|
On September 13 2011 03:23 Squigly wrote:
Lol. Mid game T has the worst detection. Im pretty sure you wont argue that? Observers just kick ass. Invisible detection ftw and overseers are semi-free from 1.4
Observers also require that you commit to a tech path and they NEED to be cloaked. Without the speed upgrade (which getting mid game is not something you'd generally do; heck, you never get it), observers are slower than every single unit that can shoot air (same for the overseer).
See? It's easy to say that something sucks and that the other races have it easy.
The fact is, observers are cheap because they don't do anything else than detect and they're low HP because they are cloaked.
|
On September 13 2011 23:27 Squigly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:41 Penatronic wrote:On September 13 2011 10:49 mage36 wrote:
why were people complaining about ravens? All i saw was a HSM buff. You are given what you are given per race. If you don't like it, you can just play some old school RTS game when everything was practically the mirror the the other. Every race has strengths and weaknesses, so you have to play to your strengths and cover your weaknesses. Can we make babies? Too many people who have only played one race giving absurdly biased opinions. There was a huge mothership buff too. a HUUGE one. However people will complain as they still kinda suck. If you buff something from unusable to really bad, its still not good. HSM sucks. It kinda always will without a huge overhaul. You will only really see it in 15 hour TvT games ala boxer. Thanks for the insightful input. It was more from a fortune cookie then starcraft related though  Do you know my lucky numbers? XD EDIT: AAAhhh i quoted the wrong guy. I cba to change it but im sure people know who i meant to quote
I don't entirely get the whole NP issue to begin with. There are hardly any good targets that aren't massive and the infestor is so vulnerable while casting it Ive never had a real problem sniping them when they try something cute. I mean tanks and colossi just stomp on them. Plus you've got blink and HT/Ghost abilities that can hose infestors, too. I've been like, perfectly cliff ambushed by NP onto thors and tanks and still got vision and killed them with my bio before i was totally wiped, then went on to beat them up.
If NP really needed a nerf I'd rather see it's range reduced or something along those lines.
|
On September 13 2011 23:35 Aerakin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 03:23 Squigly wrote:
Lol. Mid game T has the worst detection. Im pretty sure you wont argue that? Observers just kick ass. Invisible detection ftw and overseers are semi-free from 1.4
Observers also require that you commit to a tech path and they NEED to be cloaked. Without the speed upgrade (which getting mid game is not something you'd generally do; heck, you never get it), observers are slower than every single unit that can shoot air (same for the overseer). See? It's easy to say that something sucks and that the other races have it easy. The fact is, observers are cheap because they don't do anything else than detect and they're low HP because they are cloaked.
I dont get it. You say they need to be cloaked. They are. If they werent then yes they would have issues. I dont think you realise that flying things cant shoot invisible things :/
Also who doesnt get overlord speed? When you do those things move stupid fast.
Everyone gets a robo, and if you dont get OLs, then, i guess youve drone rushed?
The thing i have issues with raven wise is thats its on its own little tech path that noone used in tvp and often tvt. Sure i can swap a tech lab onto it from say a factory, but that has issues of its own. Then there is the cost.
Im not saying its not good, but if you get a raven purely for detection it sucks. Hard. Id personally have all abilities removed, and make it far cheaper.
Why not get the speed upgrade for observers btw? Doest cost all that much. If you going colossi its no tech.
EDIT: "Observers require you to commit to a tech path" Really? Reaaalllly?
