EPTI have no opinion and don't intend on forming said opinion until after LotV officially launches+at least 1 balance patch is implemented. I just want to know what the TL community feels about it.
XvP: do you have significant problems with PO?
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
I have no opinion and don't intend on forming said opinion until after LotV officially launches+at least 1 balance patch is implemented. I just want to know what the TL community feels about it. | ||
|
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
| ||
|
redloser
Korea (South)1725 Posts
But I heard the real problem with the PO is in the PvP matchup, so I don't know. | ||
|
Beliskner
111 Posts
On October 16 2015 11:51 redloser wrote: But I heard the real problem with the PO is in the PvP matchup, so I don't know. I've heard a few people been stating this, but have not actually heard any reason why. It seems like people are just regurgitating, because to me, logically it's actually the best change for PvP. Simply because of the immortal and the adept. Pylon charge stopped the stupid adept vs adept where you simply shade into each other and kill as many probes, now you just PO your mineral line and the person who threw their adepts away is behind and usually gets punished by stalker pressure. And with immortals it allows more 2 base attacks. Instead of nexus charge shutting you down 100%, you can push in if you have a higher immortal count and actually press your advantage(Immortals obviously kill pylons pretty fast, plus with the new shield tank a few shows), and getting pylon rushed getting an immortal out shuts it down pretty quick. Pylon charge is better, it allows more variety and counter play than nexus charge. I've found the people vehemently against it, seem to want to just charge into a base without sniping the MC and are upset when they get shutdown. And honestly I'm not seeing pylon rushes being that effective above silver/gold with a proper scout and response. | ||
|
ROOTFayth
Canada3351 Posts
| ||
|
wjat
385 Posts
| ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
On October 16 2015 12:11 Beliskner wrote: I've heard a few people been stating this, but have not actually heard any reason why. It seems like people are just regurgitating, because to me, logically it's actually the best change for PvP. Simply because of the immortal and the adept. Pylon charge stopped the stupid adept vs adept where you simply shade into each other and kill as many probes, now you just PO your mineral line and the person who threw their adepts away is behind and usually gets punished by stalker pressure. And with immortals it allows more 2 base attacks. Instead of nexus charge shutting you down 100%, you can push in if you have a higher immortal count and actually press your advantage(Immortals obviously kill pylons pretty fast, plus with the new shield tank a few shows), and getting pylon rushed getting an immortal out shuts it down pretty quick. Pylon charge is better, it allows more variety and counter play than nexus charge. I've found the people vehemently against it, seem to want to just charge into a base without sniping the MC and are upset when they get shutdown. And honestly I'm not seeing pylon rushes being that effective above silver/gold with a proper scout and response. Interesting, I have a question for you regarding that since I'm a Protoss player. In my PvP I frequently rush to chargelots to counter blink stalker and early robo play, PO in HotS does not stop the chargelots from winning the game what so ever. Do you think the new PO would invalidate the 1 base 5 gate chargelot+whatever gas heavy units you decide to suppliment the chargelots with due to having more dps or would the short duration make it still semi viable vs non dark shrine openers? | ||
|
Beliskner
111 Posts
On October 16 2015 12:45 BabelFish1 wrote: Interesting, I have a question for you regarding that since I'm a Protoss player. In my PvP I frequently rush to chargelots to counter blink stalker and early robo play, PO in HotS does not stop the chargelots from winning the game what so ever. Do you think the new PO would invalidate the 1 base 5 gate chargelot+whatever gas heavy units you decide to suppliment the chargelots with due to having more dps or would the short duration make it still semi viable vs non dark shrine openers? I don't think 1 base 5 gate chargelots is that great in either expansion  you'll win because of bad responses from your opponent. But yes, Pylon charge will shut it down a bit harder because if they have a simcity you can't do much(With PO or not). | ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
IMO 2 bases or less, attack to kill is just not an option. 3 bases ONLY if you are lucky, and keep stuff hidden and attack well. you have to watch like a HAWK to see if they are going to attack. try to contend the 4th and win on 5 bases or so. It's basically the same plan I had in hots, but 1 more base for everyone. I used to contend the 3rd but that is usually laughable now. | ||
|
ScienceRob
United States382 Posts
| ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
