IMBALANCED! - Introduction - Page 62

On February 08 2011 23:17 Ben... wrote:
He may have been joking but there is an element of truth to it. Tasteless stated that he felt mules should be on a cooldown on his Facebook page when asked what still needs to be tweaked and I think I've heard it elsewhere too. I think a cooldown for mules makes perfect sense. It puts it more inline with larva injects and chronoboost where you have to be somewhat responsible with it. I think it would be an interesting discussion if Artosis and IdrA talked about mules in comparison the other macro abilities.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

How can you describe that as an "ignorant fix"

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

If protoss misses a chronoboost, it's not like he can just stack chronoboosts on top of each other for even faster probes... If Zerg misses an inject, it's not like he can stack his injects for even faster drones... NO, both races get penalized for missing these things, UNLIKE the Terran race.

IMHO, If anyone has a problem with a cooldown for MULEs, it's because they don't want to have to macro better. Terran macro is already much easier than Zerg macro, why shouldn't there be a cooldown on MULEs? They are a ridiculous gatherer.

Like you said sir, Terran players drop every available mule to keep up in early game... Why can't Terran players to continue dropping every available mule throughout the whole game? That's what Zerg players do with injects throughout the ENTIRE game, as do protoss players with chronoboosting.

MULEs are definitely very powerful and having been a Terran player previously I can comfortably say that having a cooldown on MULEs should really not be a big deal, and I'm willing to bet that top players such as Liquid`Jinro, IMMvp, MarineKing.Prime would have no problem with this as well, because top players don't really miss their MULE drops too often.

Summary: Having a cooldown for MULEs shouldn't be a big deal to GOOD/GREAT terran players.

On February 09 2011 01:36 Rabiator wrote:
(My apologies)
+ Show Spoiler +

On February 09 2011 01:34 Mentymion wrote:
I think the main issue with Protoss are not the Colossi, it's our damn Tech Route which makes the Colossus the only viable option for us now. Protoss desperately needs Observers in every Matchup cuz canons can't 100% protect us from cloaked Banshees or burrowed Roaches and also put us into the defensive position without mapcontrol,scouting abilities etc. That means that a robo is kinda a Must-have building where everything revolves around it. The next Unit in the tech tree is the Colossus and this unit perfectly fills the gap in every Gateway unit composition in PvZ as well in PvT. This is the only reason why the Colossus takes priority over other units such as the High Templar where EMP's can simply negate any effectivness of them and even destroy some of our Shields. That's one of the points which wasn't mentioned in the entire video which makes me kinda sad cuz Artosis should know that.

On February 09 2011 01:34 Mentymion wrote:
I think the main issue with Protoss are not the Colossi, it's our damn Tech Route which makes the Colossus the only viable option for us now. Protoss desperately needs Observers in every Matchup cuz canons can't 100% protect us from cloaked Banshees or burrowed Roaches and also put us into the defensive position without mapcontrol,scouting abilities etc. That means that a robo is kinda a Must-have building where everything revolves around it. The next Unit in the tech tree is the Colossus and this unit perfectly fills the gap in every Gateway unit composition in PvZ as well in PvT. This is the only reason why the Colossus takes priority over other units such as the High Templar where EMP's can simply negate any effectivness of them and even destroy some of our Shields. That's one of the points which wasn't mentioned in the entire video which makes me kinda sad cuz Artosis should know that.

On February 09 2011 01:26 Logo wrote:
Here's one problem I see why the colossi design, now I don't want to talk about imbalance really so I pick my words carefully here. It's not that the colossi makes an imbalance or causes P to be too strong (they may or may not be), but it's that they're poorly designed.

The issue as I see it is that for most standard combat units in the game the # of units you need to deal with a unit is almost entirely a function of how many of that unit there are. If I want to snipe 4 void rays I use a certain number of hydralisks and something to take damage and that's it. If I want to baneling bust a certain number of marines I only need X banelings and something/anything to take damage and that's it. So as army sizes increase I don't have to continue producing a certain unit to kill a specific unit that may not be increasing in size.

Colossi aren't like this though. The # of corruptors needed to kill a set # of colossi is a function of how many stalkers there are. Even if the P player stops making colossi the Zerg needs to keep increasing the # of corruptors they have to be able to take out the colossi. If they don't then the stalkers will out-do the corruptors and the colossi will survive and the fight is lost for Zerg. Basically the # of corruptors needed is a function of stalker counter + colossi count. 6 colossi and 20 or so Stalkers is about the same as 2 colossi and 40 or so stalkers. However the difference is that in one you end up with a strong ground force that you need to be able to handle and the other you uh win (can you tell I'm not a fan of mass colossi production compared to a strong gateway army supported by colossi).

