|
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. |
On March 11 2011 09:11 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 09:03 kcdc wrote:
I don't really care to argue with you because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about, but for anyone else reading this, I'll explain.
Zealots are good against tanks in the open at low food counts where they can get in quickly and the splash doesn't matter much. At larger food battles, zealots clump and take massive front-loaded damage before they ever get in range. A smart Terran also uses terrain and places buildings, marines and/or hellions as a buffer to further slow the zealots' approach. So yes, in a unit tester where you pit 12 zealots against 4 tanks, it's going to look like zealots are good against tanks. But in a game, Terran positions his first tanks well and uses buildings and bunkers to defend until his tank count reaches a critical mass where they crush zealots for cost.
Thors are a similar story. Zealots are good against them in small numbers on an open field, but when you have a lot of thors, there's not enough surface area for the zealots to do damage, and the massive HP pool of the thors takes forever to grind down. If you go for zealots against a big thor ball, you lose hands down.
FWIW, I'm Top 200 on NA ladder and have played this out countless times. I'm not pro-level, but I have a pretty solid understanding of the game. I'm pretty sure your situation is exactly how the Squirtle/MVP game went. Like with any other matchup where you sacrifice low tech units to kill off the stronger units that are harder to replenish, you will end up losing battles, but chargelots are insanely effective against all the mech that terran has. Smart placement of tanks does a lot yes, but so does pre-spreading your units out and preventing them from balling up until the engagement. Mech is strong if you reach the 200/200 deathball, but a protoss on 5base with 10-15+ gateways will be able to replenish his units in a ratio that's way faster than you can replenish yours. He will wear you down to the point where your tanks and thors become a lot less effective. Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 09:07 Hierarch wrote:
I understand your stances on mech and biomech, but do you agree that KA should be taken out because players don't want to transition out of pure MMM?
Even unupgraded tanks do a good amount of damage in siege mode, and the way you'd use them means they really wouldn't need armor upgrades so it would be more like starting halfway over on upgrades, which you can preemptively start earlier in the matchup since the armory usually isn't doing anything anyway. Those upgrades eat up a lot of gas and minerals, the problem isn't that the armory is idle or anything like that. My stance on KA is that it shouldn't be removed, but have its energy boost lowered. My problem with it is in the absolute endgame where you can afford to constantly warp in HTs and wear down armies using nothing but storms from weird angles and positions. Also, even though I mention biomech. Pure bio still has advantages over it, mainly due to the mobility. I don't see why one should be forced to tech out of it if that is the playstyle of choice. I don't care if I die to 3x storms in a big army battle. The problem is dying to 3x instastorms from nowhere after winning a massive battle.
3 storms + gateways units in a battle doesn't even work for toss though, as evidenced in the San sC series, Marauders are quite resilient with enough medivac support and stalker/zealot just can't stand up to that.
Also as long as you're on even bases as the protoss you have the same gas budget, 150 gas per HT is a ton of gas, +1 or +2 vehicle upgrades honestly isn't that bad considering the returns, and since the protoss' strategy is to just weather each storm (pun intended) and win the war of attrition it seems quite realistic that terran will have ample time to make a transition and incorporate some different units. Or even if terran wants to keep mobility blue flame hellions would also be a great choice. It just seems that another unit needs to be incorporated in the MMM ball to beat this strategy.
|
Very good read, I agree with most of your logic, but, it seems you have forgotten there is more to balance than just casters.
|
On March 11 2011 08:24 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 07:47 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:
The matches between San and SC proved to me that KA needs to stay in the game as it is currently is or only very slightly nerfed. Assuming that these players are at equal skill level, here's how the games would've played out with and without amulet:
With amulet -- The match goes 3-1 in favor of protoss with hard fought, very long games emphasizing extreme macro and micro play. Although T is able to continually able to maintain a superior army on fewer bases than P, he can never make a killing blow because warp in storms save P by the skin of his teeth.
Without amulet -- The match goes 3-0 in favor of terran, with protoss holding on until T eventually is able to have enough marauders off 2-3 bases to weather the storms that are present, destroy Ps standing army, and have enough marauders to begin pushing the main. P can hold on, but stands no chance against T lategame.
