| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Tournaments |
|
Z3nith
485 Posts
On October 15 2020 01:30 Cricketer12 wrote: damn, Freecs just swapped DRG for Curious big sad Were the TY DRG games any good, or just aggro stomps? DRG probably needed to get back to Busan. | ||
|
sneakyfox
8216 Posts
On October 15 2020 01:30 Cricketer12 wrote: damn, Freecs just swapped DRG for Curious big sad Were the TY DRG games any good, or just aggro stomps? They were a lot of good actually (g1 but also g2). And let's not speculate on why they brought Curious in there, that's a bannable offence on TLnet  | ||
|
starkiller123
United States4030 Posts
On October 15 2020 01:45 sneakyfox wrote: They were a lot of good actually (g1 but also g2). And let's not speculate on why they brought Curious in there, that's a bannable offence on TLnet I have no idea what you are trying to say here lol | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12262 Posts
| ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Fortunately he got his shit together and started used robo builds. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
Matchup seems rather... uneven. And I'm saying this as a Protoss fan. | ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
PvT is kinda complicated. Protoss definitely is kinda favored in the mid/late, but only with 1 unit comp. And like Tastosis says, when they complete the puzzle by getting all the pieces (Colosus, disruptors, HT). But before that they are basically just surviving. And if they try something different (Inno vs stats game 1 and 2) it's difficult for the protoss (unless he is making an all-in). In the past Blizzard has buffed Terran mid to incentivize all-ins and timmings, but I've always hated that approach as all-ins are map dependant and people get better at defending them overtime. Crippling the protoss with mine drops and then a timming push with Raven + tank + MMM seems to be effective. I wish Blizzard would try strenghtening terran mid/late. I've been wondering if they could buff/change the cyclone. I think it would be a good counter of the disruptor, being so fast and having the lock-on ability, with a little buff. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 15 2020 14:38 [Phantom] wrote: I'm no expert, but I'm a random (macro) player and used to play Toss. PvT is kinda complicated. Protoss definitely is kinda favored in the mid/late, but only with 1 unit comp. And like Tastosis says, when they complete the puzzle by getting all the pieces (Colosus, disruptors, HT). But before that they are basically just surviving. And if they try something different (Inno vs stats game 1 and 2) it's difficult for the protoss (unless he is making an all-in). In the past Blizzard has buffed Terran mid to incentivize all-ins and timmings, but I've always hated that approach as all-ins are map dependant and people get better at defending them overtime. Crippling the protoss with mine drops and then a timming push with Raven + tank + MMM seems to be effective. I wish Blizzard would try strenghtening terran mid/late. I've been wondering if they could buff/change the cyclone. I think it would be a good counter of the disruptor, being so fast and having the lock-on ability, with a little buff. The cyclone seems like a terrible fit as a dedicated counter to the disruptor. For one people either build one of them for early game defense or mass them to go battle mech--they're not something you build a few of to round out a composition. Additionally they get one-shotted by disruptors, are only as fast as a stimmed marauder, scale poorly and can't really ever get close enough to a disruptor to lock on and escape in a late game scenario. Blizzard would have to completely redesign the cyclone (yet again) for it be to anywhere near a viable counter. | ||
|
sneakyfox
8216 Posts
On October 15 2020 07:28 starkiller123 wrote: I have no idea what you are trying to say here lol My bad, I got Curious and Creator mixed up lol | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25630 Posts
On October 15 2020 14:38 [Phantom] wrote: I'm no expert, but I'm a random (macro) player and used to play Toss. PvT is kinda complicated. Protoss definitely is kinda favored in the mid/late, but only with 1 unit comp. And like Tastosis says, when they complete the puzzle by getting all the pieces (Colosus, disruptors, HT). But before that they are basically just surviving. And if they try something different (Inno vs stats game 1 and 2) it's difficult for the protoss (unless he is making an all-in). In the past Blizzard has buffed Terran mid to incentivize all-ins and timmings, but I've always hated that approach as all-ins are map dependant and people get better at defending them overtime. Crippling the protoss with mine drops and then a timming push with Raven + tank + MMM seems to be effective. I wish Blizzard would try strenghtening terran mid/late. I've been wondering if they could buff/change the cyclone. I think it would be a good counter of the disruptor, being so fast and having the lock-on ability, with a little buff. As per your previous comment on the second Stats/Inno game, you thought Artosis was mad? I’ve taken to watching both first person streams + the commentary. Stats was actually playing pretty damn well and was finding consistent angles of attack with his pokes and retention of units, despite Inno having a really solid defensive position. He defended the mine drops really well, did some nifty work with a prism and two archons, then