|
On September 13 2011 23:38 Penatronic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 23:27 Squigly wrote:On September 13 2011 22:41 Penatronic wrote:On September 13 2011 10:49 mage36 wrote:
why were people complaining about ravens? All i saw was a HSM buff. You are given what you are given per race. If you don't like it, you can just play some old school RTS game when everything was practically the mirror the the other. Every race has strengths and weaknesses, so you have to play to your strengths and cover your weaknesses. Can we make babies? Too many people who have only played one race giving absurdly biased opinions. There was a huge mothership buff too. a HUUGE one. However people will complain as they still kinda suck. If you buff something from unusable to really bad, its still not good. HSM sucks. It kinda always will without a huge overhaul. You will only really see it in 15 hour TvT games ala boxer. Thanks for the insightful input. It was more from a fortune cookie then starcraft related though Do you know my lucky numbers? XD EDIT: AAAhhh i quoted the wrong guy. I cba to change it but im sure people know who i meant to quote I don't entirely get the whole NP issue to begin with. There are hardly any good targets that aren't massive and the infestor is so vulnerable while casting it Ive never had a real problem sniping them when they try something cute. I mean tanks and colossi just stomp on them. Plus you've got blink and HT/Ghost abilities that can hose infestors, too. I've been like, perfectly cliff ambushed by NP onto thors and tanks and still got vision and killed them with my bio before i was totally wiped, then went on to beat them up. If NP really needed a nerf I'd rather see it's range reduced or something along those lines.
For me NP nerf is much more PvZ balance tweak then TvZ. When i do bio/mech it isnt that bad to snipe infestors witch cast NP. But in that case, most zergs just dont use np but cast fungal. But if you go pure mech, then NP start to be spike in yours ass with witch you can (can't :-) ) do shit.
|
On September 13 2011 22:09 Squigly wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 13 2011 21:44 BoonSolo wrote:
Talking about how T scans are expensive, it's easy to argue that the cost of an overseer is 150/50 after patch now if your really worried about Terran detection build another command center in your main, at a cost of 400/0 it really isnt more expensive than like 2 overseers and then you dont have to worry about scans anymore
I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, because IMO you can afford to scan anyway and I think the raven is a good unit. Just pointing out that T has that option for more easy to use anywhere detection if it really thinks using scans on its original OCs is such a waste.
Early game you cant really afford to scan as T has by far the worst worker production. You MULE to keep up. Your saying it like T is on even footing eco and has the MULE to get ahead. An OC costs 550 not 400. How can you argue that overseers cost 150/50? They only do if you lose them and have to replace with an overlord. Dont lose them so easily :/ Also DT and Banshees cant shoot up so nothing invisible (ignoring mothershippy shenanigans) can kill them. 1 more OC doesnt mean you dont have to worry about scans also, energy is slow. But yes an OC dedicated to scans would massively help detection wise. The thing is you never know when your going to need to scan in advance. Apart from standard scouting scans.
Well you say early game T has the worst detection because a scan is expensive,but you can still make turrets and that is all the detection that P and Z have so really early game T detection is superior.
And if an OC costs 550(IE 150 minerals scv building time) using equivalent logic a mule is worth 270 minerals and therefore an extra OC for scans need only use 2 mules to pay for itself. This is obviously flawed logic as it doesn't take into account the time value of minerals mined and the fact those minerals could still be mined in the future.
However considering an extra OC it provides some mules and increased scv production I would imagine this goes a long way to offsetting the cost and will provide a lot more scans.
Overseer cost should include the cost of the overlord (or at least part of it) because you cannot afford the possibility of losing it and being supply blocked so it is wise to replace it before ever losing it.
I don't understand your point about banshees and DTs, you can still lose an overseer to blink stalkers/stimmed marines/vikings very easily.
And yes you don't know when your going to need scans, however being able to call on scans as soon as you need them is a luxury only Terran has, as both Z and P both need to prematurely make detection.
I think the benefit of some mules, increase scv production and possible use as a mining base later on go a long way to justify saying the cost of 2 overseers is somewhat equivalent to an extra OC. Really you Terran players have the best detection options at all stages of the game IMO
|
On September 14 2011 02:02 BoonSolo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:09 Squigly wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 13 2011 21:44 BoonSolo wrote:
Talking about how T scans are expensive, it's easy to argue that the cost of an overseer is 150/50 after patch now if your really worried about Terran detection build another command center in your main, at a cost of 400/0 it really isnt more expensive than like 2 overseers and then you dont have to worry about scans anymore
I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, because IMO you can afford to scan anyway and I think the raven is a good unit. Just pointing out that T has that option for more easy to use anywhere detection if it really thinks using scans on its original OCs is such a waste.
