to play than play against: learning a couple of sharp all-in BOs can go a long way. Speedling/Ravager is pretty good.
Zergs: Just go watch ViBe stream how he dismantle skytosses armies left and right and stop whining
This. A bunch of GM zerg don't have any issue fighting pure carrier just watch streams and learn before crying ....
same thing was said about mech in hots. just cause higher level players can do it doesnt mean lower level players can. its easier to play skytoss than it is to verse it.
It is easier to play against Skytoss than it ever was to play against BL/Infestor or SH. The reason for that is, that while with those compositions Zerg had free units and could trade endlessly for real units of the opponent, Carriers cost a lot of minerals in the long run. Even if you don't lose Carriers, you are bound to lose interceptors. And for every Carrier that needs to rebuild its interceptors you are looking at a cost of 200 minerals. Thus, when playing against Skytoss, it is very well possible to bleed the Protoss out, if you out expand him and trade well. It wasn't possible to bleed the Zerg with BL/Inf or SHs out, because he had an endless amount of free units. You had to kill him in one attack or die slowly.
And as for Skytoss being easier to play than play against: learning a couple of sharp all-in BOs can go a long way. Speedling/Ravager is pretty good.
Broken compositions have existed in the past therefore it isn't a problem now.
You should be happy to never be able to play a long game against protoss and just all in every game.
Zergs: Just go watch ViBe stream how he dismantle skytosses armies left and right and stop whining
This. A bunch of GM zerg don't have any issue fighting pure carrier just watch streams and learn before crying ....
same thing was said about mech in hots. just cause higher level players can do it doesnt mean lower level players can. its easier to play skytoss than it is to verse it.
It is easier to play against Skytoss than it ever was to play against BL/Infestor or SH. The reason for that is, that while with those compositions Zerg had free units and could trade endlessly for real units of the opponent, Carriers cost a lot of minerals in the long run. Even if you don't lose Carriers, you are bound to lose interceptors. And for every Carrier that needs to rebuild its interceptors you are looking at a cost of 200 minerals. Thus, when playing against Skytoss, it is very well possible to bleed the Protoss out, if you out expand him and trade well. It wasn't possible to bleed the Zerg with BL/Inf or SHs out, because he had an endless amount of free units. You had to kill him in one attack or die slowly.
And as for Skytoss being easier to play than play against: learning a couple of sharp all-in BOs can go a long way. Speedling/Ravager is pretty good.
Broken compositions have existed in the past therefore it isn't a problem now.
You should be happy to never be able to play a long game against protoss and just all in every game.
Are you for real?
People say it's broken, but it's not like it's an auto win as soon as the Protoss goes Skytoss. Skytoss can be beaten straight up and I have watched a number of games by Stephano, where he does just that and even makes it look ezpz.
That was the response to Skytoss being especially hard to beat in lower leagues. If you are a low league player and you can't manage the late game vs Skytoss, then learn a couple of good all-in BOs. What do you think low league Protoss/Terran players were doing during the BL/Inf or SH phase? The game can't be balanced at all levels of play, the most important thing is that it is balanced at the pro level.
Zergs: Just go watch ViBe stream how he dismantle skytosses armies left and right and stop whining
This. A bunch of GM zerg don't have any issue fighting pure carrier just watch streams and learn before crying ....
same thing was said about mech in hots. just cause higher level players can do it doesnt mean lower level players can. its easier to play skytoss than it is to verse it.
It is easier to play against Skytoss than it ever was to play against BL/Infestor or SH. The reason for that is, that while with those compositions Zerg had free units and could trade endlessly for real units of the opponent, Carriers cost a lot of minerals in the long run. Even if you don't lose Carriers, you are bound to lose interceptors. And for every Carrier that needs to rebuild its interceptors you are looking at a cost of 200 minerals. Thus, when playing against Skytoss, it is very well possible to bleed the Protoss out, if you out expand him and trade well. It wasn't possible to bleed the Zerg with BL/Inf or SHs out, because he had an endless amount of free units. You had to kill him in one attack or die slowly.
And as for Skytoss being easier to play than play against: learning a couple of sharp all-in BOs can go a long way. Speedling/Ravager is pretty good.
Broken compositions have existed in the past therefore it isn't a problem now.
You should be happy to never be able to play a long game against protoss and just all in every game.
Are you for real?
People say it's broken, but it's not like it's an auto win as soon as the Protoss goes Skytoss. Skytoss can be beaten straight up and I have watched a number of games by Stephano, where he does just that and even makes it look ezpz.