In every single game of that match you can identify the point that P would've lost without amulet. What this means, ironically, is that HT is NOT STABLE AGAINST BIO without KA. To win, San would've had to switch very early in the game to robo. If this is where we want PvT to be at, then a KA nerf is a good idea. Otherwise, I think this match provided very strong evidence that warp in storms are basically necessary for HT to be a viable tech in PvT. Doesn't the bolded line sound a bit stupid to you? Do you really feel 1-2 units should be able to basically win a lost game? I'd rather take a KA nerf aswell as a terran nerf than have the MU revolve around terran winning the battles but consistently loosing the whole army due to 1-2 units. But yeah, still think removing KA is wrong, just nerf it down to +10-20(basically just so the terran can actually respond to the warped-in ht before getting slaughtered).
You think Protoss being on more bases than the Terran means it was a lost game?
On March 11 2011 09:05 Victim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 07:15 Fanatic-Templar wrote:
SC won with pure bio against a Protoss with warp-in Templar and more active bases. One would have expected San to win even in normal circumstances, and yet you're claiming it was imbalanced in his favour? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Looking at things differently, San loses most of the large army battles and while his harass does damage, it doesn't really pin the terran army down - and then still ends up with more bases. Why can he take so many expansions and hold on them reasonably well despite losing the battles? It's not a dominant army providing map control. It's not really fast or mobile forces outmaneuvering a slow army to enable mass expansion - especially since SC seemed to more absorb harassment losses for better or worse instead of getting pulled back. What exactly was enabling San's mass expansions in pretty much all of the games if not amulet?
What you say is correct, however, it is also the point I'm making. All the gas income from those extra bases went into keeping them alive. With varying success. The only thing San's ridiculous gas income that game allowed him to do was survive, and the moment his gas ran out, he collapsed. So where's the imbalance? It's nice that being multiple bases ahead of SC allowed him to survive, but one would generally expect this kind of advantage to lead to an advantage, not survival. Does Khaydarin Amulet's 'imbalance' mean that the Protoss needs to be harvesting from half a dozen more geysers than the Terran just to break even? That doesn't sound like imbalance to me.
|
On March 11 2011 09:26 Hierarch wrote:3 storms + gateways units in a battle doesn't even work for toss though, as evidenced in the San sC series, Marauders are quite resilient with enough medivac support and stalker/zealot just can't stand up to that.
Also as long as you're on even bases as the protoss you have the same gas budget, 150 gas per HT is a ton of gas, +1 or +2 vehicle upgrades honestly isn't that bad considering the returns, and since the protoss' strategy is to just weather each storm (pun intended) and win the war of attrition it seems quite realistic that terran will have ample time to make a transition and incorporate some different units. Or even if terran wants to keep mobility blue flame hellions would also be a great choice. It just seems that another unit needs to be incorporated in the MMM ball to beat this strategy.
If we're talking about Sans play I'd actually say that marauders and medivacs is just about the best way you can go about it, but you have to do it better. I don't see the point in getting tanks and slow pushing against templar/DT/Warp prism play. Blueflame hellions might be good in a matchup like that tho.
A mech(tank mainly) transition is reserved for the colossi heavy zealot/stalker/sentry based armies with a sprinkling of thors if he gets phoenixes.
|
On March 11 2011 08:14 Toadvine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 08:01 Kazang wrote:
Yes you could spend 250 extra minerals and 50 extra gas on unit that takes 75 seconds to build, then has to walk to the battlefield.
OR You could warp in a unit anywhere you have a power field, that takes 45 seconds to build then have enough energy to storm for 250 less minerals and 50 less gas.
Hmm I can definitely see why no one would ever use the second one, it seems totally stupid.
In particular, it can be hit by its counter without ever doing anything. Also, one could make the argument that the more expensive, beefier unit does damage much more consistently, doesn't do friendly fire, and synergizes much better with other Protoss units. It also does relatively well versus almost any ground unit, not just large groups of weak infantry; finally, it features rapidly increasing returns, with a very, very potent critical mass. But why would one take note of all this, when there is an argumentative axe to be ground?
Why would anyone bother to read or understand the context of a post they reply to when they have an argumentative axe to grind?
My post was illustrating the logical fallacy of the post I quoted, HT will continue to be used even without KA, for all the reasons in my post and more.
You also seem to be under the impression HT warp in with zero energy, or that feedback costs 75, neither of which is true.
