|
On December 19 2016 09:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 08:54 FrkFrJss wrote:On December 19 2016 08:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The colossus is an extremely boring unit and there is no way the game should be balanced/designed around using it.
It also forces this stupid "do i have enough vikings?" scenario which is boring as well because there really are no interesting unit interactions going on here.
Buffing the colossus simply because balance might asks for it is the lazy way and not the one which creates the best possible product. It seems that a buffed aoe is not the answer against Terran. Either you give them a boring aoe like colossus or you give them somewhat gimicky aoe with the HT and the Disruptor. Those are both fine options, but they rely more on the Terran being bad than the Protoss being good. I wonder if a buff to the chargelot could be in order. Maybe give it a lategame buff from like the twilight council that increases health or shields and armor. That way it would be much more effective against bio, but still weak enough that pure chargelots couldn't kill everything. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt the PvZ matchup as much because zealot armor does't affect the PvZ matchup all that much. (I mean, mass zergling, maybe, but it's not like zerglings vs zealots late game was that big of a late game matchup. Perhaps against pure roaches, but I'm thinking this would be a later game buff after charge (perhaps needing templar archives as a pre req), and I think with roach hydra, the + armor and shields/health wouldn't change hydras shredding them. And if you wanted to buff HT, perhaps don't make it do friendly fire. I've not really seen any instances aside from with chargelots where storm doing friendly fire really made much of any difference. Also, I wonder if you could give the liberator a nerf of damage vs light. Perhaps it could do only 50 damage to light. This would enable chargelots to more effectively engage a terran bio army without melting too fast to liberators. And widow mines would still be a threat, but that would mean careful control of chargelots. I would see this change only affecting really chargelots, adepts, and hydralisks, and to make it fair, you could change hydralisk armor and take away the "light" tag so that they are still killed in one attack. Then, to make that fair, you could slightly buff the adept damage vs all to compensate for its lost damage against hydralisks. Perhaps have adepts do 15 flat damage or something + bonus to light. So in summary, although it's heavily theory crafting, I'm wondering Zealot late game upgrade from twilight w/ templar archives pre req: + 1 armor + shields/health (maybe health to reduce bonus damage from widow mines or add shields to make it vulnerable to ghosts) HT - Storm no longer does FF Liberator Ground damage vs light changed to 50 vs light, 85 vs everything else Hydralisk no longer has the light armored tag (this would change it vs baneings, but I don't see that dynamic quite as much). I think the point here is to have stronger zealots against primarily Terran bio, because they are more of a high dps, low statistical damage, whereas the Zerg tends to be closer to Protoss in that it is higher damage, lower fire rate. And banelings would still counter Zealots. Liberators would be weaker vs light units, but I think with keeping its damage against hydras, nothing much would change. Obviously, zealots, adepts, and high templars have a lot greater survivability, but I think that's fine because you don't often seen high templars running into liberator zones as much Chargelots are so far from being viable in PvT (due to kiting, being bad at drop defense, widow mines, many other reasons) that any buff large enough to help them in that match-up would almost certainly break PvZ where chargelots are actually useful. If you want to change a core gateway unit to fix PvT, the stalker looks a lot more promising.
Couldn't you take off some of the + shield damage for widowmines or at least put back in the tiered splash? I mean the widowmine was one the things no body really asked to be buffed. Besides, a mild health buff would enable more survivability against widowmine splash I feel like the stalker is such a core unit in all three matchups, that one tiny change will drastically change this unit. Besides, how would you change it? Any buff to its survivability or damage would negatively affect Zerg a lot.
I feel like chargelots are a lot more viable to be buffed in PvT and in either PvZ or PvP. Since there are a lot of things that counter chargelots, we don't see as much usage that would be game breaking in either the mirror or the versus Zerg matchup.
Even if we put a +3 armor buff late game (which would be absurd I know) to chargelots, the effect would be minimal to Zerg since roaches, hydras, and lurkers along with banelings and fungal would still counter Zealots. Then in the PvP matchup, archons and forcefield would prevent them from doing as much damage.
EDIT: Also, zealots with charge are now super fast.
|
On December 19 2016 10:15 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 09:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 19 2016 08:54 FrkFrJss wrote:On December 19 2016 08:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The colossus is an extremely boring unit and there is no way the game should be balanced/designed around using it.
It also forces this stupid "do i have enough vikings?" scenario which is boring as well because there really are no interesting unit interactions going on here.