Early game you cant really afford to scan as T has by far the worst worker production. You MULE to keep up. Your saying it like T is on even footing eco and has the MULE to get ahead. An OC costs 550 not 400. How can you argue that overseers cost 150/50? They only do if you lose them and have to replace with an overlord. Dont lose them so easily :/ Also DT and Banshees cant shoot up so nothing invisible (ignoring mothershippy shenanigans) can kill them. 1 more OC doesnt mean you dont have to worry about scans also, energy is slow. But yes an OC dedicated to scans would massively help detection wise. The thing is you never know when your going to need to scan in advance. Apart from standard scouting scans. Well you say early game T has the worst detection because a scan is expensive,but you can still make turrets and that is all the detection that P and Z have so really early game T detection is superior. And if an OC costs 550(IE 150 minerals scv building time) using equivalent logic a mule is worth 270 minerals and therefore an extra OC for scans need only use 2 mules to pay for itself. This is obviously flawed logic as it doesn't take into account the time value of minerals mined and the fact those minerals could still be mined in the future. However considering an extra OC it provides some mules and increased scv production I would imagine this goes a long way to offsetting the cost and will provide a lot more scans. Overseer cost should include the cost of the overlord (or at least part of it) because you cannot afford the possibility of losing it and being supply blocked so it is wise to replace it before ever losing it. I don't understand your point about banshees and DTs, you can still lose an overseer to blink stalkers/stimmed marines/vikings very easily. And yes you don't know when your going to need scans, however being able to call on scans as soon as you need them is a luxury only Terran has, as both Z and P both need to prematurely make detection. I think the benefit of some mules, increase scv production and possible use as a mining base later on go a long way to justify saying the cost of 2 overseers is somewhat equivalent to an extra OC. Really you Terran players have the best detection options at all stages of the game IMO
Huh? 400 for CC. 150 for OC. I ignored building time as i knew youd whine about it if i didnt 
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2011 02:17 Squigly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 02:02 BoonSolo wrote:On September 13 2011 22:09 Squigly wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 13 2011 21:44 BoonSolo wrote:
Talking about how T scans are expensive, it's easy to argue that the cost of an overseer is 150/50 after patch now if your really worried about Terran detection build another command center in your main, at a cost of 400/0 it really isnt more expensive than like 2 overseers and then you dont have to worry about scans anymore
I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, because IMO you can afford to scan anyway and I think the raven is a good unit. Just pointing out that T has that option for more easy to use anywhere detection if it really thinks using scans on its original OCs is such a waste.
Early game you cant really afford to scan as T has by far the worst worker production. You MULE to keep up. Your saying it like T is on even footing eco and has the MULE to get ahead. An OC costs 550 not 400. How can you argue that overseers cost 150/50? They only do if you lose them and have to replace with an overlord. Dont lose them so easily :/ Also DT and Banshees cant shoot up so nothing invisible (ignoring mothershippy shenanigans) can kill them. 1 more OC doesnt mean you dont have to worry about scans also, energy is slow. But yes an OC dedicated to scans would massively help detection wise. The thing is you never know when your going to need to scan in advance. Apart from standard scouting scans. Well you say early game T has the worst detection because a scan is expensive,but you can still make turrets and that is all the detection that P and Z have so really early game T detection is superior. And if an OC costs 550(IE 150 minerals scv building time) using equivalent logic a mule is worth 270 minerals and therefore an extra OC for scans need only use 2 mules to pay for itself. This is obviously flawed logic as it doesn't take into account the time value of minerals mined and the fact those minerals could still be mined in the future. However considering an extra OC it provides some mules and increased scv production I would imagine this goes a long way to offsetting the cost and will provide a lot more scans. Overseer cost should include the cost of the overlord (or at least part of it) because you cannot afford the possibility of losing it and being supply blocked so it is wise to replace it before ever losing it. I don't understand your point about banshees and DTs, you can still lose an overseer to blink stalkers/stimmed marines/vikings very easily. And yes you don't know when your going to need scans, however being able to call on scans as soon as you need them is a luxury only Terran has, as both Z and P both need to prematurely make detection. I think the benefit of some mules, increase scv production and possible use as a mining base later on go a long way to justify saying the cost of 2 overseers is somewhat equivalent to an extra OC. Really you Terran players have the best detection options at all stages of the game IMO Huh? 400 for CC. 150 for OC. I ignored building time as i knew youd whine about it if i didnt
Haha oh yeah sorry, ok so maybe you gotta call 3 mules off it.