totally, totally botched forcefielding his ramp to delay for storms! The comparatively easy part. Well not so much mad as totally mystified. I’m not sure what to do when it gets to late game. There’s just so much going on that it gets very difficult for Terrans to split their armies correctly, defend their territory and be out on the map in an aggressive capacity too. Protoss have across the board got better at the matchup, I’m interested to see what Maru can do against Trap as he’s shown some interesting approaches to lategame lately. Between expanding and teching behind stalkers, figuring out reliable defences to the Raven disable/tank pushes that were deadly for a bit, and using more lategame blink DTS when they actually get to lategame Protoss players have developed an approach to the matchup that is better than what they used to do. The question is to Terran have the tools to develop counter approaches given some time, or do they lack said tools? Always the tricky balance of balance, giving things time to develop vs maybe those things aren’t possible or too difficult to develop. One thing I’d been theorycrafting is giving Disruptors energy that’s equal to their attack cooldown. They’d spawn with full energy of course. This would open up occasional avenues where a Terran can catch a Protoss player and actually pounce and capitalise on EMPs. Neither would it overly cripple a Toss player, your EMPed disruptors would have energy for another shot equal to the cooldown as if they’d just fired, so the window would be short. I’m unsure, thought I’d canvass opinion. There were times in the 3rd set of Stats/Inno where Inno outmanouvered Stats and got off money EMPs, but couldn’t push into Stats because the Disruptor threat was too high. That feels a bit off to me. I’m ok it being very hard to engage into if you’re really in position well, if you do get caught out the option to punish should be there (unsieged tanks being a case in point) I went with my terrible theory craft solution in its current form so that Templars can’t nuke disruptors out of PvP. Other potential issues it would bring up would be being able to physically see which disruptors had a shot available or not from their mana bar. Would that information help opponents just enough or would it be giving them too much info? I’m unsure there. WC3 is a game all about spell casting and it would be borderline impossible to keep track of cooldowns and mana with your internal clock, SC2 isn’t such a game although casters are very important. | ||
|
RKC
2848 Posts
True, siege tanks and lurkers have zoning abilities too. But they need to siege and borrow, hence less mobile and can be outmaneuvered more easily. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25630 Posts
On October 15 2020 18:52 RKC wrote: Aside from dealing damage, the disruptors' strength lies in their zoning ability. They can protect bases at narrow chokes with a few tanking units whilst being greatly outnumbered. True, siege tanks and lurkers have zoning abilities too. But they need to siege and borrow, hence less mobile and can be outmaneuvered more easily. They can, I like them in that role. They’re also pretty unique in terms of the zoning units in the game in that their zoning attack has to be manually triggered and controlled. As per my previous (probably terrible) balance tweaks they’re also unique among other zoning units in they get more and more dangerous as you close in on them. Which is only really a problem for Terrans. Zergs have vipers where you’re pulling them in to you and Protoss have aggressive blinks that instantly close distance. Terrans have to pounce on units they have a tricky time splitting against at close to the maximum range that disruptors shoot out, while having things like Chargelots or Collosus to deal in engagements with when we’re hitting late game. That combination of factors makes it really, really difficult to engage properly. We don’t see top Terrans have this issue when the game and composition ends up in gateway armies + panic disruptors hoping for miracle hits, that’s manageable. If Terran could nail EMPs to temporarily disable disruptors equivalent to their attack cooldown that would give a short window where they could pounce, or at least trade effectively against the robo units. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
| ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
The disruptor has a shorter range than the siege tank. The "zoning" factor of the disruptor is useful sometimes, but in reality sucks compared to Lurkers/tanks/libs. You get 1 shot where you zone out enemy units for the 2 seconds the nova last, then your unit is completely useless for 21 seconds of cooldown, and due to it's medium range is easy to snipe (which is good, as it allows counterplay). And so the answer to that is having more disruptors, which can definitely buy you some time, but if you're just zoning out units you're going to lose because 21 second cooldown is very long, and you might have "zoned out" some units but eventually you run out of novas and then you have 20 supply of useless units that can't atack. And as we know without AoE a Protoss army just dies. It's not that easy to actually hit shots with disruptors. MM can split or outrun the nova if they stim on time, and like I explained above, if you're not killing units with the disruptors you're losing the game. To make up for this the disruptor shots are very strong so if they hit you they do tons of damage. The only change