That was the response to Skytoss being especially hard to beat in lower leagues. If you are a low league player and you can't manage the late game vs Skytoss, then learn a couple of good all-in BOs. What do you think low league Protoss/Terran players were doing during the BL/Inf or SH phase? The game can't be balanced at all levels of play, the most important thing is that it is balanced at the pro level.
Omg and I saw MMA and Mvp win against zergs that went broodlord infestor in WoL, so must have been balanced too.
Even if it was balanced, it is currently just the best way of playing PvZ, and for most people skytoss is just as boring as mech. We don't want that shit to be the most dominant playstyle.
Zergs: Just go watch ViBe stream how he dismantle skytosses armies left and right and stop whining
This. A bunch of GM zerg don't have any issue fighting pure carrier just watch streams and learn before crying ....
same thing was said about mech in hots. just cause higher level players can do it doesnt mean lower level players can. its easier to play skytoss than it is to verse it.
It is easier to play against Skytoss than it ever was to play against BL/Infestor or SH. The reason for that is, that while with those compositions Zerg had free units and could trade endlessly for real units of the opponent, Carriers cost a lot of minerals in the long run. Even if you don't lose Carriers, you are bound to lose interceptors. And for every Carrier that needs to rebuild its interceptors you are looking at a cost of 200 minerals. Thus, when playing against Skytoss, it is very well possible to bleed the Protoss out, if you out expand him and trade well. It wasn't possible to bleed the Zerg with BL/Inf or SHs out, because he had an endless amount of free units. You had to kill him in one attack or die slowly.
And as for Skytoss being easier to play than play against: learning a couple of sharp all-in BOs can go a long way. Speedling/Ravager is pretty good.
Broken compositions have existed in the past therefore it isn't a problem now.
You should be happy to never be able to play a long game against protoss and just all in every game.
Are you for real?
People say it's broken, but it's not like it's an auto win as soon as the Protoss goes Skytoss. Skytoss can be beaten straight up and I have watched a number of games by Stephano, where he does just that and even makes it look ezpz.
That was the response to Skytoss being especially hard to beat in lower leagues. If you are a low league player and you can't manage the late game vs Skytoss, then learn a couple of good all-in BOs. What do you think low league Protoss/Terran players were doing during the BL/Inf or SH phase? The game can't be balanced at all levels of play, the most important thing is that it is balanced at the pro level.
Omg and I saw MMA and Mvp win against zergs that went broodlord infestor in WoL, so must have been balanced too.
Even if it was balanced, it is currently just the best way of playing PvZ, and for most people skytoss is just as boring as mech. We don't want that shit to be the most dominant playstyle.
In that case it might be a good idea to not complain about Protoss all the time, even about things which are annoying, but clearly not broken. Constant complaining, as DK has said himself ("perception" being more important than facts), leads to unjustified nerfs, which leads to Protoss having a shitty ground army, which leads to strong Skytoss, in order to balance the MUs out.
On October 11 2015 01:11 shin_toss wrote: My carriers got rekt by pure mass hydra.Thing is interceptors just get destroyed so quickly. But yeah its fine
Your army was not complete, you didn't have High templars.
You don't need templar against mass hydra. My guess is he lost because of some trivial thing like beeing down several upgrades, not all units attacking or beeing down significantly in army supply.
I don't know about the balance, but i dislike air only armies because they ignore ground for the most part. Especially when air has to be countered by air, like Terran Viking-Raven, the game becomes to simplistic imo. If the best counter was in ground form, like Goliaths, then you would get some more interesting gameplay with the air army trying to out position the ground army and exploit weak points.
I also dislike air units. They are bland compared to ground units. There is no blocking or positioning involved, everything just clumps up into this big mess of melted 3D models. I would prefer for air units to be used as small strike forces, quick and deadly but fragile at the same time. Air units that reward multitasking but punish players that do not pay attention to them.
Of all composition archetypes, sky-anything are the least desirable imo. In a recent Remax there was a discussion about defenders advantage. Having so many air units in the game makes it possible to have compositions that largely ignore terrain altogether making the issue of not having defenders advantage even worse (death balls). If any race should have more air it should be Protoss though, I guess.
I can't believe I don't see more adversity against the liberator btw. Not about how (im)balanced it is but that it's yet another air unit. It overlaps with the tank even, one of the most iconic units of the game.. Of Terrans' 3 production buildings the starport now even has the most units. How boring.