It is really hard as a zerg to punish a greedy toss player if you see the opening. To the degree where on the map we were on instead of expanding away from me the player was actually expanding toward me basically leap frogging with pylons and quicker warp-ins using those gateways to wall off his pylons. I don't think it is so much that it is so strong, but that it can be cast so many times in a row or on so many pylons. I still contend that a pylon that is overcharged should lose it's power radius for any buildings it powers and any warp-ins associated. Now you could still have 2 pylons next to each other with one on overcharge and the other powering/warping in, but logically it seems to me that overcharge is taking the power of the pylon and turning it into an attack. Therefore there should be some tradeoff, and I think the power radius should go until it wears off. This wouldn't fix everything but at least it would mean that in early game you might have to build an extra pylon for defense or make the decision to lose building power in exchange for the damage. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
| ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
On October 16 2015 12:56 Beliskner wrote: I don't think 1 base 5 gate chargelots is that great in either expansion you'll win because of bad responses from your opponent. But yes, Pylon charge will shut it down a bit harder because if they have a simcity you can't do much(With PO or not).Fast Chargelot Archon is actually a build for PvP. Typically it's done off of DTs though but that delays the Chargelot Archon timing. The Archon(s) destroy the FFs which can screw over the chargelots on the ramp going into the main. But that's a tad bit off topic. Look it up on google if you're interested. | ||
|
shin_toss
Philippines2589 Posts
| ||
|
Pursuit_
United States1330 Posts
But by far the biggest annoyance is that at 25 energy, it's worth it to cast it to kill a reaper. On most maps it's pretty much impossible to scout again between an adept and a pylon. Gotta scan and pray for the best  | ||
|
Garemie
United States248 Posts
| ||
|
DanceSC
United States751 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3380 Posts
On October 16 2015 21:55 FLuE wrote: Seems to me it allows the toss to cut where they might have made cannons before. It is really hard as a zerg to punish a greedy toss player if you see the opening. To the degree where on the map we were on instead of expanding away from me the player was actually expanding toward me basically leap frogging with pylons and quicker warp-ins using those gateways to wall off his pylons. I don't think it is so much that it is so strong, but that it can be cast so many times in a row or on so many pylons. I still contend that a pylon that is overcharged should lose it's power radius for any buildings it powers and any warp-ins associated. Now you could still have 2 pylons next to each other with one on overcharge and the other powering/warping in, but logically it seems to me that overcharge is taking the power of the pylon and turning it into an attack. Therefore there should be some tradeoff, and I think the power radius should go until it wears off. This wouldn't fix everything but at least it would mean that in early game you might have to build an extra pylon for defense or make the decision to lose building power in exchange for the damage. Zerg player here too, pkaying random in the beta. I agree with your point. Your proposition is excellent too (damage or power building but not both) | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On October 16 2015 21:59 The_Red_Viper wrote: Gameplay wise i don't have problems against it, design wise i think it doesn't belong into the game though My thoughts exactly. It might be balanced, but it certainly doesnt feel right. | ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Protoss can border-line hide behind it whilst doing pressure and with only 25 energy and the possibility of Recall, the MSC can be out and about with an army, do damage and then come home and use PO with the remaining energy in case of a counter-attack. At the same time, warp-ins and cannons that detect and shoot both air and ground are also still present for defense. In HotS the one thing that annoyed me a lot in TvP were builds like proxy Oracle into a quick third (sometimes on the gold). The threat of Oracles meant at least an Engineering Bay + Turret would be needed if I wanted to move out. That in itself was fine but Protoss could just easily hide behind his/her Nexus with just an Oracle, a Sentry or two and the MSC and there was nothing I could really do to put pressure back with what little Bio I could bring out at that point. Imagine if I could go for a no-cloak Banshee with twice the damage and speed and then hide behind a bunch of temporary PFs that can shoot air if it goes south and the Banshee can detect stealth as well. The shorter range of PO does make it a little trickier for Protoss but I'm honestly still wondering WHY they need it when they already have such strong and versatile defensive options with warp-ins (that can warp-in what you need), photon cannons and Recall. Primary it's just less fun because it feels (against just an opinion) that Protoss can get away with so much whilst having so little to defend themselves with. It's always brought up that PO was brought in for PvP (I'm guessing to end the 4g vs 4g era?) but I still think that making TvP and ZvP less fun to play just to improve a mirror matchup wasn't a good call. I mean honestly, what TvP early game has not been a Reaper opening since HotS came out? Versus either one of the three aggressive openings (Oracle, DT or Blink) or a fast expand? Like 95% of the TvPs I've seen and played were that. Compare that to the various openings in TvZ and TvT. Without PO there would at least be a need to get some units out, Cloaked Banshees would become a threat again (now they're suicidal if Protoss opened Oracles) and Protoss could not play as greedy with as few units as they can right now. Maybe I'm overstating things a bit, but the early game of TvP feels extremely stale. | ||
| ||