|
On September 14 2011 02:30 BoonSolo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2011 02:17 Squigly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 02:02 BoonSolo wrote:On September 13 2011 22:09 Squigly wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 13 2011 21:44 BoonSolo wrote:
Talking about how T scans are expensive, it's easy to argue that the cost of an overseer is 150/50 after patch now if your really worried about Terran detection build another command center in your main, at a cost of 400/0 it really isnt more expensive than like 2 overseers and then you dont have to worry about scans anymore
I'm not suggesting that this is a good idea, because IMO you can afford to scan anyway and I think the raven is a good unit. Just pointing out that T has that option for more easy to use anywhere detection if it really thinks using scans on its original OCs is such a waste.
Early game you cant really afford to scan as T has by far the worst worker production. You MULE to keep up. Your saying it like T is on even footing eco and has the MULE to get ahead. An OC costs 550 not 400. How can you argue that overseers cost 150/50? They only do if you lose them and have to replace with an overlord. Dont lose them so easily :/ Also DT and Banshees cant shoot up so nothing invisible (ignoring mothershippy shenanigans) can kill them. 1 more OC doesnt mean you dont have to worry about scans also, energy is slow. But yes an OC dedicated to scans would massively help detection wise. The thing is you never know when your going to need to scan in advance. Apart from standard scouting scans. Well you say early game T has the worst detection because a scan is expensive,but you can still make turrets and that is all the detection that P and Z have so really early game T detection is superior. And if an OC costs 550(IE 150 minerals scv building time) using equivalent logic a mule is worth 270 minerals and therefore an extra OC for scans need only use 2 mules to pay for itself. This is obviously flawed logic as it doesn't take into account the time value of minerals mined and the fact those minerals could still be mined in the future. However considering an extra OC it provides some mules and increased scv production I would imagine this goes a long way to offsetting the cost and will provide a lot more scans. Overseer cost should include the cost of the overlord (or at least part of it) because you cannot afford the possibility of losing it and being supply blocked so it is wise to replace it before ever losing it. I don't understand your point about banshees and DTs, you can still lose an overseer to blink stalkers/stimmed marines/vikings very easily. And yes you don't know when your going to need scans, however being able to call on scans as soon as you need them is a luxury only Terran has, as both Z and P both need to prematurely make detection. I think the benefit of some mules, increase scv production and possible use as a mining base later on go a long way to justify saying the cost of 2 overseers is somewhat equivalent to an extra OC. Really you Terran players have the best detection options at all stages of the game IMO Huh? 400 for CC. 150 for OC. I ignored building time as i knew youd whine about it if i didnt Haha oh yeah sorry, ok so maybe you gotta call 3 mules off it.
Ha np, i forgot stim costs 10hp yesterday in a stim vs shield debate XD
|
Thinking about it more and more ...
I think Ultralisks should be immune to snipe.
I just don't think it's right that ghosts counter every single units above tier 1 for zergs except corruptors, and possibly hydras (why you'd ever make them I dunno).
|
On September 14 2011 02:57 aebriol wrote:
Thinking about it more and more ...
I think Ultralisks should be immune to snipe.
I just don't think it's right that ghosts counter every single units above tier 1 for zergs except corruptors, and possibly hydras (why you'd ever make them I dunno).
\How do suggest to counter ultras then?
Marines? lol they could hug it to death maybe?
Marauders i assume your about to say. However its the BL ultra tech swich which kills. If youve massed marauders, then the BL with just out right kill you as lings wreck marauders.
Thors? With the NP change actually this may be viable. Atm infestor ultra just owns Thors.
You can fungal banshees to death.
Ghosts are only good with superb micro and tons of them, and cloak. Ill admit making 20 cloaked ghosts, scanning and sniping the overseer as you walk in does seem a little gay. Maybe make overseer immune to snipe.
|
^ Siege tanks.