The HT's "counter", the Ghost, is also "countered" by a HT. Feedback costs 50 energy, the starting energy of a HT, so a HT is quite capable of defending itself from a Ghost.
Not that that is even a relevant argument as neither unit is supposed to work in isolation.
But if you still want continue with that flawed line of thinking, consider how a Colossus can defend itself from it's "counter", the Viking, Voidray or Corruptor?
Your other points also seem odd, as I didn't suggest that Colossus has no advantages to make it's cost in time and resources worthwhile, merely that it is vastly more expensive and takes a longer time to build.
Considering that the major gripe with this change is that HT will effectively have a build time before they become fully potent, contrasting the build time with it's alternative makes it still look very good.
Also the complaint that a HT can be effectively attacked "while building" is not really a valid argument, as really it's not as if keeping a unit alive for 45 seconds is somehow difficult.
Say for example you just warp the HT in next to the Warpgate, unless there are units in your base killing your gates it's going to be able to survive for 45 seconds, and if there are units killing the gates, being inside one isn't going to help very much. In the middle of the deathball is also usually a good place, if the entire army cannot defend the HT for 45 seconds then there is something else very wrong.
Both units have their strengths and weaknesses, saying that the HT will never be used is at best naive, at worst moronic.
For the record I don't feel either way about the change. But I haven't seen a single sound argument for KA in it's current form, other than just because Protoss players feel they need the (mathematically unbalanced) advantage, which is just a subjective opinion and not truly an argument.
|
On March 11 2011 09:33 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 09:26 Hierarch wrote:3 storms + gateways units in a battle doesn't even work for toss though, as evidenced in the San sC series, Marauders are quite resilient with enough medivac support and stalker/zealot just can't stand up to that.
Also as long as you're on even bases as the protoss you have the same gas budget, 150 gas per HT is a ton of gas, +1 or +2 vehicle upgrades honestly isn't that bad considering the returns, and since the protoss' strategy is to just weather each storm (pun intended) and win the war of attrition it seems quite realistic that terran will have ample time to make a transition and incorporate some different units. Or even if terran wants to keep mobility blue flame hellions would also be a great choice. It just seems that another unit needs to be incorporated in the MMM ball to beat this strategy.
If we're talking about Sans play I'd actually say that marauders and medivacs is just about the best way you can go about it, but you have to do it better. I don't see the point in getting tanks and slow pushing against templar/DT/Warp prism play. Blueflame hellions might be good in a matchup like that tho. A mech(tank mainly) transition is reserved for the colossi heavy zealot/stalker/sentry based armies with a sprinkling of thors if he gets phoenixes.
I could understand that then, but I feel relying so heavily on storm, zealot is a tightrope strategy for the protoss because one misstep and you lose the battle quite quickly and Marauders destroy buildings so quickly that they can punish even the smallest of mistakes. But enough on this discussion, it seems that we are more in agreement on most things :D
I do think blue flame hellions would have won those games for sC, it's a shame that after 3 games of san doing practically the same build that sC didn't adapt or show any signs that he wanted to try something else, since as evidenced in his prior games his MMM strategy wasn't working as efficiently as it could have been.
|
On March 11 2011 09:33 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 09:26 Hierarch wrote:3 storms + gateways units in a battle doesn't even work for toss though, as evidenced in the San sC series, Marauders are quite resilient with enough medivac support and stalker/zealot just can't stand up to that.
Also as long as you're on even bases as the protoss you have the same gas budget, 150 gas per HT is a ton of gas, +1 or +2 vehicle upgrades honestly isn't that bad considering the returns, and since the protoss' strategy is to just weather each storm (pun intended) and win the war of attrition it seems quite realistic that terran will have ample time to make a transition and incorporate some different units. Or even if terran wants to keep mobility blue flame hellions would also be a great choice. It just seems that another unit needs to be incorporated in the MMM ball to beat this strategy.
If we're talking about Sans play I'd actually say that marauders and medivacs is just about the best way you can go about it, but you have to do it better. I don't see the point in getting tanks and slow pushing against templar/DT/Warp prism play. Blueflame hellions might be good in a matchup like that tho. A mech(tank mainly) transition is reserved for the colossi heavy zealot/stalker/sentry based armies with a sprinkling of thors if he gets phoenixes.
tanks would be much more effective against san's composition than a colossi heavy zealot/stalker/sentry based army
and I thought it was pretty obvious..
|
IMHO the Khaydarin amulet is way too strong, the storm is already way too good imho...
you run with like 3/4 bases and basically all you need to do is "warp-in" storms... and everything melts away...
