EPTKhaydarin amulet analysis - Page 31
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Chill: I will now be moderating this thread heavily. Some of the ways people are talking down to each other in here are completely unacceptable. | ||
|
mrRoflpwn
United States2618 Posts
| ||
|
ToastieNL
Netherlands845 Posts
On March 03 2011 13:13 HisDudeness wrote: Since the imbalance with the amulet seems to be caused by the ability to warp in and instantly storm, I had an interesting idea to keep the amulet, but stop warp in storms. Once gateways have been turned into warpgates, they can be turned back into gateway (this is never used currently). Maybe in order for HTs to have 75 energy after the amulet is researched they need to be built from a gateway, but if the are built from a warpgate they will only have 50 energy. This would put an end to warp in storms, but would allow protoss to still be able to have HTs with storm immediately as long as they are built from a gateway. Anyone have any thoughts about this? I already mentioned this trice... | ||
|
CellTech
Canada396 Posts
I saw Terrans use it maybe in 1/3rd of the games I played that went past the 20 minute mark. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Rarely I'll go straight mech and put a tech lab on my barracks and just pump ghosts from it while making hellions tanks and Vikings. | ||
|
bovineblitz
United States314 Posts
| ||
|
bovineblitz
United States314 Posts
On March 03 2011 11:05 Spekulatius wrote: And the game you're talking about was featured in a Day9 Daily. Pretty recent. It actually happened as you said, mass marines vs Chargelots and HT. But the reason this was so strong is not because MM are actually (cost-)effective against HT, but because the marines work well in small groups which makes it so easy to abuse their mobility. It was the overall aggressivity that Rainbow used that made his mass marine style work, not the fact that the unit itself is worth a damn beaver against HTs. lol... wow. You basically said "marines are terrible vs storm but if used properly they're amazing vs storm". So... what's the issue then? Use your shit in intelligent ways to counter storm. | ||
|
ExoD
United States37 Posts
Blizz PLZ nerf amulet because it killed my marines  | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On March 03 2011 18:22 bovineblitz wrote: Odd, I thought Artosis made a show about the Colossus being imbalanced, not the templar... If anything I still dislike the colossus more than templar. For one Templars can't storm from 9 away. If I had to choose to nerf a unit (not for balance but for my sake, I'd go for the colossus) | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On March 03 2011 21:45 ExoD wrote: Terran: WHAT??My MMM ball that takes no skill didn't work??? What do I do now!!! It's not like we have tanks and big robots that are even more op in good hands, or flying dts, or cheap go carts that eat mineral lines alive. Blizz PLZ nerf amulet because it killed my marines OMG Protoss just went mass Chargelot and Raped me. Not to Mention he mass BackStabbed me with A Warprism and i had to unsiege all my tanks to defend and then he killed my unsieged tanks. | ||
|
Condor Hero
United States2931 Posts
On March 02 2011 05:35 EmerTehFreek wrote: 2 cannons can kill a medivac by the time it unloads 2 units. 2 units can kill 2 cannons? jesus christ youre retarded kid, who the hell unloads a drop right in front of 2 cannons | ||
|
Sek-Kuar
Czech Republic593 Posts
Theorycrafting is pointless. On the other hand, I have idea for new thread so perhaps it would be better to let this open for all theorycrafters, so my next thread can have some serious on topic discussion. | ||
|
jarod
Romania766 Posts
Against zerg only hidras will be happy, but then again when you know they are making hidras you can make stormesr faster, is the same.. realy know, maybe you have a bit of gas advantage, but then again amulet upgrade is 1 stormer + in mid game.. btw I am protoss player | ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
On March 03 2011 21:45 ExoD wrote: Terran: WHAT??My MMM ball that takes no skill didn't work??? What do I do now!!! It's not like we have tanks and big robots that are even more op in good hands, or flying dts, or cheap go carts that eat mineral lines alive. Blizz PLZ nerf amulet because it killed my marines  Stop trolling please. | ||
|
Apolo
Portugal1259 Posts
On March 03 2011 13:19 FabledIntegral wrote: If you read my post earlier, in the absolute LEAST ideal case assuming the Toss is macroing perfectly, the situation is equivalent to Terran's MOST ideal case, and that's disregarding the fact you can warp in and the ghost will arrive at the barracks. To be brief and not have to repeat it all over again, say you have a sudden need for a templar, and your cooldown is 50% done. You now only have to wait half the time until you need the templar... you don't have to wait a full production cycle. You can even chrono it to get it out faster and get that templar where you need it. If you're Terran and you have a Marauder building halfway, you either have to cancel the Marauder and wait the full buildtime of the Ghost anyways, or you have to wait for the Marauder to finish and then build the ghost, immensely delaying the time until you get that Ghost you need. If you cancel the Marauder, you're being extremely inefficient with your raxes in the sense it was wasted time with no yield, and if you let it finish you're not getting htat Ghost for a super long time. And once again, you get your Templar whereever the hell you want it (sort of, but if you're defending you'll for sure have a pylon where you engage, if you're attacking every toss builds pylons), while Ghosts have to traverse teh map. This never ceases to amaze me. Another one of [Random fact about a protoss mechanic taken out of context to make it seem imbalanced, compeltely disregrarding how each race works differently] Tell me, what sense does it make to compare warp in with barracks queuing? Yes, you wish you had warp in queue. Toss wishes they had nexus that stopped all ground harass, the highest dps unit in game, ability to repair, ability from zerg to go from 100 to 200 in less than a minute. I fail t o understand how analyzing this mechanics and saying they are superior proves in any way how they are imbalanced. Is planetary fortress imbalanced? No, because T units are supposedly less mobile and cant be defending everywhere at once, besides they don't have warp in. Is 300 army push from zerg OP? No because their units are less cost efficient, they are better as an offensive than defensive race, etc. Stop with the bullshit of comparing casters, warp in with queing, and so on and so forth. And if you do it, you should mention all other aspects they affect. Toss doesn't have PF, neither sensor towers, neither siege tanks, neither AA turrets, which are the best defenses IG. Did you forgot to mention that? How op would be terrans with warp in? It's just ridiculous to even be comparing these mechanics 1on1 as if it provided any useful conclusion. | ||
