|
On October 26 2012 02:36 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 22:55 kcdc wrote:On October 25 2012 16:11 GARcher wrote:On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote:
Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting? T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes. For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins. I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense. But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways. No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted. Massing ghosts will actually make your army weaker because they don't have as much dps per supply as stimmed MMM. Massing orbitals and sacking SCVs will work in theory but in practice it's impossible because Bio+ghosts is so mineral heavy, you won't have the resources to make an orbital farm.
WG gives Protoss an extra production round during an engagement, but MULES give Terran extra supply before the engagement (don't need as many workers).
And not only do ghosts deny storm, they're also good combat units late-game. They're much tankier than marines, EMP does big damage to everything, they deal good DPS vs zealots, and they cloak.
I think the late-game fights are pretty balanced, and they come down to micro and positioning. If vikings snipe a colossus or two ahead of the fight, or if scan+vikings picks off observers for cloaked ghosts to get great EMP's, Terran wins. If Protoss gets a great templar flank to land a blanket of storms, Protoss wins.
I don't think I've ever seen a post-SCV sac maxed fight with a bunch of ghosts where great positioning and control couldn't give Terran a win. Maybe some people think that the Terran side of the micro is much harder, and I haven't done the Terran micro, so I can't really say. But Protoss needs to split with templar, approach with templar from multiple angles simultaneously (possibly with warp prism), blink stalkers toward vikings, shift click each viking for stalkers to focus fire, micro zealots back and forth so they charge out of colossus range, pull micro damaged colossi away from vikings, feedback the ghosts, and storm everything. It looks like it's just a-move plus storm, storm storm, but from my end, the Terran micro looks like it's just stim, kite, shoot. It's almost impossible to do either side's micro perfectly, which means there's always room to out-micro your opponent.
|
On October 26 2012 00:50 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 23:40 sitromit wrote:
So your suggestion is to nerf Forcefield and Fungal, then buff Protoss to compensate for the nerf and then nerf Zerg a little more by increasing Roach costs? LOL... Removing forcefield is a pretty gigantic roach buff as forcefield is currently the only reason roaches don't a-move to victory every game. It makes sense to increase roach cost accordingly. And I don't really Toss getting buffed much here. Void rays are never used. Carriers are very rarely used because it takes almost 3 minutes to get a fully stocked carrier to your front line, and they're pretty bad until you have about 4 of them. You can't afford to play with a 176 supply cap for 3 minutes, so people don't build them. Reducing build time makes sense.
Hmmm, I thought about it a little on the way into work this morning, and it may not be as strong a buff to P and nerf to Z as I originally thought. In PvT though, it is a strong buff, as fortify allows for strong base defense (just cast it on a pylon on the ramp or an assimilator in the mineral line when T is dropping). Even in PvZ though, it would help holding a 3rd even from mass Roach if cast on a couple of forward Pylons which would control space and force the swarm back. It would mean, however, that Protoss would be forced to turtle in this match-up or constantly cluster around forward pylons, and advance forward behind pylons. Which, when you think about it, sounds rather clunky. Hmmm, I don't like these ideas.
It seems to lead to even more safe turtle play from Protoss in PvT (and fortify seems skill-less unlike FF use), and seems to do the same, or to contort the gameplay in PvZ in a weird and unattractive way. The only think I like are the SG buffs.
|
On October 26 2012 02:56 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 02:36 GARcher wrote:On October 25 2012 22:55 kcdc wrote:On October 25 2012 16:11 GARcher wrote:On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote:
Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting? T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes. For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins. I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense. But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways. No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted. 50 Warpgates (at 2 supply/warpin, the number of warpins to be 300/200)? 50? Really? That must have been one long and passive game. Why didn't you kill him while he was spending 7500 on buildings? Also, maybe I'm just not having enough empathy here, but I have a hard time believing lategame templar vs. ghosts is as hopeless as you make it sound when pro GSL code S protoss players seem to be unable to get the win (and, via what you wrote, were obviously unable to get "decent storms"). There must be more to the matchup than what you wrote, eh?
You need to emp every templar or else blanket storms kill all your marines. EMPs have smaller AOE and protoss units are big. Most people aren't GSL code S pros.
300/200 is just an example to show how warpgates give lategame protoss a huge advantage.