Buffing the colossus simply because balance might asks for it is the lazy way and not the one which creates the best possible product. It seems that a buffed aoe is not the answer against Terran. Either you give them a boring aoe like colossus or you give them somewhat gimicky aoe with the HT and the Disruptor. Those are both fine options, but they rely more on the Terran being bad than the Protoss being good. I wonder if a buff to the chargelot could be in order. Maybe give it a lategame buff from like the twilight council that increases health or shields and armor. That way it would be much more effective against bio, but still weak enough that pure chargelots couldn't kill everything. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt the PvZ matchup as much because zealot armor does't affect the PvZ matchup all that much. (I mean, mass zergling, maybe, but it's not like zerglings vs zealots late game was that big of a late game matchup. Perhaps against pure roaches, but I'm thinking this would be a later game buff after charge (perhaps needing templar archives as a pre req), and I think with roach hydra, the + armor and shields/health wouldn't change hydras shredding them. And if you wanted to buff HT, perhaps don't make it do friendly fire. I've not really seen any instances aside from with chargelots where storm doing friendly fire really made much of any difference. Also, I wonder if you could give the liberator a nerf of damage vs light. Perhaps it could do only 50 damage to light. This would enable chargelots to more effectively engage a terran bio army without melting too fast to liberators. And widow mines would still be a threat, but that would mean careful control of chargelots. I would see this change only affecting really chargelots, adepts, and hydralisks, and to make it fair, you could change hydralisk armor and take away the "light" tag so that they are still killed in one attack. Then, to make that fair, you could slightly buff the adept damage vs all to compensate for its lost damage against hydralisks. Perhaps have adepts do 15 flat damage or something + bonus to light. So in summary, although it's heavily theory crafting, I'm wondering Zealot late game upgrade from twilight w/ templar archives pre req: + 1 armor + shields/health (maybe health to reduce bonus damage from widow mines or add shields to make it vulnerable to ghosts) HT - Storm no longer does FF Liberator Ground damage vs light changed to 50 vs light, 85 vs everything else Hydralisk no longer has the light armored tag (this would change it vs baneings, but I don't see that dynamic quite as much). I think the point here is to have stronger zealots against primarily Terran bio, because they are more of a high dps, low statistical damage, whereas the Zerg tends to be closer to Protoss in that it is higher damage, lower fire rate. And banelings would still counter Zealots. Liberators would be weaker vs light units, but I think with keeping its damage against hydras, nothing much would change. Obviously, zealots, adepts, and high templars have a lot greater survivability, but I think that's fine because you don't often seen high templars running into liberator zones as much Chargelots are so far from being viable in PvT (due to kiting, being bad at drop defense, widow mines, many other reasons) that any buff large enough to help them in that match-up would almost certainly break PvZ where chargelots are actually useful. If you want to change a core gateway unit to fix PvT, the stalker looks a lot more promising. Couldn't you take off some of the + shield damage for widowmines or at least put back in the tiered splash? I mean the widowmine was one the things no body really asked to be buffed. Besides, a mild health buff would enable more survivability against widowmine splash I feel like the stalker is such a core unit in all three matchups, that one tiny change will drastically change this unit. Besides, how would you change it? Any buff to its survivability or damage would negatively affect Zerg a lot. I feel like chargelots are a lot more viable to be buffed in PvT and in either PvZ or PvP. Since there are a lot of things that counter chargelots, we don't see as much usage that would be game breaking in either the mirror or the versus Zerg matchup. Even if we put a +3 armor buff late game (which would be absurd I know) to chargelots, the effect would be minimal to Zerg since roaches, hydras, and lurkers along with banelings and fungal would still counter Zealots. Then in the PvP matchup, archons and forcefield would prevent them from doing as much damage. EDIT: Also, zealots with charge are now super fast.
I'm not sure how you'd change the stalker. Possibly a buff against air units to help deal with liberators and medivacs, but that feels a bit artificial. As for buffing the chargelot, Protoss is mainly struggling in the mid game against terran (and would struggle more if Blizzard nerfed the colossus for design-related reasons). So if you make the chargelot change too late-game focused it doesn't help at all, and if you make the buff affect earlier stages of the game it makes PvZ chargelot builds like those Stats does too strong.
|
On December 19 2016 10:34 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 10:15 FrkFrJss wrote:On December 19 2016 09:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 19 2016 08:54 FrkFrJss wrote:On December 19 2016 08:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The colossus is an extremely boring unit and there is no way the game should be balanced/designed around using it.
