[D] Patch 1.4 and its implications - Page 42

On September 21 2011 21:56 NoDDiE wrote:


i wrote that in part "and i noticed that blue flame is kinda useless now. in early game no diffrence vs workers//marines" :D

On September 21 2011 21:28 SilverforceX wrote:


Stim, micro. Rape zealots and especially stalkers.

On September 21 2011 22:26 SilverforceX wrote:
Immo still cannot shoot from behind stalkers. They both will have 6 range. A stalker is a big unit. They are slow so they will be behind your army and can't shoot over stalkers. The same problem of dancing immortal will still exist.

They need 7 range to shoot beyond stalkers.

Btw, siege tanks have 7 range in normal mode. Marauders have 6, marines have 5. Aww.. it all works out for terran, again.

Banshee and vikings retain their range advantage, but VR had to be nerfed.. why?

Another patch, no nerf to ghost, emp, reactor upgrade.. yet Templars had amulet removed. Seriously, this patch won't change the terran dominance. We shall see in GSL october.

On September 21 2011 22:41 sleepingdog wrote:


they don't, if marines have stim and upgrades are equal



you are wrong; their DPS is good, the smaller range of unsieged tanks is the reason why siegemode is awsome (+ splash)



you are wrong



you are wrong; immortals have the same range now; they have to get in line with stalkers and can't shoot behind stalkers

On September 13 2011 23:38 Penatronic wrote:


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 21 2011 22:06 Squigly wrote:

Yup your right. Definitely. Tbh im not sure why anyone actually makes anything but marines until like the 12 min mark.

On September 21 2011 23:37 MeLlamoSatan wrote:
For the people who complain about the 6 immo range and 6 stalker range:

Do you guys just a-click? How about we scoot and shoot a little as we move in? You know, that is way more effective...

On September 21 2011 23:57 EmilA wrote:
I can't believe the ignorance of people who think immortal range won't matter because they're now in line with stalkers. How about not a-moving everything and scooting a bit instead ._.

On September 22 2011 00:29 Skyro wrote:


Tell me about it. Immortals never have been an "a-move" type of unit. You always want to focus fire armored unit with your Immortals, and the range buff will have a significant effect on its ability to do so. Look at the Roach range buff and its effect on Roach usability. Now I realize that's not the best comparison due to Roach being more of a core unit and the Immortal more of a support unit, but it's a pretty big buff.

On September 22 2011 00:38 Big J wrote:



well, blizzard always wanted the immortal to be this kind of core unit and there is a comment from them, where they said that they don't like how immortals didn't overtake the Dragoons role and are rather only built due to their AntiArmorRole instead of their beefiness in the frontline.
And to be honest, I think Protoss still haven't experimented enough with Immortalstyles due to Colossi being SO popular and easy to play/time.

On September 22 2011 00:50 Skyro wrote:


You know I've heard people refer to some quote from Blizzard about Immortals a few times but I've never seen it. Can you link it? I don't really see how you can make the Immortal a core unit when it comes from a tech structure and has a fairly significant training time. Protoss seems very clearly defined in that gateway units = core and tech structure units = support.