Personally I don't think snipe is a big deal. It's an extremely awesome spell, maybe even imba awesome (in the same way a lot of things are imbalanced on each race but all kind of even eachother out), but Terran should have a spellcaster for ZvT, and it takes lots of them to be good.
And NP isn't particularly great in ZvT. Siege tanks, as well as ghosts, prevent that. As a Zerg player, I don't think NP change will affect ZvT at all.
Ghosts are only good with superb micro and tons of them, and cloak. Ill admit making 20 cloaked ghosts, scanning and sniping the overseer as you walk in does seem a little gay. Maybe make overseer immune to snipe.
It is kinda gay, but oh well. Ling/Bane actually crushes ghosts, ghosts en masse only work when Terran has a huge macro advantage.
|
On September 14 2011 06:43 Belial88 wrote:^ Siege tanks. Personally I don't think snipe is a big deal. It's an extremely awesome spell, maybe even imba awesome (in the same way a lot of things are imbalanced on each race but all kind of even eachother out), but Terran should have a spellcaster for ZvT, and it takes lots of them to be good. And NP isn't particularly great in ZvT. Siege tanks, as well as ghosts, prevent that. As a Zerg player, I don't think NP change will affect ZvT at all. Show nested quote +Ghosts are only good with superb micro and tons of them, and cloak. Ill admit making 20 cloaked ghosts, scanning and sniping the overseer as you walk in does seem a little gay. Maybe make overseer immune to snipe. It is kinda gay, but oh well. Ling/Bane actually crushes ghosts, ghosts en masse only work when Terran has a huge macro advantage.
NP change will make mass mech style very difficult to handle. Hellions mean speedlings are not a good choice - between blue flames (whos change will not affact hellion vs ling) and tank shells, lings will simply be a waste of money and larvae. Blue flamers roaming the map forces tons of static defense as number of bases increase, siege tanks carve roaches to pieces and thors crush air units (especially if turrets are spread across the entire map to give the detection) as well as prove magnificent support fire. A slowpush from 2 bases to secure a third behind it I anticipate will be impossible to stop since the only real way to deal with mech right now is ridiculously fast brood lords (which is impossible vs a competent terran) or mass NP on thors to punch a hole and then sink wave after wave of roaches in to finish the job. Take NP out of the equation and roaches will melt so fast its not even funny - and what are behind our "tank units" to deal the actual damage then?
|
On September 14 2011 06:43 Belial88 wrote:^ Siege tanks. Personally I don't think snipe is a big deal. It's an extremely awesome spell, maybe even imba awesome (in the same way a lot of things are imbalanced on each race but all kind of even eachother out), but Terran should have a spellcaster for ZvT, and it takes lots of them to be good. And NP isn't particularly great in ZvT. Siege tanks, as well as ghosts, prevent that. As a Zerg player, I don't think NP change will affect ZvT at all. Show nested quote +Ghosts are only good with superb micro and tons of them, and cloak. Ill admit making 20 cloaked ghosts, scanning and sniping the overseer as you walk in does seem a little gay. Maybe make overseer immune to snipe. It is kinda gay, but oh well. Ling/Bane actually crushes ghosts, ghosts en masse only work when Terran has a huge macro advantage.
Dont tanks get kinda mega rolled by ultras? I really thought they did. If not thats actually a really awesome thing that i never knew. I see ultras so rarely i dont get to test it out as ill usually have quite a lot of thors by then as theyve probably gone spire>muta>BL
|
Dont tanks get kinda mega rolled by ultras? I really thought they did. If not thats actually a really awesome thing that i never knew. I see ultras so rarely i dont get to test it out as ill usually have quite a lot of thors by then as theyve probably gone spire>muta>BL
It's a number game. If Terran has been slowly upping siege tanks all game, and didn't lose them all in a stupid push and then be denied from expanding to make up for it, then ultras are a bad choice. If you made Broodlords, or lots of mutas, and managed to kill off half his siege tanks, then terran will pretty much in complete mercy of Zerg. From there, he can make marauders to deal with ultras and then get stomped by ling/bane/muta, or he can make marines and hope you don't make ling/bane/muta.