On October 10 2015 12:19 phfantunes wrote: How so? Endgame toss army is absolutely unbeatable by Zerg and the race in general struggles with air deathballs. So it's not that people are against skytoss, it's just that zerg has no way to trade resources efficiently or beat that perfect air comp toss can achieve.
I think its actually fairly even if plaayed right. zerg might lose a straightup fight, but with the AOE of ravagers, fungal and parasitic bombs, combined with ultras to zone-out the templar (which cant be killed by anything) and hydras and corruptors for supporting damage, its much more even than it seems.
EDIT: Plus zerg has remaxes
issue is zerg need so many tech paths and alot of gas for an army like that. toss can reach it quicker with carriers and if zerg doesnt have the units its over.
And that isn't really a bad thing if protoss has this late-game timing push since they're so vulnerable early on. If zerg can win the game before that timing, or injure protoss enough that they reach their end game when protoss has their lategame, then thats well played from the zerg.
A korean losing 3-1 to a 16 year old american.
Wasn't flash like 15, 16 years old when winning a fuckton of tournaments and becoming the best BW player in the world?
On October 11 2015 22:58 Penev wrote: I can't believe I don't see more adversity against the liberator btw. Not about how (im)balanced it is but that it's yet another air unit. It overlaps with the tank even, one of the most iconic units of the game.. Of Terrans' 3 production buildings the starport now even has the most units. How boring.
There was a lot of talk about this when the Liberator first came out, but what are you going to do? The Liberator is a legitimate, working space control unit. Martyring the Liberator is only a good idea if we have reason to believe the Tank would get some serious buffs as recompense, and I don't see that we do.
Yep, every single protoss just go skytoss every game, it's quite boring, dull and hard to win against them. It's funny how cyclone can kite every single zerg units..
They should rework infestors to NOT be such a high target priority by enemy AI - require the enemy to target them.
I had a game just yesterday where I managed to NP roughly 6 BCs all simultaneously, for a decent duration, but still got slaughtered as the remaining BCs instantly auto target the infestors over all other units, including my corrupters. Was quite sad to see, he had about 9 BCs total, nearly 2/3 were mine, but since BC only does minimal dmg to BC (I got off a few Yamatos but its hard as shit to micro), they quickly died.
On October 14 2015 18:37 PtitDrogo wrote: Nerf Carrier, nerf lurker and we will already have a way more interesting PvZ. Right now it's boring as fuck to have to go carrier everygame.
Agreed, carrier is ridic but protoss cant win on the ground vs lurker. Thing is lurker doesnt come out in time to stop protoss all ins so its not the defensive unit it appears its just some crazy tanky antiground unit that walks into the fight and murders everything.
MU would be way more interesting if lurkers were easier to get and worse damage/hp. Not sure what the solution to carrier is, it went from being this terrible unit no one ever made and was almost removed from the game to this stupidly overpowered unit that cant be beaten but has to be made because nothing else really works.
On October 10 2015 14:31 BigRedDog wrote: why use abduct, just parasitic bomb the fleet.
That's the spell what zerg needs to break skytoss.
Actually PB doesn't work. Carriers don't naturally clump like mutas or liberators so there is only little AOE effect. Cast 10 PB on 10 different carriers and not a single one dies.
On October 14 2015 18:37 PtitDrogo wrote: Nerf Carrier, nerf lurker and we will already have a way more interesting PvZ. Right now it's boring as fuck to have to go carrier everygame.
Agreed, carrier is ridic but protoss cant win on the ground vs lurker. Thing is lurker doesnt come out in time to stop protoss all ins so its not the defensive unit it appears its just some crazy tanky antiground unit that walks into the fight and murders everything.
MU would be way more interesting if lurkers were easier to get and worse damage/hp. Not sure what the solution to carrier is, it went from being this terrible unit no one ever made and was almost removed from the game to this stupidly overpowered unit that cant be beaten but has to be made because nothing else really works.
I am not really worried about balancing the carrier, there are so many parameters to play with. Take all the normal things like cost, build time and health etc and make twice because of interceptors. So out of a balance perspective the carrier should be the dream.
On October 14 2015 18:37 PtitDrogo wrote: Nerf Carrier, nerf lurker and we will already have a way more interesting PvZ. Right now it's boring as fuck to have to go carrier everygame.
protoss cant win on the ground vs lurker.