It also forces this stupid "do i have enough vikings?" scenario which is boring as well because there really are no interesting unit interactions going on here.
Buffing the colossus simply because balance might asks for it is the lazy way and not the one which creates the best possible product. It seems that a buffed aoe is not the answer against Terran. Either you give them a boring aoe like colossus or you give them somewhat gimicky aoe with the HT and the Disruptor. Those are both fine options, but they rely more on the Terran being bad than the Protoss being good. I wonder if a buff to the chargelot could be in order. Maybe give it a lategame buff from like the twilight council that increases health or shields and armor. That way it would be much more effective against bio, but still weak enough that pure chargelots couldn't kill everything. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt the PvZ matchup as much because zealot armor does't affect the PvZ matchup all that much. (I mean, mass zergling, maybe, but it's not like zerglings vs zealots late game was that big of a late game matchup. Perhaps against pure roaches, but I'm thinking this would be a later game buff after charge (perhaps needing templar archives as a pre req), and I think with roach hydra, the + armor and shields/health wouldn't change hydras shredding them. And if you wanted to buff HT, perhaps don't make it do friendly fire. I've not really seen any instances aside from with chargelots where storm doing friendly fire really made much of any difference. Also, I wonder if you could give the liberator a nerf of damage vs light. Perhaps it could do only 50 damage to light. This would enable chargelots to more effectively engage a terran bio army without melting too fast to liberators. And widow mines would still be a threat, but that would mean careful control of chargelots. I would see this change only affecting really chargelots, adepts, and hydralisks, and to make it fair, you could change hydralisk armor and take away the "light" tag so that they are still killed in one attack. Then, to make that fair, you could slightly buff the adept damage vs all to compensate for its lost damage against hydralisks. Perhaps have adepts do 15 flat damage or something + bonus to light. So in summary, although it's heavily theory crafting, I'm wondering Zealot late game upgrade from twilight w/ templar archives pre req: + 1 armor + shields/health (maybe health to reduce bonus damage from widow mines or add shields to make it vulnerable to ghosts) HT - Storm no longer does FF Liberator Ground damage vs light changed to 50 vs light, 85 vs everything else Hydralisk no longer has the light armored tag (this would change it vs baneings, but I don't see that dynamic quite as much). I think the point here is to have stronger zealots against primarily Terran bio, because they are more of a high dps, low statistical damage, whereas the Zerg tends to be closer to Protoss in that it is higher damage, lower fire rate. And banelings would still counter Zealots. Liberators would be weaker vs light units, but I think with keeping its damage against hydras, nothing much would change. Obviously, zealots, adepts, and high templars have a lot greater survivability, but I think that's fine because you don't often seen high templars running into liberator zones as much Chargelots are so far from being viable in PvT (due to kiting, being bad at drop defense, widow mines, many other reasons) that any buff large enough to help them in that match-up would almost certainly break PvZ where chargelots are actually useful. If you want to change a core gateway unit to fix PvT, the stalker looks a lot more promising. Couldn't you take off some of the + shield damage for widowmines or at least put back in the tiered splash? I mean the widowmine was one the things no body really asked to be buffed. Besides, a mild health buff would enable more survivability against widowmine splash I feel like the stalker is such a core unit in all three matchups, that one tiny change will drastically change this unit. Besides, how would you change it? Any buff to its survivability or damage would negatively affect Zerg a lot. I feel like chargelots are a lot more viable to be buffed in PvT and in either PvZ or PvP. Since there are a lot of things that counter chargelots, we don't see as much usage that would be game breaking in either the mirror or the versus Zerg matchup. Even if we put a +3 armor buff late game (which would be absurd I know) to chargelots, the effect would be minimal to Zerg since roaches, hydras, and lurkers along with banelings and fungal would still counter Zealots. Then in the PvP matchup, archons and forcefield would prevent them from doing as much damage. EDIT: Also, zealots with charge are now super fast. I'm not sure how you'd change the stalker. Possibly a buff against air units to help deal with liberators and medivacs, but that feels a bit artificial. As for buffing the chargelot, Protoss is mainly struggling in the mid game against terran (and would struggle more if Blizzard nerfed the colossus for design-related reasons). So if you make the chargelot change too late-game focused it doesn't help at all, and if you make the buff affect earlier stages of the game it makes PvZ chargelot builds like those Stats does too strong.
