|
On August 28 2010 20:28 Melt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 20:07 Sueco wrote:
Joke aside as a Z player. I know lings, roaches, hydras, banes or (haha) ultras are NOT cost-effective against marauders at all. Look at all high-level ZvT games where Z goes ground against MM. No matter the unit composition, Zerg's only answer to marauders is to throw money at the problem, or risk an easily countered air tech switch. Tank nerfs are not a bad idead but Blizzard's love affair with marauders is just silly. Lings just rape Marauders... Hydras aswell... Mutas too, obviously. It's clear that units, that the marauder is a hard counter against, don't do too well against it  It's just absolutely untrue that any Zerg unit composition looses to marauders.. you obviously have no clue what ur talking about. Marauders damage output rarely is a problem in ZvT because you can easily get around it by not massing roaches, it's the tanking ability that matters. With good micro you can get around it though. I guess in lower divisions, they could be seen as quite imbalanced because they're not hard to micro. The only thing that really is imbalanced about marauders is their ability to snipe buildings extremely fast, otherwise they're pretty balanced.
I disagree. Lings perform decently against marauders in t1 armies under 50 supply. Once stim and medivacs combine with the small surface area and high damge output of MM balls, however, lings cease being a cost-effective solution. Neither are banes (unless hes very marine heavy) or hydras at this situation. That leaves only air, which any decent T will anticipate and either run you over with the MM ball as your spire finishes, or simply get 2 thors and lol-a-amove his way into your base.
Its a sad state of affairs when Z needs to spend around 30% more resources just to stay toe-to-toe with T ground army. Your units are de-facto 30% less resource effective. Combine that with the somewhat 30% extra income per base that mules give, and you'll see why I'm tired of being run over by 1-basing mass-and-amove T players. I need to work my ass off to simply hold off what for the other player feels like the simplest move in the book.
|
On August 28 2010 20:44 Qzy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 20:43 shannn wrote:
I don't know but has anyone mentioned that Archons are soooooooooo gonna be good vs tanks?
Psionic armor meaning they'll only take 35 damage each hit with their 350 shield/10hp.
That's with 0/0/0 11 direct hits to kill it.
I'm now soooo favoring archons to take up on tanks. That's so sexy... Now get some shield upgrades for that bad boy, and see how many hits he can take!  .
Indeed now shield upgrades might be more viable in PvT. So overall I think it's a good patch for Protoss lol :D
|
On August 28 2010 20:43 shannn wrote:
I don't know but has anyone mentioned that Archons are soooooooooo gonna be good vs tanks?
Psionic armor meaning they'll only take 35 damage each hit with their 350 shield/10hp.
That's with 0/0/0 11 direct hits to kill it.
I'm now soooo favoring archons to take up on tanks.
Archons useful? Blasphemy! Blizzard must take 200 shields from them immediately!
I'm so glad those tanks got nerfed. Making hydra's and archons slightly more viable is great.
Ultra got a buff. Headbutting was awesome, but getting splash on supply depots and closely built buildings definitely makes it a buff.
Zealot nerf is a bit edgy, protoss early game is going to be a bit harder. Though with an ultra nerf and a tank nerf, I think our protoss brothers will have an easier time against terran and zerg lategame.
I'm digging this future patch
|
On August 28 2010 20:47 Sueco wrote:
I disagree. Lings perform decently against marauders in t1 armies under 50 supply. Once stim and medivacs combine with the small surface area and high damge output of MM balls, however, lings cease being a cost-effective solution. Neither are banes (unless hes very marine heavy) or hydras at this situation. That leaves only air, which any decent T will anticipate and either run you over with the MM ball as your spire finishes, or simply get 2 thors and lol-a-amove his way into your base.
Its a sad state of affairs when Z needs to spend around 30% more resources just to stay toe-to-toe with T ground army. Your units are de-facto 30% less resource effective. Combine that with the somewhat 30% extra income per base that mules give, and you'll see why I'm tired of being run over by 1-basing mass-and-amove T players. I need to work my ass off to simply hold off what for the other player feels like the simplest move in the book.
Muta Ling Bling Infestor still deal really good with MMM ball.
