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. | ||
|
blooblooblahblah
Australia4163 Posts
On October 17 2015 19:58 Thezzy wrote: My only issue is that it feels like an unneeded safety net in TvP. 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. Protoss doesn't necessarily have strong defensive options, sure warp in and cannons are alright but bio is so strong against gateway units in small numbers and without 2 second warp ins, speed medivacs will will eventually just overwhelm the Protoss. In WoL, protoss just barely managed without overcharge, but widow mines and medivac boosts didn't exist, (and really terran players are infinitely better at drop play in TvP than they were at the time). Also, with the colossi nerf really hurting the strength of the main protoss army, and adepts no longer filling that tanky role in which they use to, I really don't consider PO to be un-neccessary safety net. Which is not to say that the numbers are perfect, but I don't think its existence itself is problematic. It really should cost more energy though, IMO. | ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
| ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2647 Posts
| ||
|
My_Fake_Plastic_Luv
United States257 Posts
| ||
|
JackONeill
861 Posts
| ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
| ||
|
Timelog
Netherlands57 Posts
On October 18 2015 07:14 BabelFish1 wrote: So essentially the general consensus is that PO is a little iffy but mostly because it allows Protoss to get tier 3 units behind a difficult to combat safety net due to the spammability of PO? This is basically my opinion about PO, added to that that it shouldn't be possible to use it offensively. edit: fixed the spelling a bit | ||
|
KelsierSC
United Kingdom10443 Posts
So why they have reversed this philosophy is beyond me , giving such a powerful ability to something that protoss is always going to have (supply unit) seems very silly to me. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20294 Posts
On October 18 2015 18:56 JackONeill wrote: The overcharge is a stupid spell that was a bandaid to help early game protoss against new metas. It's dumb as shit and makes protoss allins less risky with the same reward. Since the adept is here to help protoss defense early game, it needs to go. The main reason for overcharge existing was lack of defenders advantage in pvp destroying the matchup for 3 years. How do you expect adding a new gateway unit to fix this problem? | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On October 22 2015 16:56 KelsierSC wrote: I remember reading/listening to a discussion about overlords and blizzard said that one of the reasons they couldn't put good spells on the OL is that you were going to get them anyway for supply so there was no downside and it would basically give you free access to powerful spells. So why they have reversed this philosophy is beyond me , giving such a powerful ability to something that protoss is always going to have (supply unit) seems very silly to me. Because they simply decided to change their philosophy. Thats it. There are many many many things different in LotV compared to WoL. The economy, their opinion about macro mechanics, their opinion about harassment, their opinion about how big maps should be and how many bases a map should have, etc. They just decided their previous idea was bad and they want to do it differently and perhaps in 6 months they will change their minds again... who knows. On October 22 2015 20:11 Cyro wrote: The main reason for overcharge existing was lack of defenders advantage in pvp destroying the matchup for 3 years. How do you expect adding a new gateway unit to fix this problem? By introducing a gateway unit that is better defensively then it is offensively? Think Siege Tanks (HotS style, not tankivacs). If you could build cheap Siege Tanks from Gateways there would be no room for early aggression. Siege Tanks are almost always better defensively because of the siege up time. The longer it takes to get into siege mode the more damage you are forced to take for free before you can fire back. Now, I am not saying that I want that. I am just saying that it is, in theory, possible. I guess the sentry was supposed to be this unit initially but it didnt really work out the way they wanted. Highground warp ins and blink have negated the defenders advantage of force fields. | ||
|
Eiltonn
Germany307 Posts
On October 22 2015 16:56 KelsierSC wrote: I remember reading/listening to a discussion about overlords and blizzard said that one of the reasons they couldn't put good spells on the OL is that you were going to get them anyway for supply so there was no downside and it would basically give you free access to powerful spells. So why they have reversed this philosophy is beyond me , giving such a powerful ability to something that protoss is always going to have (supply unit) seems very silly to me. The MsC is the unit casting the spell no the pylon. This combined with the new warp in makes the protoss base layout more tactical i think, and that is obviously a positive thing. I really dislike the concept of PO (since it was first introduced in HOTS) and i would have rather seen Blizzard buff toss somehow so this stupid spell is not needed. In the current iteration the biggest problems in my eyes are the spamability of this spell (the duration is nearly long enough to gain the energy needed to cast it again), its not really possible to starve the Msc out of energy by constant poking. The more dire problem is the DPS though. I think the DPS are way too high which can make u easily lose a lot of units if you fight on multiple fronts and dont pay attention for just a few seconds. This can be pretty frustrating, may not be as much of a problem for players with better multitasking though. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20294 Posts
By introducing a gateway unit that is better defensively then it is offensively? The adept is the opposite; better on offense than on defense. Before this iteration of overcharge, the dominant strategy early game was to repeatedly throw small squads of adepts at your opponent because you could kill enough workers to set them behind even while they were on defense. When they patched PO to do like 5x as much DPS and be castable instantly from when the mothership core spawned, it went from fairly easy to get your moneys worth to really hard when doing stuff like that. Highground warp ins and blink have negated the defenders advantage of force fields. They removed the ability to warp onto higher ground several years ago, AFAIK. Adept shade also walks through forcefields | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