So you could buff two ways versus air: +mechanical or +armored. The problem with mechanical is that you then buff them versus all air of Protoss/Terran, and that's not so great, and with +armored, then you buff stalkers vs overlords, corruptors, brood lords, viking even more that they already do. Or if you do just a flat buff vs air, then, because of the stalker massability, you transform a +2 or so damage into a much greater bonus.
For the Terran, that's why I'm thinking too nerfs:
The liberator nerf to light (except hydra) and the widowmine nerf to tiered stages of splash (including shield damage). This way, when Protoss gets charge, and they charge into the bio, the surrounding zealots don't get smashed, and Protoss can defend during the midgame before splash and the late game upgrades with more durability to adepts and zealots. It's mainly about making the units last longer as opposed to making them hit harder. By nerfing the liberator and the widow mine in ways that don't really affect the other matchups as much then the buffs can be more targeted as well.
With regards to multi-prong drops in the early-mid game, you're not going to have the two or three medivacs of highly upgraded bio; you're going to have one, maybe two medivacs dropping at most two locations, and in the early/midgame, you're probably not going to be dropping two or more places with more than one medivac. Properly placed stalkers and adepts can shut down single-medivac drops relatively easy as long as you are in place.
And the thing is, Marines do 5 damage against Zealot health, and Marauders do 2x4, and these numbers assuming equal upgrades stay the same. So if you buff Zealots slightly in armor, say maybe +1 or +2 armor, that change alone increase their survivability significantly. At +1 armor, Marines do 4 damage, and marauders do 2x3, and with +2 armor, Marines do 3 damage and marauders do 2x2 damage.
So in this way, the Protoss army can survive the midgame push and then have storm and the late-game buff to chargelots. This also has the added affect of making zealot harass more effective because they last longer. Zealots are quite tanky, but because of their formerly slower speed and everything else killing it, they became somewhat useless. However, nerf the things that killed, and give it some more speed and some more tankiness, and the zealot can become something that more readily deals damage than a colossus. Also, with the Terran microing out of the way of the zealots, it pushes them out of position so that the stalkers can deal with the liberators.
|
On December 19 2016 09:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 08:54 FrkFrJss wrote:On December 19 2016 08:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The colossus is an extremely boring unit and there is no way the game should be balanced/designed around using it.
It also forces this stupid "do i have enough vikings?" scenario which is boring as well because there really are no interesting unit interactions going on here.
Buffing the colossus simply because balance might asks for it is the lazy way and not the one which creates the best possible product. It seems that a buffed aoe is not the answer against Terran. Either you give them a boring aoe like colossus or you give them somewhat gimicky aoe with the HT and the Disruptor. Those are both fine options, but they rely more on the Terran being bad than the Protoss being good. I wonder if a buff to the chargelot could be in order. Maybe give it a lategame buff from like the twilight council that increases health or shields and armor. That way it would be much more effective against bio, but still weak enough that pure chargelots couldn't kill everything. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt the PvZ matchup as much because zealot armor does't affect the PvZ matchup all that much. (I mean, mass zergling, maybe, but it's not like zerglings vs zealots late game was that big of a late game matchup. Perhaps against pure roaches, but I'm thinking this would be a later game buff after charge (perhaps needing templar archives as a pre req), and I think with roach hydra, the + armor and shields/health wouldn't change hydras shredding them. And if you wanted to buff HT, perhaps don't make it do friendly fire. I've not really seen any instances aside from with chargelots where storm doing friendly fire really made much of any difference. Also, I wonder if you could give the liberator a nerf of damage vs light. Perhaps it could do only 50 damage to light. This would enable chargelots to more effectively engage a terran bio army without melting too fast to liberators. And widow mines would still be a threat, but that would mean careful control of chargelots. I would see this change only affecting really chargelots, adepts, and hydralisks, and to make it fair, you could change hydralisk armor and take away the "light" tag so that they are still killed in one attack. Then, to make that fair, you could slightly buff the adept damage vs all to compensate for its lost damage against hydralisks. Perhaps have adepts do 15 flat damage or something + bonus to light. So in summary, although it's heavily theory crafting, I'm wondering Zealot late game upgrade from twilight w/ templar archives pre req: + 1 armor + shields/health (maybe health to reduce bonus damage from widow mines or add shields to make it vulnerable to ghosts) HT - Storm no longer does FF Liberator Ground damage vs light changed to 50 vs light, 85 vs everything else Hydralisk no longer has the light armored tag (this would change it vs baneings, but I don't see that dynamic quite as much). I think the point here is to have stronger zealots against primarily Terran bio, because they are more of a high dps, low statistical damage, whereas the Zerg tends to be closer to Protoss in that it is higher damage, lower fire rate. And banelings would still counter Zealots. Liberators would be weaker vs light units, but I think with keeping its damage against hydras, nothing much would change. Obviously, zealots, adepts, and high templars have a lot greater survivability, but I think that's fine because you don't often seen high templars running into liberator zones as much Chargelots are so far from being viable in PvT (due to kiting, being bad at drop defense, widow mines, many other reasons) that any buff large enough to help them in that match-up would almost certainly break PvZ where chargelots are actually useful. If you want to change a core gateway unit to fix PvT, the stalker looks a lot more promising.
