EPTPatch 1.3 on PTR - Page 133
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On February 28 2011 18:14 sleepingdog wrote: What bothers me the most is the recent trend at Blizzard to just REMOVE stuff that turned out to be problematic. Yes, I as a toss player admit that some warped in templars late-game can really finish a game even if the terran has macroed well the whole time. There's something wrong about that, definitely. Nevertheless simply REMOVING a strategic option is, in my humble opinion, never a good approach to anything. Flux vanes were insanely strong vs zerg lategame, and still, just removing them lowered the amount of strategies available. So will the removal of the amulet. I would really prefer if Blizz tried to fix supposedly imbalanced upgrades/etc. by either reworking it or buffing counters. For example, why not add a expensive upgrade for ghosts that increases the radious of EMP? So that one ghost might get more templars? Just some crazy thinking, but this would actually increase the strategic depth of the game, removing stuff always decreases it...by...well...definition, you could say. And what about when Blizzard removed the Gorgon from StarCraft 1? Oh, the Gorgon was a fictitious unit I just made up that might have been in SC1 before Blizzard removed it. Did that "decrease" the game? Changes change the game. Removing things does not make it worse, just as adding things does not make it better. Furthermore, let's examine what you're suggesting. Let's say Flux Vanes were a problem for Zerg. Rather than removing them, you would have to give the Zerg some ability to deal with them. Let's say you make Corruptors faster. Well now, you've changed a lot more than just Void Rays. You've changed Corruptors. That will impact every matchup. You've now made Corruptors stronger against Colossi in particular. Do you now have to give Colossi more Hp to compensate? And what will that do to other things? Removing things is always less likely to introduce new balance problems. And Blizzard takes a Hippocratic approach to balancing: do no wrong. Don't make the balance worse. Adding things is for expansions. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8243 Posts
 ). Has anyone checked if Infestors now having a missile attack, means that it can be picked up by a nearby pdd? | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On February 28 2011 18:15 SEA_Syntax wrote: Guys, do you think the vortex change can be abused? well, I as a zerg player would love the following situation: I have 25 roaches, 20 hydras, ~10 banelings he has 1 mothership, 5 colossi, 10 stalkers, 40 zealots 1. he vortex's my army (except the banelings because they were ~20 units away) 2. he walks in with all of his zealots (thinking it will give him good position) 3. I enter the vortex with banelings 4. when vortex ends and units have spread out (aka not invulnerable anymore): I have ultimate baneling spread in the middle of his army 5. boom edit: of course this could have been done to greater effect before the change, so its not as much an abuse of the patch as it is an abuse of the nature of vortex | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
There you have it! Game changing. | ||
|
Whiteaegis
United States4 Posts
On February 28 2011 19:28 NicolBolas wrote: And what about when Blizzard removed the Gorgon from StarCraft 1? Oh, the Gorgon was a fictitious unit I just made up that might have been in SC1 before Blizzard removed it. Did that "decrease" the game? Changes change the game. Removing things does not make it worse, just as adding things does not make it better. Furthermore, let's examine what you're suggesting. Let's say Flux Vanes were a problem for Zerg. Rather than removing them, you would have to give the Zerg some ability to deal with them. Let's say you make Corruptors faster. Well now, you've changed a lot more than just Void Rays. You've changed Corruptors. That will impact every matchup. You've now made Corruptors stronger against Colossi in particular. Do you now have to give Colossi more Hp to compensate? And what will that do to other things? Removing things is always less likely to introduce new balance problems. And Blizzard takes a Hippocratic approach to balancing: do no wrong. Don't make the balance worse. Adding things is for expansions. Felt quote was relevant: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." -Antoine de Saint-Exuper Also, is there a poll that surveys the general opinion of the PTR patch? | ||
|
Roblin
Sweden948 Posts
On February 28 2011 20:02 WhiteDog wrote: You wanna make the protoss interesting to play? Get that damn warpgate tech in the twilight council, let the amulet but nerf it to something like the templar start with 70 mana (need 5 mana to put down a storm), nerf slightly colossi and up zealot back to their initial SC1/beta HP, change sentries a bit (like nerfing their cost, upping their dps and nerfing FF). There you have it! Game changing. would someone mind to make a map with these changes? I (and I'm sure a bunch of other people) would love to just try this out and see what would happen | ||
|
Tofugrinder
Austria899 Posts
how can the templar now be used? Background: I personally don't like to go for Colossi every game so I kinda like to mix it up with some templar play. Now it seems I have to warp in HTs and 45 secs later I can use them (or I can instant Feedback stuff). For me that seems quite a long period of time, because I can't use the HTs that well against an attack from my opponent. PS: just looking for some ideas and not interested in amulet imba/or not discussions | ||
|
PeZuY
935 Posts
I couldn't find anything about infestor fungal growths projectile range. So does it stay the same as it was? Or has it been increased a bit? | ||
|
Petruccio
90 Posts