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
An upgrade that allows for the protoss to spawn a unit and have that unit cast a spell that permanently damages a large chunk of your army is to strong defensively in the lategame. If you look at it from the point of view that three templars by themselves, with absolutely no army from the protoss to speak of, can single handedly warp in and demolish the majority of a terran bioball, from the weirdest angles, speaks for itself. Although, just like the guys in sotg said. I wouldn't mind an upgrade that made storm available 5-10 seconds after warpin, or somesuch, so that it'd still be a good upgrade. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On March 04 2011 01:22 Apolo wrote: This never ceases to amaze me. Another one of [Random fact about a protoss mechanic taken out of context to make it seem imbalanced, compeltely disregrarding how each race works differently] Tell me, what sense does it make to compare warp in with barracks queuing? Yes, you wish you had warp in queue. Toss wishes they had nexus that stopped all ground harass, the highest dps unit in game, ability to repair, ability from zerg to go from 100 to 200 in less than a minute. I fail t o understand how analyzing this mechanics and saying they are superior proves in any way how they are imbalanced. Is planetary fortress imbalanced? No, because T units are supposedly less mobile and cant be defending everywhere at once, besides they don't have warp in. Is 300 army push from zerg OP? No because their units are less cost efficient, they are better as an offensive than defensive race, etc. Stop with the bullshit of comparing casters, warp in with queing, and so on and so forth. And if you do it, you should mention all other aspects they affect. Toss doesn't have PF, neither sensor towers, neither siege tanks, neither AA turrets, which are the best defenses IG. Did you forgot to mention that? How op would be terrans with warp in? It's just ridiculous to even be comparing these mechanics 1on1 as if it provided any useful conclusion. Are you really saying you cannot have a conversation about a few mechanics without discussing the dynamics as they cascade throughout the entire scope of gameplay? Come on, man. Of course it would be ideal for everyone to frame their arguments in such a way that flow-charted a cascading effect on balance throughout every possible element of the game, but we do not work for Blizzard. That is what they do. And I tell you something, they do this. And when they dramatically change a game mechanic, or completely remove an element of the game it is because it is breaking the game from the way they want it to be played. • Insta-cast 8 second AoE snare + AoE damage was game-breaking, so they changed it. • 5 second proxy storms on demand were game breaking, so they changed it. • The 7 minute 2rax (or 3rax all-in) stim timing attack was too demanding to hold, hence they felt it broke early game, so they changed it (Why does the 4gate still exist?). | ||
|
rXs
223 Posts
Drops are supposed to do a bit of damage that gradually stacks up and contributes to your victory. One drop shouldn't be game changing, normally. It should just cripple your opponents economy at the price of a few units. And losing mining time/workers is always worse than losing a few marines. And there's always a chance that when you drop Protoss, and he has all his warp gates on cooldown, he's screwed. So if you do drop on our base and we warp-in a templar to storm, you have to remember that (assuming you dropped at the mineral line) you made P pull probes / made P spent 150 gas / you might have actually killed some probes / you might have actually killed a pylon powering a key structure. So P's main goal of getting warp-in storms isn't really to decimate bio armies, that comes in second. The main goal of warp-in storms is to help P survive the coming attacks (ie. kill or be killed). And it's not like you can't dodge storms. | ||
|
yarkO
Canada810 Posts
I think changing it to increase energy regeneration rate for HTs would be a better start. At least they can still be somewhat reactionary, and they will have less 'idle time' before Storm is available. I think part of the problem with removing the upgrade completely is that the Protoss army is really better is a whole than split up. While this is true for all races, a handful of warped in units will easily eat shit before they can stop the drop. Leaving 'a few units' back is a bit of a novel concept for Protoss; those few units won't stop the drop and your weakened main army is more vulnerable. However, I feel like this only really becomes a glaring issue when you have 3 (or more) mining bases to defend. When it's just your main/nat, you can usually spare a few units to stop incoming drops. When you have to spread those units out over 3 or more bases, you suddenly find yourself with no standing army and good drop protection, or less-than-ideal drop protection and a solid death ball. I think it's ignorant to say that you can't afford Cannons, but you have to accept that Cannons don't deter drops the way a Turret does. It's also pretty naive to assume that every Protoss has a Stargate, and then the resources to spend on Phoenix just to stop drops. It's even more absurd that you would assume we have access to that tech while getting HTs (a gas intensive plan). There is no denying that being able to warp-in and storm is extremely potent and powerful. Hell, it's saved my ass on many occasions. I think the change I mentioned earlier in this post would put the HT in a position that Blizzard is trying to find for it: reliable defensively, powerful offensively, but not quite as easy to put into play. Hope that makes sense. | ||
|
Aerakin
185 Posts
On March 04 2011 01:32 TimeSpiral wrote: And when they dramatically change a game mechanic, or completely remove an element of the game it is because it is breaking the game from the way they want it to be played. I just want to note that this isn't always a good for the game. I know you probably aren't implying this (I'd rather not put words in your mouth), but "Blizzard knows best" doesn't turn out to be always true. Sad, but heh, can't do much about that. (of course, I'm still bitter about the removal of the return mineral glitch, so that might influence my opinion on that. Then again, that's another subject altogether) | ||
|
AutobotDan
42 Posts
| ||
| ||