Chargelots are alright in PvT right now IMO. It's not very common but mass gateway styles using chargelots with blink instead of glaive adepts are actually not too bad. Yeah widow mines hurt but chargelots are a lot faster now and they do damage must quicker than adepts. They synergise with "Patience" forward blinks quite well as well.
Not sure how good it is at pro level yet, but it's perfectly fine for your regular Masters/GM ladder PvTs.
|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
|
Not really. The semi finals for sure, but this was not exciting to watch.
|
On December 19 2016 11:51 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2016 10:34 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 19 2016 10:15 FrkFrJss wrote:On December 19 2016 09:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 19 2016 08:54 FrkFrJss wrote:On December 19 2016 08:06 The_Red_Viper wrote:
The colossus is an extremely boring unit and there is no way the game should be balanced/designed around using it.
It also forces this stupid "do i have enough vikings?" scenario which is boring as well because there really are no interesting unit interactions going on here.
Buffing the colossus simply because balance might asks for it is the lazy way and not the one which creates the best possible product. It seems that a buffed aoe is not the answer against Terran. Either you give them a boring aoe like colossus or you give them somewhat gimicky aoe with the HT and the Disruptor. Those are both fine options, but they rely more on the Terran being bad than the Protoss being good. I wonder if a buff to the chargelot could be in order. Maybe give it a lategame buff from like the twilight council that increases health or shields and armor. That way it would be much more effective against bio, but still weak enough that pure chargelots couldn't kill everything. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt the PvZ matchup as much because zealot armor does't affect the PvZ matchup all that much. (I mean, mass zergling, maybe, but it's not like zerglings vs zealots late game was that big of a late game matchup. Perhaps against pure roaches, but I'm thinking this would be a later game buff after charge (perhaps needing templar archives as a pre req), and I think with roach hydra, the + armor and shields/health wouldn't change hydras shredding them. And if you wanted to buff HT, perhaps don't make it do friendly fire. I've not really seen any instances aside from with chargelots where storm doing friendly fire really made much of any difference. Also, I wonder if you could give the liberator a nerf of damage vs light. Perhaps it could do only 50 damage to light. This would enable chargelots to more effectively engage a terran bio army without melting too fast to liberators. And widow mines would still be a threat, but that would mean careful control of chargelots. I would see this change only affecting really chargelots, adepts, and hydralisks, and to make it fair, you could change hydralisk armor and take away the "light" tag so that they are still killed in one attack. Then, to make that fair, you could slightly buff the adept damage vs all to compensate for its lost damage against hydralisks. Perhaps have adepts do 15 flat damage or something + bonus to light. So in summary, although it's heavily theory crafting, I'm wondering Zealot late game upgrade from twilight w/ templar archives pre req: + 1 armor + shields/health (maybe health to reduce bonus damage from widow mines or add shields to make it vulnerable to ghosts) HT - Storm no longer does FF Liberator Ground damage vs light changed to 50 vs light, 85 vs everything else Hydralisk no longer has the light armored tag (this would change it vs baneings, but I don't see that dynamic quite as much). I think the point here is to have stronger zealots against primarily Terran bio, because they are more of a high dps, low statistical damage, whereas the Zerg tends to be closer to Protoss in that it is higher damage, lower fire rate. And banelings would still counter Zealots. Liberators would be weaker vs light units, but I think with keeping its damage against hydras, nothing much would change. Obviously, zealots, adepts, and high templars have a lot greater survivability, but I think that's fine because you don't often seen high templars running into liberator zones as much Chargelots are so far from being viable in PvT (due to kiting, being bad at drop defense, widow mines, many other reasons) that any buff large enough to help them in that match-up would almost certainly break PvZ where chargelots are actually useful. If you want to change a core gateway unit to fix PvT, the stalker looks a lot more promising. Couldn't you take off some of the + shield damage for widowmines or at least put back in the tiered splash? I mean the