Marauders are stupidly powerfull but meh.. can deal with it.
|
On August 28 2010 20:47 Sueco wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 20:28 Melt wrote:On August 28 2010 20:07 Sueco wrote:
Joke aside as a Z player. I know lings, roaches, hydras, banes or (haha) ultras are NOT cost-effective against marauders at all. Look at all high-level ZvT games where Z goes ground against MM. No matter the unit composition, Zerg's only answer to marauders is to throw money at the problem, or risk an easily countered air tech switch. Tank nerfs are not a bad idead but Blizzard's love affair with marauders is just silly. Lings just rape Marauders... Hydras aswell... Mutas too, obviously. It's clear that units, that the marauder is a hard counter against, don't do too well against it It's just absolutely untrue that any Zerg unit composition looses to marauders.. you obviously have no clue what ur talking about. Marauders damage output rarely is a problem in ZvT because you can easily get around it by not massing roaches, it's the tanking ability that matters. With good micro you can get around it though. I guess in lower divisions, they could be seen as quite imbalanced because they're not hard to micro. The only thing that really is imbalanced about marauders is their ability to snipe buildings extremely fast, otherwise they're pretty balanced. I disagree. Lings perform decently against marauders in t1 armies under 50 supply. Once stim and medivacs come in, however, lings cease being a cost-effective counter. Neither are banes or hydras at this situation. That leaves only air, which any decent T will anticipate and either run you over with the MM ball as your spire finishes, or simply get 2 thors and lol-a-amove his way into your base. Its a sad state of affairs when Z needs to spend around 30% more resources just to stay toe-to-toe with a T ground army.
Yeah but once stim and medivacs come into play, you should have more than just lings. Infestors/banelings/hydras/speedlings are pretty good against a bioball (imo, I don't play zerg much so I might be wrong, I apologize if I am).
And although Zerg needs to spend more resources to stay toe-to-toe, Zerg also has the ability to expand quicker than the other 2 races, not too mention creating more than 1 drone at a time. Again, just my opinion.
|
Protoss = sad
Terran = sad
Zerg = sad(still?)
yeah this WILL be a good patch
|
On August 28 2010 20:48 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 20:44 Qzy wrote:On August 28 2010 20:43 shannn wrote:
I don't know but has anyone mentioned that Archons are soooooooooo gonna be good vs tanks?
Psionic armor meaning they'll only take 35 damage each hit with their 350 shield/10hp.
That's with 0/0/0 11 direct hits to kill it.
I'm now soooo favoring archons to take up on tanks. That's so sexy... Now get some shield upgrades for that bad boy, and see how many hits he can take! . Indeed now shield upgrades might be more viable in PvT. So overall I think it's a good patch for Protoss lol :D
Lol @Qzy why not get an IMMORTAL that costs significantly less and still takes 10+ shots to kill?
But generally, as a toss player, I'm happy for zerg that tanks are being nerfed so that hydras dont die in two hits, it now takes 3! YAY.
Also, the increase in bunker time will ensure those cheesy proxy bunkers lose their efficiency, but i'm still sad about the zealot build times.
And again, lol at the reapers
|
MAN ARCHONS ARE GONNA BE SO GOOD VS TANKS WITH ALL THOSE SHIE....Oh fuck I got EMP'd.
|
On August 28 2010 21:01 DreXxiN wrote:
MAN ARCHONS ARE GONNA BE SO GOOD VS TANKS WITH ALL THOSE SHIE....Oh fuck I got EMP'd.
We're gonna play this game now? OK...
Good thing I used Feedback on his Ghosts with my spaced out templars! Now to kill those tanks =D
|
On August 28 2010 20:54 Exathor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 20:48 shannn wrote:On August 28 2010 20:44 Qzy wrote:On August 28 2010 20:43 shannn wrote:
I don't know but has anyone mentioned that Archons are soooooooooo gonna be good vs tanks?
Psionic armor meaning they'll only take 35 damage each hit with their 350 shield/10hp.
That's with 0/0/0 11 direct hits to kill it.
I'm now soooo favoring archons to take up on tanks. That's so sexy... Now get some shield upgrades for that bad boy, and see how many hits he can take! . Indeed now shield upgrades might be more viable in PvT. So overall I think it's a good patch for Protoss lol :D Lol @Qzy why not get an IMMORTAL that costs significantly less and still takes 10+ shots to kill? But generally, as a toss player, I'm happy for zerg that tanks are being nerfed so that hydras dont die in two hits, it now takes 3! YAY. Also, the increase in bunker time will ensure those cheesy proxy bunkers lose their efficiency, but i'm still sad about the zealot build times. And again, lol at the reapers
Usually when a T has tanks they atleast have some mini bioball army so the immortals are fodder to the T so they'll die even faster when their shields are down.