I think removing it is the right choice. If it was for me I would also nerf storm a little bit
|
On March 11 2011 09:39 ShyRamen wrote:
IMHO the Khaydarin amulet is way too strong, the storm is already way too good imho...
you run with like 3/4 bases and basically all you need to do is "warp-in" storms... and everything melts away...
I think removing it is the right choice. If it was for me I would also nerf storm a little bit
wow nice trolling lol
if anything u shud watch scfOu vs Sanzenith from yesterday's GSL
|
On March 11 2011 09:11 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 09:03 kcdc wrote:
I don't really care to argue with you because it's clear that you don't know what you're talking about, but for anyone else reading this, I'll explain.
Zealots are good against tanks in the open at low food counts where they can get in quickly and the splash doesn't matter much. At larger food battles, zealots clump and take massive front-loaded damage before they ever get in range. A smart Terran also uses terrain and places buildings, marines and/or hellions as a buffer to further slow the zealots' approach. So yes, in a unit tester where you pit 12 zealots against 4 tanks, it's going to look like zealots are good against tanks. But in a game, Terran positions his first tanks well and uses buildings and bunkers to defend until his tank count reaches a critical mass where they crush zealots for cost.
Thors are a similar story. Zealots are good against them in small numbers on an open field, but when you have a lot of thors, there's not enough surface area for the zealots to do damage, and the massive HP pool of the thors takes forever to grind down. If you go for zealots against a big thor ball, you lose hands down.
FWIW, I'm Top 200 on NA ladder and have played this out countless times. I'm not pro-level, but I have a pretty solid understanding of the game. I'm pretty sure your situation is exactly how the Squirtle/MVP game went. Like with any other matchup where you sacrifice low tech units to kill off the stronger units that are harder to replenish, you will end up losing battles, but chargelots are insanely effective against all the mech that terran has. Smart placement of tanks does a lot yes, but so does pre-spreading your units out and preventing them from balling up until the engagement. Mech is strong if you reach the 200/200 deathball, but a protoss on 5base with 10-15+ gateways will be able to replenish his units in a ratio that's way faster than you can replenish yours. He will wear you down to the point where your tanks and thors become a lot less effective.
If I'm thinking of the same game you are, that was a close back and forth game that involved a hell of a lot more tech than chargelots vs tanks. If you want to say Protoss has ways of dealing with tanks (tech air, mass immortal, abuse T's immobility to try to stay a base ahead), that's fine, but your initial statement that Protoss T1 crushes tanks and thors was untrue. P can be on 5 bases vs 3, but if he sits on zealots against maxed tanks (with support to deal with harass), P will lose.
|
On March 11 2011 09:39 Fayth wrote:
tanks would be much more effective against san's composition than a colossi heavy zealot/stalker/sentry based army
and I thought it was pretty obvious..
My point is that tanks are overkill with compositions like that, because SCs army melts Sans army to begin with, so why gimp your mobility just to get another attacking unit when you can just get ghosts and hope to or be good enough to land proper EMPs.
Tanks on the other hand are more helpful against colossi and gateway heavy comps because they're usually clumped up in a ball with force fields in play.
|
HT's are like protoss marauders.
|
On March 11 2011 09:43 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 09:39 Fayth wrote:
tanks would be much more effective against san's composition than a colossi heavy zealot/stalker/sentry based army
and I thought it was pretty obvious.. My point is that tanks are overkill with compositions like that, because SCs army melts Sans army to begin with, so why gimp your mobility just to get another attacking unit when you can just get ghosts and hope to or be good enough to land proper EMPs. Tanks on the other hand are more helpful against colossi and gateway heavy comps because they're usually clumped up in a ball with force fields in play.
just so u make it much easier to deal with harass by sieging properly and taking ur half of the map, like he should have done, but we've seen more than enough that scfou doesnt know how to play late game, he always stops SCVs at like ~45 off 2 base and he's all in off that, if somehow he hasnt won the game he takes a 3rd when his main is depleted
really on shakura he could have just sieged middle, take all expos, go BC or w/e like drewbie does and P would have been forced to tech switch
|
On March 11 2011 09:47 Zidane wrote:
HT's are like protoss marauders.