But in general, if terran has lots of siege tanks, you don't want ultras. If you somehow did something to cut his tank count down, then ultras are amazing and will roll Terran unless he has that critical mass of siege tanks.
NP change will make mass mech style very difficult to handle. Hellions mean speedlings are not a good choice - between blue flames (whos change will not affact hellion vs ling) and tank shells, lings will simply be a waste of money and larvae. Blue flamers roaming the map forces tons of static defense as number of bases increase, siege tanks carve roaches to pieces and thors crush air units (especially if turrets are spread across the entire map to give the detection) as well as prove magnificent support fire. A slowpush from 2 bases to secure a third behind it I anticipate will be impossible to stop since the only real way to deal with mech right now is ridiculously fast brood lords (which is impossible vs a competent terran) or mass NP on thors to punch a hole and then sink wave after wave of roaches in to finish the job. Take NP out of the equation and roaches will melt so fast its not even funny - and what are behind our "tank units" to deal the actual damage then?
Mass mech was easily handled before the infestor buff, and no one really used infestors to deal with mass mech. Siege tanks crush infestors, and trying to NP thors while siege tanks are raining down you, you lose. Some terran also have the foresight to go 0 weapons/3 armor to better deal with NP, as well.
The best way to deal with a 2 base deathpush is to either go mass roaches if he went heavier on hellions, or mass mutas, which will crush his push unless he has marines (4 mutas beat 1 thor when magic boxed, and it only gets better with splash). Idra always goes mutas against mech on his stream, and he does very well with it.
Making 3 spines per base to nullify 20 hellions is definitely worth it. It's also a lot about army positioning.
|
Imo, the hunter-seeker missile speed increase will help fight against packs of mutas. However, I am not entirely sure how fast 0.4 seconds more is in SCII. And the muta is still approx 0.75 seconds faster. Again, I don't know how fast that is.
|
On September 13 2011 04:45 kawaiiryuko wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 04:37 PenguinWithNuke wrote:On September 12 2011 17:06 sleepingdog wrote:On September 12 2011 12:20 PenguinWithNuke wrote:
That's probably not the reason why you lose. If you let a zerg do anything like get 20 infestors, it's not the infestors that are killing you. Think about it. They're really expensive units in terms of gas, and die really quickly. You have to research NP. If you allow a zerg to get 20 infestors... well, you have bigger problems than the infestors. Zergs were designed to be a race that can get a macro-advantage unless the opponent plays a heavy, heavy pressure-style. The thing is, protoss never really had a build that was able to both apply pressure and not be completely all-in. The reason for that was/is that you can't afford to lose your sentries in midgame. If you attack with your sentries, you either win with them, or you lose them which more or less equals losing the game too. This is why the protoss 3 base turtle style came up. Zerg always had absurd supply-leads, but they failed to capitalize. Mainly because the grotesque QQ of IdrA and others proved to be an obstacle that apparently prevented many zergs from trying out new stuff. I've seen quite a lot of korean games where heavy nydus play and sudden muta-switches were used vs the bunker-deathball-style. Now with the infestor-buff, zergs are competitive (read: have the advantage) in BOTH of the aforementioned aspects. They still have the macro-advantage: if you go 3 gate expo, zerg drones up on 2 base faster than you. if you go FFE, zerg gets a quick third. I've never, ever seen a game where a competent zerg that a) doesn't get all-in-ed b) ends up with fewer drones than toss in midgame. We toss-players accept that as part of the design-choice of Blizz as to how this match-up will play out. Nevertheless, with strong infestors, our deathball is now ALSO weaker than the zerg-deathball! You say "letting zerg get xyz..." - remember, this is EXACTLY how protoss-players talked to zerg. "If you let protoss get xyz..." - what's the difference? The difference is, that previously zergs were able to literally take the whole map while the toss was restrained/contained on 3 bases. How on earth am I supposed to "not let zerg get xyz..." when zerg has an inherent macro-advantage already by design? Overall, either of two things must happen to re-balance PvZ, which had a worse win-% for toss than PvT in last GSL: a) "Give toss a strong midgame that is not all-in and that can put real pressure on droning zergs." Very unlikely, I have no idea how this could ever work with the given sets of units. You can't buff void rays, phoenixes, DTs, or w/e, so until HotS, where I expect some major design-changes, we are stuck with the current overall PvZ metagame. b) "Give toss the stronger maxed-out deathball:" and this is what we see now. If you put toss at the macro-disadvantage throughout midgame, they really "have" to have the stronger 200/200 ball. Even with the very minor infestor-change I somewhat doubt that it will pan out that way, since infestor/broodlord an remaxing on only roach while toss tries to get the counter to infestor/broodlord will still be incredibly strong. Nevertheless the P-deathball-buff/Z-deathball-nerf is required by the current way PvZ puts restraints on the set of possible protoss strategies. Thanks for clarifying. It seems to me that P needs a harassment unit that can go around and kill stuff, to decrease the amount of infestors that zerg can get. If only P had some sort of unit that could cloak and kill things with horrifying efficiency, but could also warp in via gateways and go anywhere! Man. I certainly hope they add such an unit. I'll just leave this here.