widowmine was one the things no body really asked to be buffed. Besides, a mild health buff would enable more survivability against widowmine splash I feel like the stalker is such a core unit in all three matchups, that one tiny change will drastically change this unit. Besides, how would you change it? Any buff to its survivability or damage would negatively affect Zerg a lot. I feel like chargelots are a lot more viable to be buffed in PvT and in either PvZ or PvP. Since there are a lot of things that counter chargelots, we don't see as much usage that would be game breaking in either the mirror or the versus Zerg matchup. Even if we put a +3 armor buff late game (which would be absurd I know) to chargelots, the effect would be minimal to Zerg since roaches, hydras, and lurkers along with banelings and fungal would still counter Zealots. Then in the PvP matchup, archons and forcefield would prevent them from doing as much damage. EDIT: Also, zealots with charge are now super fast. I'm not sure how you'd change the stalker. Possibly a buff against air units to help deal with liberators and medivacs, but that feels a bit artificial. As for buffing the chargelot, Protoss is mainly struggling in the mid game against terran (and would struggle more if Blizzard nerfed the colossus for design-related reasons). So if you make the chargelot change too late-game focused it doesn't help at all, and if you make the buff affect earlier stages of the game it makes PvZ chargelot builds like those Stats does too strong. So you could buff two ways versus air: +mechanical or +armored. The problem with mechanical is that you then buff them versus all air of Protoss/Terran, and that's not so great, and with +armored, then you buff stalkers vs overlords, corruptors, brood lords, viking even more that they already do. Or if you do just a flat buff vs air, then, because of the stalker massability, you transform a +2 or so damage into a much greater bonus. For the Terran, that's why I'm thinking too nerfs: The liberator nerf to light (except hydra) and the widowmine nerf to tiered stages of splash (including shield damage). This way, when Protoss gets charge, and they charge into the bio, the surrounding zealots don't get smashed, and Protoss can defend during the midgame before splash and the late game upgrades with more durability to adepts and zealots. It's mainly about making the units last longer as opposed to making them hit harder. By nerfing the liberator and the widow mine in ways that don't really affect the other matchups as much then the buffs can be more targeted as well. With regards to multi-prong drops in the early-mid game, you're not going to have the two or three medivacs of highly upgraded bio; you're going to have one, maybe two medivacs dropping at most two locations, and in the early/midgame, you're probably not going to be dropping two or more places with more than one medivac. Properly placed stalkers and adepts can shut down single-medivac drops relatively easy as long as you are in place. And the thing is, Marines do 5 damage against Zealot health, and Marauders do 2x4, and these numbers assuming equal upgrades stay the same. So if you buff Zealots slightly in armor, say maybe +1 or +2 armor, that change alone increase their survivability significantly. At +1 armor, Marines do 4 damage, and marauders do 2x3, and with +2 armor, Marines do 3 damage and marauders do 2x2 damage. So in this way, the Protoss army can survive the midgame push and then have storm and the late-game buff to chargelots. This also has the added affect of making zealot harass more effective because they last longer. Zealots are quite tanky, but because of their formerly slower speed and everything else killing it, they became somewhat useless. However, nerf the things that killed, and give it some more speed and some more tankiness, and the zealot can become something that more readily deals damage than a colossus. Also, with the Terran microing out of the way of the zealots, it pushes them out of position so that the stalkers can deal with the liberators.
Tbh I'd be completely okay with stalkers being better against all Protoss/Terran air units (the viking is the only exception, but since this whole conversation is predicated on nerfing the colossus out of the match-up it's fine).
|
On December 19 2016 12:03 juicyjames wrote:
Was this recommended?
I would recommend forgetting that this ever happened and forcing yourself to accept that Dark vs. Innovation was the actual final.
|
On December 19 2016 17:51 opisska wrote:I would recommend forgetting that this ever happened and forcing yourself to accept that Dark vs. Innovation was the actual final.
If only it really was the actual finals... a best of 7 between Dark and Innovation would make me happy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