Anyways I think that's an important part of the problem. The only real way to kill colossi (once they're out) is through corruptors which has this odd issue where you need an increasingly large # of corruptors to be able to engage a Protoss army even if they only stop at a few colossi, yet at the same time this means you fair worse and worse against the ground force as the size of the gateway units increases disproportionately to what the zerg army can. Corruption isn't powerful enough to make up the difference in lost ground strength.

Now this has to happen a bit, zerg units > gateway units in the long run, but it should be done in a more interesting way like Templars+Sentries cause with positional battles.

(I use zerg because I know zerg and the same issue is likely a part of PvP and PvT issues as well).

On February 09 2011 01:43 Numy wrote:


I also view this as a design problem not a balance one. The problem is P have had their core designed altered in a bad way. The current design is early tech is instable and fragile then later tech is stable(except HTs they are a fragment from BW). Where as the old P design was the early tech was stable but didn't have potential to do massive damage then later tech is instable but potential to do damage.

As it stands the Colossi/sentry combination has completely warped the Protoss design. Gateway units have to be far weaker than they should because the later tech is stable unlike the Reaver/HT of BW. This means that P has a very strange dynamic of having to rely on this later tech units completely and thus cannot really split their army or use their gateway force properly. It just pigeon holes the whole race into being a "Death Ball race" instead of the beautiful mobile BW race they once were.

That being said this is the new P. I guess we cannot hope for the old P core design to come back since it's already to late. Just have to resign ourselves to the fact that this is the new P and we must live with it.

On February 09 2011 02:00 Logo wrote:


It's never too late; we have 2 more expansions to go. Having a deathball race just isn't that interesting. It's not like Protoss is that far from being more flexible and interesting. Warp prisms, Blink and warp gates already show a ton of potential to open stuff up for our Protoss buddies. It's just that in most cases ball + colossi ends up being way better.

Out of curiosity, do you (or anyone) think Colossi having less HP would affect the situation at all? Colossi actually have very high hp/pop compared to other units of a similar nature. Colossi: 58hp/pop, Siege tank: 40hp/pop, HT: 40hp/pop, Banshee: 46hp/pop. Personally I'd rather have cheaper colossi with less hp than what we have now. It'd open up more options for Protoss while making colossi easier to deal with when prepared.

Kind of related, but I'd love to see drop play being important for colossi to maximize their damage. The problem with that is that of course the counter to colossi are things that shoot air. That's really why I dislike the colossi their repositioning abilities + the fact that drop positioning/micro with colossi is pointless because air is the colossi response anyways.

On February 09 2011 02:02 Rabiator wrote:

You mean Spawn Creep Tumor I guess. It seems indeed that I was wrong there, but I was thinking about the big combat abilities like the Thors cannon and the corruption of the Corruptors ... Requiring energy and a cooldown is a big restraint for an ability, but since you only lay a creep tumor once (most of the time) and this reproduces itself after that it doesnt matter much. For the MULE it is a different thing entirely.

On February 09 2011 01:29 Endorsed wrote:


If you cooldown mules. YOU NEEEED to cooldown Chronoboost. There is no need for a mule cooldown. If you miss a mule, you don't have the production to make up for it anyway.



LOLOLOLOL

YOU HAVE CLEARLY NO IDEA.

1. If protoss misses a chronoboost he can chronoboost something else twice. Actually, he can choose to chronoboost his probes twice-->The only punishment a protoss gets is that he will have those 3 probes a little bit later.
2. If terran misses a mule, HE WON'T HAVE THE PRODUCTION. To make up for it. So in a way missing a mule is JUST like missing an inject. If a terran is able to throw down 8 mules on a gold patch. He will have 10k minerals. But only 5 rax. So the only way to benefit from this is by making 10 rax before you drop those 8 mules. But if you do that you will just get killed.


Also, it's VERY common to see a player like OGSmc have 100 energy on all his nexus late game. Ofcourse a cooldown on mules isn't a big deal. Hell it would make the game better. But then there also should be a cooldown on chronoboost.

On February 09 2011 01:55 WhiteDog wrote:
Useless post, talking about mule with terran players is dumb, and it's not the good place anyway.

On February 08 2011 23:59 AimForTheBushes wrote:


So do you consider One Ghost too many to make to "counter" the protoss death ball? I can't imagine anyone allowing their opponents to get mass gateway, multiple robos, enough sentries for FFs, stargates for phoenixes, and archives for a "contigency" of templar, and expect to win. What does that game situation look like? Your opponent must have been sitting unbothered on his side of the map with 4 bases for 20 minutes. If that's the case (which it would almost have to be, considering you've covered every single tech tree short of fleet beacon/dark shrine), you as a terran should have about 40 marine/marauders, 6 thors, 10 tanks, a fleet of BCs and vikings, and a contingency of ghosts to deal with it off of your respective 5 bases..