I was thinking about that, but every zerg uses spores. A spore and a spine kills nullifies DT harass. Phoenix fare better, but I can't remember a pro game with them. Can you link one to me?
For the record, I play zerg. Just saying.
|
On September 13 2011 04:45 kawaiiryuko wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 04:37 PenguinWithNuke wrote:On September 12 2011 17:06 sleepingdog wrote:On September 12 2011 12:20 PenguinWithNuke wrote:
That's probably not the reason why you lose. If you let a zerg do anything like get 20 infestors, it's not the infestors that are killing you. Think about it. They're really expensive units in terms of gas, and die really quickly. You have to research NP. If you allow a zerg to get 20 infestors... well, you have bigger problems than the infestors. Zergs were designed to be a race that can get a macro-advantage unless the opponent plays a heavy, heavy pressure-style. The thing is, protoss never really had a build that was able to both apply pressure and not be completely all-in. The reason for that was/is that you can't afford to lose your sentries in midgame. If you attack with your sentries, you either win with them, or you lose them which more or less equals losing the game too. This is why the protoss 3 base turtle style came up. Zerg always had absurd supply-leads, but they failed to capitalize. Mainly because the grotesque QQ of IdrA and others proved to be an obstacle that apparently prevented many zergs from trying out new stuff. I've seen quite a lot of korean games where heavy nydus play and sudden muta-switches were used vs the bunker-deathball-style. Now with the infestor-buff, zergs are competitive (read: have the advantage) in BOTH of the aforementioned aspects. They still have the macro-advantage: if you go 3 gate expo, zerg drones up on 2 base faster than you. if you go FFE, zerg gets a quick third. I've never, ever seen a game where a competent zerg that a) doesn't get all-in-ed b) ends up with fewer drones than toss in midgame. We toss-players accept that as part of the design-choice of Blizz as to how this match-up will play out. Nevertheless, with strong infestors, our deathball is now ALSO weaker than the zerg-deathball! You say "letting zerg get xyz..." - remember, this is EXACTLY how protoss-players talked to zerg. "If you let protoss get xyz..." - what's the difference? The difference is, that previously zergs were able to literally take the whole map while the toss was restrained/contained on 3 bases. How on earth am I supposed to "not let zerg get xyz..." when zerg has an inherent macro-advantage already by design? Overall, either of two things must happen to re-balance PvZ, which had a worse win-% for toss than PvT in last GSL: a) "Give toss a strong midgame that is not all-in and that can put real pressure on droning zergs." Very unlikely, I have no idea how this could ever work with the given sets of units. You can't buff void rays, phoenixes, DTs, or w/e, so until HotS, where I expect some major design-changes, we are stuck with the current overall PvZ metagame. b) "Give toss the stronger maxed-out deathball:" and this is what we see now. If you put toss at the macro-disadvantage throughout midgame, they really "have" to have the stronger 200/200 ball. Even with the very minor infestor-change I somewhat doubt that it will pan out that way, since infestor/broodlord an remaxing on only roach while toss tries to get the counter to infestor/broodlord will still be incredibly strong. Nevertheless the P-deathball-buff/Z-deathball-nerf is required by the current way PvZ puts restraints on the set of possible protoss strategies. Thanks for clarifying. It seems to me that P needs a harassment unit that can go around and kill stuff, to decrease the amount of infestors that zerg can get. If only P had some sort of unit that could cloak and kill things with horrifying efficiency, but could also warp in via gateways and go anywhere! Man. I certainly hope they add such an unit. I'll just leave this here.