The archons however will not take bonus damage from any unit thus actually being harder to kill than immortal.
And the 2 HT for the archons can also be used to storm the bio ball having a double effect on T.
Edit:
And forgot one of the latest trends is that some T also goes some banshees so Archons are more usefull with the HT feedbacking banshees (and possible ghosts).
|
On August 28 2010 21:03 greyfox999 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 21:01 DreXxiN wrote:
MAN ARCHONS ARE GONNA BE SO GOOD VS TANKS WITH ALL THOSE SHIE....Oh fuck I got EMP'd. We're gonna play this game now? OK... Good thing I used Feedback on his Ghosts with my spaced out templars! Now to kill those tanks =D
FUCKING MARAUDERS MY ARCHONS CAN'T GET TO THE TANKS
am I doing it right? :D
|
On August 28 2010 21:03 greyfox999 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 21:01 DreXxiN wrote:
MAN ARCHONS ARE GONNA BE SO GOOD VS TANKS WITH ALL THOSE SHIE....Oh fuck I got EMP'd. We're gonna play this game now? OK... Good thing I used Feedback on his Ghosts with my spaced out templars! Now to kill those tanks =D
Wow...really? I mean you're going to have the gas to individually target my ghosts with feedback AND counter me with archons? (Which costs 2 templar by the way).
Give me a break...
Protip: Tanks can also focus fire Templar.
|
I was really looking forward to an increase of the time it takes for warpgate to be researched. I don't think it would affect any of the match ups but PvP, where the current research time makes 4 warpgate all ins so deadly. Maybe only 15-20 seconds longer on research time coupled with the zealot build time increase is what you would need to make PvP a MUCH better match up. It really wouldn't even tamper with a delayed 4 warpgate stalker all in, which I believe is a much more skill oriented all in for PvP.
|
On August 28 2010 21:06 DreXxiN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 21:03 greyfox999 wrote:On August 28 2010 21:01 DreXxiN wrote:
MAN ARCHONS ARE GONNA BE SO GOOD VS TANKS WITH ALL THOSE SHIE....Oh fuck I got EMP'd. We're gonna play this game now? OK... Good thing I used Feedback on his Ghosts with my spaced out templars! Now to kill those tanks =D Wow...really? I mean you're going to have the gas to individually target my ghosts with feedback AND counter me with archons? (Which costs 2 templar by the way). Give me a break...
You're gonna waste emp on archons for their shields yes but ur still forgetting how many uses archons has.
The emp'ed archons means no emp on rest of army that is more vulnerable to siege tanks.
HT are being made first for the purpose of storm against bio ball or feedback.
After it's usage it's made to archons.
So the main reason the HT's are already being made is for ghosts/bio balls.
After it's done it can soak up the damage from tanks which makes in my opinion archons more viable than it currently is.
You make it sound like we have to go mass archons which isn't really the case.
A HT on full energy can feedback 4 times so u just need 1-2 HT max for feedback (you're not massing ghosts if u have so many tanks as I quote you:"I mean you're going to have the gas to individually target my ghosts with feedback AND counter me with archons?" which can be said the same to you.
Cost effective HT will be more viable against T siege tanks/ghosts/banshees/bio balls.
|
On August 28 2010 21:01 DreXxiN wrote:
MAN ARCHONS ARE GONNA BE SO GOOD VS TANKS WITH ALL THOSE SHIE....Oh fuck I got EMP'd.
U can't hit multiple archon with one EMP and EMP in this game only cut 100 shield.