On October 22 2015 20:35 Cyro wrote: The adept is the opposite; better on offense than on defense. Before this iteration of overcharge, the dominant strategy early game was to repeatedly throw small squads of adepts at your opponent because you could kill enough workers to set them behind even while they were on defense. When they patched PO to do like 5x as much DPS and be castable instantly from when the mothership core spawned, it went from fairly easy to get your moneys worth to really hard when doing stuff like that. I never said the Adept was that kind of unit. In fact, I think the Adept is a useless unit. By itself I have no problem with it. Its a good unit. But in combination with all the other protoss units I just dont see a reason for the Adept to be in the game. With the Zealot being the tanky unit and the Stalker being the mobile harassment unit and the sentry being somewhat defensive and aggressive, the Adept just doesnt seem to fit into any unique role. On October 22 2015 20:35 Cyro wrote: They removed the ability to warp onto higher ground several years ago, AFAIK. Adept shade also walks through forcefields And when these things were removed PvP immediately got better in terms of early game aggression. I just used high ground warp in and blink as examples of early game units being far far better offensively then defensively which makes for such a volatile match up. As you already pointed out, the Adept sure isnt the right tool to make the early game more stable. | ||
|
RossV
United Kingdom5 Posts
| ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
They've tripled the amount of firepower that Protoss has from an overcharge and eliminated any sort of baiting tactics because it takes so little energy. Any harass oriented opener in PvP is totally dead. THere's just PO for days now... My favorite build, 3 gate Stargate, which relied on going in and sniping the mothership core, is useless because when you arrive you have to battle through 4 overcharges and you end up losing all your phoenixes anyway. Against Terran it probably encourages you to make LESS units in the early game and rely on it more. Reaper scouting is dead. I just pylon overcharge as soon as the reaper arrives and he dies without seeing anything. Not that Terran actually needs to see anything because this matchup is imbalanced as all hell. But still. Vs Zerg Pylon overcharge is meh. Like in HotS I feel like anytime you use it you're losing anyway. | ||
|
BabelFish1
186 Posts
On October 22 2015 20:25 Eiltonn wrote: The MsC is the unit casting the spell no the pylon. This combined with the new warp in makes the protoss base layout more tactical i think, and that is obviously a positive thing. I really dislike the concept of PO (since it was first introduced in HOTS) and i would have rather seen Blizzard buff toss somehow so this stupid spell is not needed. In the current iteration the biggest problems in my eyes are the spamability of this spell (the duration is nearly long enough to gain the energy needed to cast it again), its not really possible to starve the Msc out of energy by constant poking. The more dire problem is the DPS though. I think the DPS are way too high which can make u easily lose a lot of units if you fight on multiple fronts and dont pay attention for just a few seconds. This can be pretty frustrating, may not be as much of a problem for players with better multitasking though. Yesterday I starved a msc out of energy multiple times and sniped it when it was too low to cast another PO 2x. It's doable but you need a force that can rapidly enguage and disenguage. Attacking into PO with the msc back a little when you have a not so mobile force just ends badly. | ||
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
A big advantage is also when expanding, it can be used much sooner than a complete nexus. | ||
|
royalroadweed
United States8301 Posts
| ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
there are going to be players just like him who are trying to get back into the groove of things and simply accept things from a surface level interest. they'll comment on things like, 'oh that's strong', or, 'god I really can't make cyclones work.' in the interest of experimenting, i'll just typically try to cut the defenses to the bare minimum, and raise the tech or worker count more and more to see how close defenses can get while playing my friend. I can tell him general or detailed things like the option of making an army that walks in to pressure and back away for 11 seconds multiple times to waste energy, and how that's a very viable thing. I am however selling a different story when it feels to him that any of his devised strategies or openings to counteract it (and even if they're sound move-out times) just fail, take too long, or end up dying without dealing the damage that should have been done. it becomes an early game mechanic to both respect and abuse in my opinion. however, it must feel daunting from his perspective that he can make all these aggressive builds that a msc can instantly hamper and stall long enough for a greater army to overtake. meanwhile, I am very obviously (to both him and especially myself) adding unit production buildings far too late. at this point it becomes the lowest common denominator that I can have so little and do all this stuff, and yet still have so much more room to grow it if I played more efficiently. if it's about seconds--which the msc is--a better player with the same army early on in the game can force their way in without having lost enough to make the attack an eventual failure. a player with worse control or worse game-sense focuses very heavily on attacking anyway but comes out with nothing more than a faulty economy due to the lack of multitasking. I feel like selling this notion to players is hard. it's a mentality of get-good, or one where you ignore the mechanic altogether and play macro predominately, seemingly limiting the creativity that one can have. I think it adds complexity to the game when playing against protoss, starting from the bottom level. by extension, it's selling that protoss is the stronger race and that the grass is greener on that side.. where, for instance, if you were going to win with the 'harder' races, you would have won more easily with protoss anyway. obviously, this isn't so great for people entering the matches for the first time and honestly there is some merit to it all. you're going to hear that all your protoss peers need to do is make a mothership core off a gateway opening, and that the resource investment is pennies compare to what it actually offers. it perpetuates an ingrained idea that the game is for the elite and that it's something that takes far too much time to learn and pick-up as a hobby. I am not saying that the msc is the cause, first of all. if it were that simple the game would have much larger issues. I'm saying that your friends or family are less likely to pick it up for themselves because it seems like such a daunting or unrewarding task. the ramp-up from starting out to reaching the higher leagues is insane without any help at all, and climbing the learning curve for overcoming the 'mothership core' aspect of playing [against] protoss adds substantially to that even if in hindsight it may be a good experience for a player's game knowledge and play. | ||
|
Eiltonn
Germany307 Posts
| ||
|
DinoMight
United States3725 Posts
| ||
| ||