Dt's are just very risky to tech too. Late game sure, they're okay, but recently a lot of Zerg pros have realized that you have to have 2-3 Spine Crawlers and a spore crawler at your expansions. Without it, you deserve to lose the base really.
|
On September 14 2011 06:15 Squigly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2011 02:57 aebriol wrote:
Thinking about it more and more ...
I think Ultralisks should be immune to snipe.
I just don't think it's right that ghosts counter every single units above tier 1 for zergs except corruptors, and possibly hydras (why you'd ever make them I dunno). \How do suggest to counter ultras then? Marines? lol they could hug it to death maybe? Marauders i assume your about to say. However its the BL ultra tech swich which kills. If youve massed marauders, then the BL with just out right kill you as lings wreck marauders. Thors? With the NP change actually this may be viable. Atm infestor ultra just owns Thors. You can fungal banshees to death. Ghosts are only good with superb micro and tons of them, and cloak. Ill admit making 20 cloaked ghosts, scanning and sniping the overseer as you walk in does seem a little gay. Maybe make overseer immune to snipe.
The counter to Ultras is simply having stuff. MM counters them, Ghosts counter them, tanklines counter them, massthor counter them, air counters them(banshees and battlecruisers - see MVP vs Dimaga)
The only 2 times Ultras are good, is when they are rushed (like the 15min Ling/Infestor/Ultra timing), because your opponent simply doesnt have enough stuff at this time or to remax after a big battle, because zerg remaxes faster, and therefore your opponent simply doesnt have a lot of stuff.
I guess the reason for ultras being countered by just having a lot of units is, that they actually don't get a lot of hits on opponents, as it takes time to get close and then they attack spread out units, instead of splashing balls (which are usually moving away, which makes it even harder to hit them).
The reason they so well, when your opponent doesnt have a lot of stuff, is just that he is missing firepower. Even if the ultras attack single targets and get stuck and stuff, in the end you need to kill them.
About Ultra/Infestor... Like BL/Infestor it is a composition that you would have to compare to Thor/Ghost or something like this in the amount of time it takes to get there and the amount of gas it costs. Also fungal growth just works with every zerg unit. It's not the ultra that is strong, it's the infestor that makes every zerg unit strong, up to the point were hydras start raping MMM!
|
^ Huh? Stargate openers have been almost the majority of openings in PvZ in the last 3 months.
A spore + spine doesn't nullify DT harass, I believe it takes 3 DTs to kill the spore (or spine) in time. Protoss definitely does need a cheap harass unit that won't end up losing the game for them if they make it and it doesn't do any damage, and isn't a complete coin toss that wins if the opponent doesn't scout and completely loses if it is scouted or sensed (which is kind of bad game design on Blizz's part on discouraging early game scouting).
|
On September 14 2011 11:47 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? Stargate openers have been almost the majority of openings in PvZ in the last 3 months.
A spore + spine doesn't nullify DT harass, I believe it takes 3 DTs to kill the spore (or spine) in time. Protoss definitely does need a cheap harass unit that won't end up losing the game for them if they make it and it doesn't do any damage, and isn't a complete coin toss that wins if the opponent doesn't scout and completely loses if it is scouted or sensed (which is kind of bad game design on Blizz's part on discouraging early game scouting).
lol? sure 1 base cheese DTs lose the game if the do nothing. Well thats not even true but meh. 2/ base DT/ phoenix are fine. Not sure what your on about with the scouting thing. Surely having such a crazy strong auto win unit if unscouted promotes scouting
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