This is not true. Protoss can deal with lurkers very easily with disruptors. Indeed the lurker is in a pretty terrible shape right now because we can't save lurkers against disruptor shots because unburrow time is too long and we can't protect lurkers with other units because disruptor shots walk through units. Theo proposed in an other post to reduce the unburrow time of lurkers because they are very weak against disruptors.
the main issue is that you can spread your lurker really easily and you need 2 disruptor shot to kill 1 lurker, it takes quite a bit of time to clear a properly sieged position with lurkers, and by the time you manage to clear it out usually zerg was already teching to ultralisks and disruptors fare very poorly vs ultras/lings/vipers and w/e else zerg can throw at you
I seriously feel that zerg ground is way overpowered vs protoss ground atm
I think the meta will move away from Skytoss as zerg players learn to deal with it. I hope neither the Lurker nor the Disruptor gets nerfed too early, because I think those two units will generate a sick ground vs ground PvZ in the long run.
Zerg players think the Disruptor is imba and hard counters the Lurker and Roach/Hydra. Protoss players think the Lurker is too strong and kills everything Protoss has on the ground.
So let's just see how it goes after both races have learned to deal with the new units better. Of course maybe both will have to be nerfed eventually. On the other hand nerfing the Ultra armor by 1 would help both zvp and zvt immediately I think.
Skytoss is similar to certain things such as, Marth in Melee, Caitlyn in League, and Mech: in the sense that they are easy to use at a low-mid level, but become very hard at a high level.
It's not about how hard something is to execute. It's about whether it creates interesting interactions, and in general when you need mass air to counter air, the gameplay becomes superlame. Ground AA units should be the default counter to air units.
Skytoss is similar to certain things such as, Marth in Melee, Caitlyn in League, and Mech: in the sense that they are easy to use at a low-mid level, but become very hard at a high level.
It's not about how hard something is to execute. It's about whether it creates interesting interactions, and in general when you need mass air to counter air, the gameplay becomes superlame. Ground AA units should be the default counter to air units.
Yep, thats the thing. The only good anti-air in SC2 is air units themselfs (and perhaps stalkers because of Blink).
Skytoss is similar to certain things such as, Marth in Melee, Caitlyn in League, and Mech: in the sense that they are easy to use at a low-mid level, but become very hard at a high level.
It's not about how hard something is to execute. It's about whether it creates interesting interactions, and in general when you need mass air to counter air, the gameplay becomes superlame. Ground AA units should be the default counter to air units.
Yep, thats the thing. The only good anti-air in SC2 is air units themselfs (and perhaps stalkers because of Blink).
What? Stalkers are terrible vs. most air. They don't even trade cost effectively vs Mutas.
Skytoss is similar to certain things such as, Marth in Melee, Caitlyn in League, and Mech: in the sense that they are easy to use at a low-mid level, but become very hard at a high level.
It's not about how hard something is to execute. It's about whether it creates interesting interactions, and in general when you need mass air to counter air, the gameplay becomes superlame. Ground AA units should be the default counter to air units.
Yep, thats the thing. The only good anti-air in SC2 is air units themselfs (and perhaps stalkers because of Blink).
What? Stalkers are terrible vs. most air. They don't even trade cost effectively vs Mutas.
Stalkers are quite fast (well, faster then most other ground units), have good attack range and blink to get around impassable terrain. Their attack also has bonus against armored which most air units are. So all in all Stalkers are pretty decent. They might not be good in practice because of numbers, but design wise they are ideal for g2a.
Skytoss is similar to certain things such as, Marth in Melee, Caitlyn in League, and Mech: in the sense that they are easy to use at a low-mid level, but become very hard at a high level.
It's not about how hard something is to execute. It's about whether it creates interesting interactions, and in general when you need mass air to counter air, the gameplay becomes superlame. Ground AA units should be the default counter to air units.
Yep, thats the thing. The only good anti-air in SC2 is air units themselfs (and perhaps stalkers because of Blink).
What? Stalkers are terrible vs. most air. They don't even trade cost effectively vs Mutas.
Stalkers are quite fast (well, faster then most other ground units), have good attack range and blink to get around impassable terrain. Their attack also has bonus against armored which most air units are. So all in all Stalkers are pretty decent. They might not be good in practice because of numbers, but design wise they are ideal for g2a.
I think its more that their health and blink allows them to survive long enough to focus down some air units rather than getting insta-gibbed at range like hydras and marines. But stalkers are still pretty bad against large numbers of air units, especially when considering the cost-efficiency of engagements.
EPT