You don't have empathy because you play Protoss?
|
i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz
|
On October 26 2012 02:59 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 02:36 GARcher wrote:On October 25 2012 22:55 kcdc wrote:On October 25 2012 16:11 GARcher wrote:On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote:
Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting? T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes. For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins. I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense. But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways. No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted. Massing ghosts will actually make your army weaker because they don't have as much dps per supply as stimmed MMM. Massing orbitals and sacking SCVs will work in theory but in practice it's impossible because Bio+ghosts is so mineral heavy, you won't have the resources to make an orbital farm. WG gives Protoss an extra production round during an engagement, but MULES give Terran extra supply before the engagement (don't need as many workers). And not only do ghosts deny storm, they're also good combat units late-game. They're much tankier than marines, EMP does big damage to everything, they deal good DPS vs zealots, and they cloak. I think the late-game fights are pretty balanced, and they come down to micro and positioning. If vikings snipe a colossus or two ahead of the fight, or if scan+vikings picks off observers for cloaked ghosts to get great EMP's, Terran wins. If Protoss gets a great templar flank to land a blanket of storms, Protoss wins. I don't think I've ever seen a post-SCV sac maxed fight with a bunch of ghosts where great positioning and control couldn't give Terran a win. Maybe some people think that the Terran side of the micro is much harder, and I haven't done the Terran micro, so I can't really say. But Protoss needs to split with templar, approach with templar from multiple angles simultaneously (possibly with warp prism), blink stalkers toward vikings, shift click each viking for stalkers to focus fire, micro zealots back and forth so they charge out of colossus range, pull micro damaged colossi away from vikings, feedback the ghosts, and storm everything. It looks like it's just a-move plus storm, storm storm, but from my end, the Terran micro looks like it's just stim, kite, shoot. It's almost impossible to do either side's micro perfectly, which means there's always room to out-micro your opponent.
Again, you can't support an orbital farm when you are playing bio TvP. This isn't mech TvT or TvZ. The reason you don't see post SCV sac maxed fights in TvP is because it's not possible.
Cloaking = less emps and any good protoss will have observers everywhere
not saying that people shouldn't cloak, just saying it's less EMPs Terran will have.
Again, Marines do more dps than ghosts per supply and are cheaper (1 ghost = 4 marines in cost and another 100 gas and they can't be reactored out). Protoss can pre split and blanket storm while Terrans have to accurately EMP every high templar. The important word here is accurately. The amount of micro needed is just not equal between the two races.
EMP radius is pretty small and protoss units are pretty big so you are going to need a lot of EMPs.
If a protoss has templars, he is most likely not going to have colossi. Colossi are not that hard to deal with TBH because viking micro is no where near as APM intensive as ghost micro.
Stutter stepping with MMM is not as simple as spamming S. You actually get less DPS that way than just A moving because the units at the back stops and doesn't shoot or get a concave. REAL good stutter step (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZm4Bz2MkUQ at around 7 minutes) micro requires upwards of 250-300 apm and you have to do that while macroing and splitting your marines to dodge storms.
|
On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote:
i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz
Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build?
Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably.
Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields.
|
On October 26 2012 04:19 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote:
i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build? Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably. Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields.
Toss needs to forcefields to hold early roaches before immortals come out.
|
GARcher, I'm going to stop responding to this lategame PvT argument because it's off-topic, but you should rethink your aversion to orbital farms and ghosts in lategave TvP. Ghosts are actually more supply efficient vs zealots than marines are. A 3/3 ghost does 7.5 DPS per supply to 3/3/3 zealots whereas a stimmed marine does 10 DPS per supply, but ghosts are much tankier and don't take as much splash damage. Without spells, it's a slight edge for ghosts per supply, and with spells, it's a big edge for ghosts.
|
On October 26 2012 04:21 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 04:19 kcdc wrote:On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote:
i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build? Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably. Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields. Toss needs to forcefields to hold early roaches before immortals come out.
No they don't. They need scouting, cannons and a wall-off. Do you play P?
|
On October 26 2012 04:30 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 04:21 GARcher wrote:On October 26 2012 04:19 kcdc wrote:On October 26 2012 04:14 ROOTslush wrote:
i would just ling baneling protoss all day. ezpz Are you talking about an early all-in or a maco build? Against an all-in, double walling with or without fortify could handle the bust pretty comfortably. Against a macro play, storm and zealots rock ling bling pretty hard. You don't see it much in the current WoL metagame because P goes colossus (forcefield synergy) and Z goes roaches, but macro ling-bling is defintely beatable without forcefields. Toss needs to forcefields to hold early roaches before immortals come out. No they don't. They need scouting, cannons and a wall-off. Do you play P?
Forcing cannons with a few roaches is already a good trade off for the zerg.
On October 26 2012 04:28 kcdc wrote:
GARcher, I'm going to stop responding to this lategame PvT argument because it's off-topic, but you should rethink your aversion to orbital farms and ghosts in lategave TvP. Ghosts are actually more supply efficient vs zealots than marines are. A 3/3 ghost does 7.5 DPS per supply to 3/3/3 zealots whereas a stimmed marine does 10 DPS per supply, but ghosts are much tankier and don't take as much splash damage. Without spells, it's a slight edge for ghosts per supply, and with spells, it's a big edge for ghosts.