Archon is probably the best unit against EMP actually...
|
On August 28 2010 20:47 Sueco wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2010 20:28 Melt wrote:On August 28 2010 20:07 Sueco wrote:
Joke aside as a Z player. I know lings, roaches, hydras, banes or (haha) ultras are NOT cost-effective against marauders at all. Look at all high-level ZvT games where Z goes ground against MM. No matter the unit composition, Zerg's only answer to marauders is to throw money at the problem, or risk an easily countered air tech switch. Tank nerfs are not a bad idead but Blizzard's love affair with marauders is just silly. Lings just rape Marauders... Hydras aswell... Mutas too, obviously. It's clear that units, that the marauder is a hard counter against, don't do too well against it It's just absolutely untrue that any Zerg unit composition looses to marauders.. you obviously have no clue what ur talking about. Marauders damage output rarely is a problem in ZvT because you can easily get around it by not massing roaches, it's the tanking ability that matters. With good micro you can get around it though. I guess in lower divisions, they could be seen as quite imbalanced because they're not hard to micro. The only thing that really is imbalanced about marauders is their ability to snipe buildings extremely fast, otherwise they're pretty balanced. I disagree. Lings perform decently against marauders in t1 armies under 50 supply. Once stim and medivacs combine with the small surface area and high damge output of MM balls, however, lings cease being a cost-effective solution. Neither are banes (unless hes very marine heavy) or hydras at this situation. That leaves only air, which any decent T will anticipate and either run you over with the MM ball as your spire finishes, or simply get 2 thors and lol-a-amove his way into your base. Its a sad state of affairs when Z needs to spend around 30% more resources just to stay toe-to-toe with T ground army. Your units are de-facto 30% less resource effective. Combine that with the somewhat 30% extra income per base that mules give, and you'll see why I'm tired of being run over by 1-basing mass-and-amove T players. I need to work my ass off to simply hold off what for the other player feels like the simplest move in the book.
Nobody just has Lings against an MMM Ball, thats not a scenario worth looking into.
Speedlings, banelings and Mutas are quite nice against MMM though.
It's just the fact that all Terran Units are ranged, and if they are in big numbers, they can mow down all your units before they even get there. But it's still the Marines that do the big damage, not the Marauders. Trying to engage only on Creep is key. And try to flank the opponent so that your Banelings can hit the Marines. Also sniping off some Medivacs before the fight is very beneficial.
You will always loose though, if both players just a-move their units into the fight, thats for sure!
But compare that scenario to what Tanks do to a Baneling/Ling army... you would never ever engage with your Lings against sieged Tanks... it was just suicide.
I think that Tanks just limited the whole metagame to a point where it whas gotten very boring. It's not the point to cut out every good unit of terran, it's just that turtling was too strong. I also agree that Marauders (even if i don't see them as imbalanced) are quite strong, but they are a key component of bio.
All the nerfes where pretty much made to enhance the variety and possibilities of builds (early, mid and late game) and i think they put a lot of thought in it and made pretty good choices.
I think that we will see a much more interesting and diverse metagame (if we can talk about a metagame this early already ^^).
|
With the new tank dmg this might make the 1 1 1 build in tvt more of a marine hellion drop focus.
|
On August 28 2010 20:23 Qzy wrote:This is a protoss buff, and not a nerf. Sure you'll get additional seconds on gateway units (zealot only?) but compared to tank nerf and ultralisk nerf, this is a small nerf. Just add one more gateway and we are fine!
yeah, because the biggest problems of protoss right now are definitely tanks in PvT and ultralisks in PvZ.....
no offense, but all these changes are totally uncalled for:
ultralisks are hard to get and imo therefore kinda "supposed" to own; they are nowhere unbeatable in lategame though, upgraded (!) immortals as buffers in front do wonders; tanks are only truly overpowered in teamgames - hence my complaint that blizz is balancing the game for 3v3; the strength of mech vs zerg follows from the amazing harassment-capabilities of terran (reapers AND hellions), heavy mech-play vs protoss is completeley outdated, tanks are fine in PvT;
zealots are only "overpowered" when cheesing - so right now I really hate all these fucking lame cheesers who got blizzard to change the build-time of zealots; when NOT cheesing the zealot-buildtime is fine; in PvT zealot/stalker/sentry can just barerly hold against early marine/marauder pressure; nerfing the zealot-buildtime will probably mean that I have to pull probes more often; concerning the PvZ it's easy to predict the outcome of this change: early two-gate (NOT 10 gate but 12/14) pressure to prevent FEs will slowly die and protoss-FE with early forge, which is already played by many successfully, will more and more become the way to play
|
Huh, I suppose with the more limited EMP archons could be interesting. So long as you can support them costing hts, which are a rather limited resource in the early late game.
|
All T v P games will be totally marauder rush <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