that maybe could work would be reducing significantly the disruptors damage, but also reducing the cooldown and making the nova faster so it's more consistent, but I don't know if that would be good. On October 15 2020 15:07 ZigguratOfUr wrote: The cyclone seems like a terrible fit as a dedicated counter to the disruptor. For one people either build one of them for early game defense or mass them to go battle mech--they're not something you build a few of to round out a composition. Additionally they get one-shotted by disruptors, are only as fast as a stimmed marauder, scale poorly and can't really ever get close enough to a disruptor to lock on and escape in a late game scenario. Blizzard would have to completely redesign the cyclone (yet again) for it be to anywhere near a viable counter. Yeah I agree right now they don't work, that's why I said they would need to buff it. Maybe change a little how the lock-on works/targets. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/olZIkR2.jpg) This would probably never happen, but I think a good buff for terran would be to have those flamethrower turrets they have in the campaign, as an upgrade for the CC. It could be researched on the engineering bay/armory. It would need to be a lategame upgrade, maybe require nuclear reactor? and now CC could cast those flamethrowers in exchange of energy. This would help Terrans agaisnt zealots/blink DTs, but they would also need to be careful managing scans, mules and the turrets. This would indirectly buff the terran army as they wouldn't need to leave as many units in their base, and by buffing their economy their unit output would also be buffed, which could help the lategame. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
I wouldn't touch the disruptor. I know it is frustrating to lost 10 supply of units instantly but you need to see the other side. The disruptor has a shorter range than the siege tank. The "zoning" factor of the disruptor is useful sometimes, but in reality sucks compared to Lurkers/tanks/libs. You get 1 shot where you zone out enemy units for the 2 seconds the nova last, then your unit is completely useless for 21 seconds of cooldown, and due to it's medium range is easy to snipe (which is good, as it allows counterplay). And so the answer to that is having more disruptors, which can definitely buy you some time, but if you're just zoning out units you're going to lose because 21 second cooldown is very long, and you might have "zoned out" some units but eventually you run out of novas and then you have 20 supply of useless units that can't atack. And as we know without AoE a Protoss army just dies. It's not that easy to actually hit shots with disruptors. MM can split or outrun the nova if they stim on time, and like I explained above, if you're not killing units with the disruptors you're losing the game. To make up for this the disruptor shots are very strong so if they hit you they do tons of damage. The only change that maybe could work would be reducing significantly the disruptors damage, but also reducing the cooldown and making the nova faster so it's more consistent, but I don't know if that would be good. Disruptors in small numbers or as a part of a small army is not an issue. When 5+ disruptors are out with chargelots and blink stalkers, ground battles in both PvP and PvT just become silly imo. Lurkers, siege tanks and liberators are better at zoning, but the mobility makes disruptors a much more frustrating unit to play against. Nerfing the movement speed can be one option to increase the skill cap. Have you noticed how storm is almost absent except PvZ now? Disruptors do more damage instantly, and have just taken over that role, which is a bit sad to see imo. P did not really need another aoe option. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25630 Posts
On October 16 2020 06:13 Slydie wrote: Disruptors in small numbers or as a part of a small army is not an issue. When 5+ disruptors are out with chargelots and blink stalkers, ground battles in both PvP and PvT just become silly imo. Lurkers, siege tanks and liberators are better at zoning, but the mobility makes disruptors a much more frustrating unit to play against. Nerfing the movement speed can be one option to increase the skill cap. Have you noticed how storm is almost absent except PvZ now? Disruptors do more damage instantly, and have just taken over that role, which is a bit sad to see imo. P did not really need another aoe option. I’m a bit torn, Protoss are so reliant on AoE and I never liked the dance of hard counters in PvT with ghosts/Vikings vs Temps/Collosi. Having a third option that is less fitting to that dynamic and is hard as fuck to use optimally (especially at the absolute top level), and is less hard counterable as the aforementioned, but can be mitigated by micro unlike the Collosus, I like many aspects of the disruptors personally. As an isolated unit that is. Problems really emerge compositionally when you get the unholy trifecta of Protoss AoE in the same ball. Possibly with Dark Templars wandering around and teleporting with gleeful abandon elsewhere. How in the name of holy Zeus do you engage into that? I’ve taken to watching both FPVs in GSL with the commentary, glorious way to watch SC although also the commentary lags behind a bit. Anyway with that in mind Inno actually played his first match point set against Stats really quite well if you’re looking at what he can see and sensibly account for, vs what we gleam from the observer UI, at least to my eye. Even with good army movement and splitting, some money EMPs the one thing he was never able to do was pounce on Stats force and really reset the robo unit count right down. Eventually in such a standoff it gets harder and harder to plug the holes that Protoss’ mobility and ability to pump money into harass squads as their base count increases. Watching that game I proposed my making novas cost energy/equivalent to their current cooldown suggestion that Blizz will definitely implement :p Disruptors are pretty big too so carpet EMPs wouldn’t be too oppressive, I don’t think. But some cunning Terran positioning or Protoss sloppiness and it might open windows. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 16 2020 01:21 [Phantom] wrote: I wouldn't touch the disruptor. I know it is frustrating to lost 10 supply of units instantly but you need to see the other side. The disruptor has a shorter range than the siege tank. The "zoning" factor of the disruptor is useful sometimes, but in reality sucks compared to Lurkers/tanks/libs. You get 1 shot where you zone out enemy units for the 2 seconds the nova last, then your unit is completely useless for 21 seconds of cooldown, and due to it's medium range is easy to snipe (which is good, as it allows counterplay). And so the answer to that is having more disruptors, which can definitely buy you some time, but if you're just zoning out units you're going to lose because 21 second cooldown is very long, and you might have "zoned out" some units but eventually you run out of novas and then you have 20 supply of useless units that can't atack. And as we know without AoE a Protoss army just dies. It's not that easy to actually hit shots with disruptors. MM can split or outrun the nova if they stim on time, and like I explained above, if you're not killing units with the disruptors you're losing the game. To make up for this the disruptor shots are very strong so if they hit you they do tons of damage. The only change that maybe could work would be reducing significantly the disruptors damage, but also reducing the cooldown and making the nova faster so it's more consistent, but I don't know if that would be good. Yeah I agree right now they don't work, that's why I said they would need to buff it. Maybe change a little how the lock-on works/targets. This would probably never happen, but I think a good buff for terran would be to have those flamethrower turrets they have in the campaign, as an upgrade for the CC. It could be researched on the engineering bay/armory. It would need to be a lategame upgrade, maybe require nuclear reactor? and now CC could cast those flamethrowers in exchange of energy. This would help Terrans agaisnt zealots/blink DTs, but they would also need to be careful managing scans, mules and the turrets. This would indirectly buff the terran army as they wouldn't need to leave as many units in their base, and by buffing their economy their unit output would also be buffed, which could help the lategame. Let's just the upgrade let the PFs to build units inside. Like - say - you have 12 slots in PF and you can build a helbat(4 slots), marine(1 slot) or ghost(2 slots). These units cannot exit the PF but at the same time don't cost any supply. You can play with the numbers/slots, just examples. This way Terran can reinforce PF with a blue flame, EMP and anti-air, all at once if one wants to. When the PF is destroyed, units are burried under the debris and a short term gravestone can be shown(imagine the Worms death place ) | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25630 Posts
On October 16 2020 08:15 deacon.frost wrote: Let's just the upgrade let the PFs to build units inside. Like - say - you have 12 slots in PF and you can build a helbat(4 slots), marine(1 slot) or ghost(2 slots). These units cannot exit the PF but at the same time don't cost any supply. You can play with the numbers/slots, just examples. This way Terran can reinforce PF with a blue flame, EMP and anti-air, all at once if one wants to. When the PF is destroyed, units are burried under the debris and a short term gravestone can be shown(imagine the Worms death place )I was going to disagree until the gravestone touch. I’m ok to leave Terran base defence for a while though. Optimisation is needed dagnabbit! All 3 races but especially Terran have got better with building placement over the game’s strategic development, be it basic base layout, supply walls covering things, rallying to a single lowered depot to plug runby gaps etc. We see staggered depot placement to mess with chargelots too. What we don’t see, and what I think is totally doable is walling your outlying CCs/PFs with depots. | ||
|
Slydie
1923 Posts
What we don’t see, and what I think is totally doable is walling your outlying CCs/PFs with depots. Doable, yes, but I think there are some very good reasons why extra CCs are the late game Terran mineral sink rather than PF depot walls. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 16 2020 13:45 Slydie wrote: Doable, yes, but I think there are some very good reasons why extra CCs are the late game Terran mineral sink rather than PF depot walls. MOstly because you still need half of the PF without the wall or with lowered depos, DTs blink on it and you won't be able to get it up nor repair, thus you'll be forced to lowerthe wall anyway | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
2v2
OSC
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