Then you should go play a game where you try to build an orbital farm and see how well that goes. What you are saying is that players need to rethink their aversion to use Tanks against Immortals.
Also your math doesn't make sense.
For the sake of easy calculations we will use non upgraded troops. ghosts have 13.4 dps against zealots and 6.7 dps against non light. You can't kite with ghosts. They are slow to split and get melted by chargelots almost as quickly as marines. Again, can't be reactored out so slow production time.
2 stimmed marines do 21 dps, can kite with fast movement speed and is cheaper. Faster splits as well.
So no they are not more supply efficient against zealots compared to marines.
yes ghosts are needed, but they shouldn't replace your marines in late game TvP.
Ghosts are usually out of energy once the engagement begins because of EMPS. Either that or they get shift queued feedbacked. Face it, ghosts suck after using up their energy. Before the snipe nerf they are actually worth it because you can snipe zealots but 25 energy for 25 damage is just...
|
Ghosts get +2 vs light per upgrade, which boosts their late game dps relative to marines. And the tankiness is a big deal. If you put 10 supply into marines and they eat a storm, all of that supply is dead. If that supply is in ghosts, nothing dies. You don't have to take my advice, but it's something to think about in a late game stalemate situation where neither side can attack well.
|
On October 24 2012 09:13 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2012 09:09 ButteryBoo wrote:
I can see fortify being used for cheese more than anything. Construct a pylon, use fortify, win. As long as its not allowed to be used on pylons, it could be ok. Would add a lot of defensive capabilities. Protoss offense would in turn be allowed to be buffed perhaps.
Also this means one sentry at home can completely shut down drops, or at least give them a time limit before they need to leave or risk losing all their units It's hard to get a sentry across the map super early, and even if you did, fortify has all of 2 DPS if the opponent spreads his units which is very easy to do in the early game when the unit count is low. It'd be stronger to simply send a stalker.
Except, you know, all those proxy pylons ALWAYS getting up because theyre invulnerable. In general I've notice a lot of your solutions include invulnerability of units, which I think will pan out to be as boring and one-dimensional as the issues that forcefield generates.
Moreover the problem with your Stasis Field idea is that Protoss would always be able to single out half (or a large chunk) of an army. With Vortex you at least have the choice of throwing your whole army in it so it's not doomed.
|
Your criticisms against force field aren't really against forcefield. You seem to be more frustrated that you don't have options other than forcefield. I don't think getting rid of forcefield solves anything. You should just have another option to deal with roaches.
I could see fungal going from a stopping effect to a slowing effect. I think that would be generally fine.
Isn't vortex really similar to stasis field from BW? Why are they so different?
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
infestors are actually pretty fast on creep
Im not sure that the best way to make an unbeatable deathblob of slowness more beatable is to make it even more slower and unbeatabledeathblobby though. I think maybe IT has a slightly too low energy cost, and all three of the infestors abilities being extremely powerful against protoss air is a bit problematic, but you put things well.
Nothing else to say, awesome post, i agree with pretty much everything, +1
Isn't vortex really similar to stasis field from BW? Why are they so different?
The clumping effect, for starters
|
On October 26 2012 02:59 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2012 02:36 GARcher wrote:On October 25 2012 22:55 kcdc wrote:On October 25 2012 16:11 GARcher wrote:On October 25 2012 15:49 targ wrote:
Initially I was abit confused by your suggestions. Protoss play is too turtley and you suggest that the sentry get a base defense spell?
However after some thought I think I get your point - nerf marines and roaches slightly so that zealot/stalker can fight Z and T tier 1 evenly, without the all-or-nothing nature of forcefield engagements so that more small skirmishes early will happen. Then sentry is used mainly for guardian shield and base defence. It sounds quite sensible.