1. I like the infestor change. More chances to survive FB, 3 tank shots instead of 2, can now actually kill ball of marines with improved DPS. 2 infestors, unburrowed in the mineral line, may take down ~20 workers in 6 seconds. The missile is not a huge price for this. 2. Amulet. I play protoss and actually cannot recall when it played important role in my game. Instead improved charged zealots are very welcome. I never understand why T QQ about late game PvT, they have EMP, that nullifies HT and does ~500 damage and there is no way for P to avoid it. GSL, PvT late game, good micro and EMP - gg for P. I guess amulet is needed on pro level. Or give something else to help P late game. Colossus are easily countered by vikings, carriers are useless(e.g. MC vs Jinro on Scrap Station). 3. BC speed. I welcome the highest tier buff, because we do not see it normally. P does not have direct counter for BC and without HT(no amulet and EMPed) will have hard times dealing with it. Stalkers die too fast to tanks and marauders, VR are expensive, no armor, and die to BC, yamato, marines and vikings too. 4. Nerf colossus, buff carriers! At the moment everything which is not colossus means more fun. Ideas for nerfing colossus: +2 instead of +4 on each weapon upgrade. Would be nice to nerf range to 8, but then you have to nerf viking range to 8 too, so it becomes complicated... Carriers - bring back autohealing of interceptors. | ||
|
iNViCiOUZ
Germany364 Posts
On February 28 2011 20:00 Roblin wrote: well, I as a zerg player would love the following situation: I have 25 roaches, 20 hydras, ~10 banelings he has 1 mothership, 5 colossi, 10 stalkers, 40 zealots 1. he vortex's my army (except the banelings because they were ~20 units away) 2. he walks in with all of his zealots (thinking it will give him good position) 3. I enter the vortex with banelings 4. when vortex ends and units have spread out (aka not invulnerable anymore): I have ultimate baneling spread in the middle of his army 5. boom edit: of course this could have been done to greater effect before the change, so its not as much an abuse of the patch as it is an abuse of the nature of vortex Or maybe the blings auto explode when vortex ends ond you loose all blings to immune zealots?! | ||
|
cheesemaster
Canada1975 Posts
On February 26 2011 10:56 oxxo wrote: Spread your hts then. That's like complaining that ghosts aren't useful because of feedback. yea but you dont have to spread out your ghosts to avoid feedback, its easy to just say that but im sure if feedback was AOE and emp was single target you would be complaining the same way. Also emp has a longer range then feedback, so if you cant hit ht's with an aoe ability with ghosts that you dont have to spread out before a feedback hits the ghost then you deserve to get feedback'd | ||
|
Ketch
Netherlands7285 Posts
| ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
On February 28 2011 16:43 Allred wrote: you area saying there is a problem because the protoss player gets either the counter to the terran unit composition or the pro toss t3 tech is more powerful that terrans t1 units? hmmm good point, the game is defiantly imbalanced. instead of just doing cheesy all in builds try actually playing and get better *note just a thought for terran players maurader medivac viking as a pretty good counter to templar tech if you are good with unit control and can dodge storms well- *note just a thought for protoss players Sentry Zealot (your lowest tier units) absolutly demolishes Marauder/medivac/viking. Seriously we get it that you think that marauders are the answer to everything, but it simply isn't true. They are VERY good at doing their job in small numbers, and decent at doing their job (that being to kill armored targets) in middle numbers, but they absolutly suck against your basic mineral sink unit as soon as you have researched zealot charge and lay down 3 forcefields. You seem to be missing the point, the current "feeling" (which is of course subjective) for Terrans is that we have no choice except to go heavy bio, because heavy mech is countered so easily by your units. But if we go heavy bio we do not have any lategame option to significantly increase our strength, so we feel forced to end the game fast, because otherwise as soon as KA is done, our chances drop drastically and basically rely on the protoss to make major mistakes (not spreading their templars, leaving their base completly open etc.). Maybe the nerf is too strong, i don't know, since i am european i can't play on the Test realm and see for myself, but some kind of change to the lategame was definitly necessary. (Personally i'd have preferred a buff to mech of some kind so our higher tech paths become more viable, but that would likely ruin the TvZ matchup so, honestly i have no perfect answer what they should change...) | ||
|
Paradice
New Zealand431 Posts
EMP is just too powerful with this change; it's basically a "no storms kthxbye" button for terran. Protoss variety is looking bleak, looks like I'll be going colossus every game in every matchup, and staying there. | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34502 Posts
In SC2 thus far, good players have always left about 2-3 additional warpgates off cooldown for emergency HT warpins. I wonder if people will go back to making >8 extra warpgates so they can warp in bigger zealot/stalker/sentry armies in an emergency now that 2-3 HT's won't be enough, more alike to BW. And of course start leaving 2 HT's behind at each expansion. | ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
On February 28 2011 20:25 iNViCiOUZ wrote: Or maybe the blings auto explode when vortex ends ond you loose all blings to immune zealots?! Keyword is untargetable. If something can't be targeted, the units will not attack it. Banelings will not explode during that 1,5s. | ||
|
DeCoder
Finland236 Posts
On February 28 2011 20:59 Greentellon wrote: Keyword is untargetable. If something can't be targeted, the units will not attack it. Banelings will not explode during that 1,5s. But you can still detonate them manually within that 1.5 second? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45375 Posts
On February 28 2011 17:42 hocash wrote: HTs are still very viable due to feedback. Medivacs get 1 shotted all the time and they are really expensive. I'm curious as to how many other Protoss users would consider warping in high templars for the sole purpose of feedback. That's a large gas investment to maybe killing one unit (and you run the risk of losing them... even though it may also pay off in your favor if you plan to get storm later). Maybe on rare occasions (stopping banshee harrass or battlecruisers moreso than medivacs, imo), but I'm a Protoss user and about 95% of my high templar's spells have been storms, rather than feedback. I'd rather do damage to more units ::shrugs:: Storm the bio ball and have a few stalkers pick off the medivacs  | ||
|
wiperkill
Sweden24 Posts
On February 28 2011 21:32 DeCoder wrote: But you can still detonate them manually within that 1.5 second? And storms would still do damage? | ||
| ||