There are two things I wonder though. The first is, would this fortify spell lead to alot of proxy pylon/cannon all ins? Since once the spell is casted buildings become invulnerable. Secondly, since marines/roaches are weaker now, would Z and T be able to stand up to the P colossus push with gateway units/storm supporting? T would be completely screwed since they already are disadvantaged in the late game. The proposed changes still causes the same metagame where protoss turtles to deathball and it's up to the Terran to attack and do critical damage before 15 minutes. For Z I don't see much changing other than less allins. I might be in a minority, but I don't think Terran is disadvantaged at all in lategame TvP. It just depends how the game reaches that point. If T plays a really aggressive midgame and P turtles effectively killing Terran attacks and drops without taking much damage, then yeah, Protoss will often be ahead in lategame. That's what happens when you have an efficient defense. But if you reach lategame on even terms, I think Terran has all the tools they need to win in lategame. Mass ghost is really strong. Mass orbital into freeing up worker supply and remaxing is really strong. Protoss is relying on storms and colossi to win any engagement. If Terran gets good EMP's, they win. It's not necessarily easy to do, but then it's not easy to control the Protoss side either. We see games go both ways. No. If you reach the lategame on equal economy, equal supply, equal upgrades, then you are behind because of warpgate mechanics. Protoss can have a 300/200 supply army with enough warpgates and economy to back it up. Plus it's very hard to trade evenly with a protoss once templars are out. Protoss just needs to land decent storms to win the game but Terrans need to land perfect emps in order to not instantly get melted. Massing ghosts will actually make your army weaker because they don't have as much dps per supply as stimmed MMM. Massing orbitals and sacking SCVs will work in theory but in practice it's impossible because Bio+ghosts is so mineral heavy, you won't have the resources to make an orbital farm. WG gives Protoss an extra production round during an engagement, but MULES give Terran extra supply before the engagement (don't need as many workers). And not only do ghosts deny storm, they're also good combat units late-game. They're much tankier than marines, EMP does big damage to everything, they deal good DPS vs zealots, and they cloak. I think the late-game fights are pretty balanced, and they come down to micro and positioning. If vikings snipe a colossus or two ahead of the fight, or if scan+vikings picks off observers for cloaked ghosts to get great EMP's, Terran wins. If Protoss gets a great templar flank to land a blanket of storms, Protoss wins. I don't think I've ever seen a post-SCV sac maxed fight with a bunch of ghosts where great positioning and control couldn't give Terran a win. Maybe some people think that the Terran side of the micro is much harder, and I haven't done the Terran micro, so I can't really say. But Protoss needs to split with templar, approach with templar from multiple angles simultaneously (possibly with warp prism), blink stalkers toward vikings, shift click each viking for stalkers to focus fire, micro zealots back and forth so they charge out of colossus range, pull micro damaged colossi away from vikings, feedback the ghosts, and storm everything. It looks like it's just a-move plus storm, storm storm, but from my end, the Terran micro looks like it's just stim, kite, shoot. It's almost impossible to do either side's micro perfectly, which means there's always room to out-micro your opponent.
I play Random. It's near infinitely harder micro wise on the Terran side. As in, I rarely lose PvT lategame, while I generally lose TvP lategame unless it gets late enough (via my camping) that I can transition to BC. TvP feels fucking impossible, and PvT feels like I'm just rolling them, generally speaking. Not to say I don't win TvP engagements with MMMVG ever nor saying I don't ever lose with Zealot/Archon/Stalker/Sentry/HT/Colo/DT (don't use FF though lategame, just a sentry for GS, and DT to force scans).
The mules don't give any "extra supply" pre-battle.... supplies are generally even. The chronoboost gives the P the extra mining to keep up with Terran mining, and if T sacs his SCVs he's super vulnerable from then on, even if he's amassed like 7 OC's. It's just not the same as having a constant income vs spiked income followed by nothing. Your production isn't as suited for it.
|
On November 04 2012 05:14 FabledIntegral wrote:
The mules don't give any "extra supply" pre-battle.... supplies are generally even. The chronoboost gives the P the extra mining to keep up with Terran mining, and if T sacs his SCVs he's super vulnerable from then on, even if he's amassed like 7 OC's. It's just not the same as having a constant income vs spiked income followed by nothing. Your production isn't as suited for it.
I won't comment on the lategame micro difficulty levels becasue I don't play the Terran side, but this argument was a little silly. Chronoboost doesn't give Protoss improved mining efficiency in late-game at all. Once you hit your optimal worker count (~72), you don't use chronoboost on workers.
An OC is worth about 4 workers in mineral income. If Terran gets 6 orbitals (not at all uncommon in lategame), he can sacrifice 24 workers and have the same average income as Protoss. Yes, the income is in spikes, but that's actually an advantage. It's better to have 1500 minerals over 90 seconds followed by 0 minerals over 30 seconds than to have 1500 minerals spread evenly over 120 seconds because MULE income is front-loaded which gives you the option to spend those minerals sooner. Maybe you want to bank some of the extra minerals to spend them evenly minerals over the 120 seconds, or maybe you want to spend it all up front, but it's always better to have the choice.
The main point, however, is that if both players need a 72 worker income and T has 6 OC's, P needs to spend 72 supply on workers and Terran needs to spend only 48 supply on workers. Both sides total supply is 200, but Terran has 152 army supply while Protoss only has 128 army supply. That's a big deal, and it off-sets the reinforcement advantage that Protoss gets.
|
broodlord infestor is the reason i lost interest in the game. once zerg gets 'to that stage of the game' there's pretty much nothing you can do really. unless you are code S calibre ofcourse.
your changes seem like a good direction to take.
Anything really to tone down that dumb OP combo tbh.
|
What do you think about splitting the stun aspect and the damage aspect of Fungal into two different spells?
|
I approve...too bad dustin browder plays zerg and he wants to stay in gold league
|
Simple, make every unit massive 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