Except for the fact that they're half as fast, half as durable, are used like a cheap date (one and done) and can't damage buildings at all. Oh and they cost 125 more gas and can't be built from the 1st rax/gateway. But ya they're like protoss marauders for sure!
Not trying to be mean, but they are completely different from marauders it isn't even funny they have a completely different role.
|
On March 11 2011 09:42 kcdc wrote:
If I'm thinking of the same game you are, that was a close back and forth game that involved a hell of a lot more tech than chargelots vs tanks. If you want to say Protoss has ways of dealing with tanks (tech air, mass immortal, abuse T's immobility to try to stay a base ahead), that's fine, but your initial statement that Protoss T1 crushes tanks and thors was untrue. P can be on 5 bases vs 3, but if he sits on zealots against maxed tanks (with support to deal with harass), P will lose.
It was an interesting game, that's for sure. I don't think it was ever close tho.
MVP did exactly what you were referencing, turtle up and build up a 3/3 200/200 army and only use mules to mine minerals and have SCVs on gas only.
Literally what you said.
Obviously protoss didn't use chargelots only. I might exaggerate a bit, but I think it's fairly obvious that other units are in play as well. The brunt of his army was chargelots tho, with a couple of immortals and blink stalkers out, and eventually a mothership  I think there were a couple of HTs but they were largely insignificant.
And the battles went pretty much like you and I both stated. The mech was in high enough of a number that they were doing well against Protoss T1, but Squirtle kept killing off a couple of tanks and thors every single engagement even though he might have lost more in the actual battle, and he had an a lot easier time to replenish his army, and eventually the mech army of MVP just stopped being as effective because the tank count dropped. Even if you have 10+ tanks, chargelots remain insanely good against them, and the same applies to thors, thus, Protoss T1 rapes mech.
Also, If the protoss actually goes 5 base vs 3 and he has a high gateway count, he could throw chargelots into the tanks and support and wear them down. Even if he kills 3-4 tanks out of 20, the next will be 5-6 out of 16, and so forth. It's just a matter of how easy it is to replenish your army.
|
On March 11 2011 09:41 Fayth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2011 09:39 ShyRamen wrote:
IMHO the Khaydarin amulet is way too strong, the storm is already way too good imho...
you run with like 3/4 bases and basically all you need to do is "warp-in" storms... and everything melts away...
I think removing it is the right choice. If it was for me I would also nerf storm a little bit wow nice trolling lol if anything u shud watch scfOu vs Sanzenith from yesterday's GSL
I am not trolling at all..
I am in Master's 3600 and I have the hardest time ever against P
Late game is unbelievably hard to deal with the constant storms they can literally warp-in...
During battles, on the mineral lines etc.
I don't want to start any flame war but I do also believe that using templars is way easier than using ghosts, or at least that's how I feel about it.
I actually have a much EASIER time playing P in masters.. I literally destroy every single zerg opponent with almost no effort and it takes me even WAY less effort (compared to when I play T) crushing a terran opponent.
When I play T (which is my main race and the one I love to play) I have to focus and multi-task way more than when I am playing P in master's league.
You may not agree with me and I respect that but don't call me a troll because I REALLY hate the current state of P late game 
p.s. I did watch san vs sc so what ?
|
They're nerfing ghosts btw, EMP only removes 100 energy in the most recent PTR.
|
your results have very little relevence with how the game should be balanced, you're just being super biased there, which makes any kind of balance discussion with you pointless
|
On March 11 2011 09:52 manicshock wrote:
They're nerfing ghosts btw, EMP only removes 100 energy in the most recent PTR.
Mainly affects sentry play, and might force you to get more than one ghost if you want to do the 3rax ghost push of one base EMPing a teching protoss sentries and rushing his base.
Also, I have a feeling that it could be for the new and improved infestors. Ghosts might end up being important for ZvT after the Infestor changes.
|
On March 11 2011 09:53 Fayth wrote:
your results have very little relevence with how the game should be balanced, you're just being super biased there, which makes any kind of balance discussion with you pointless
I think any high level Z or T agrees that P late game is way too strong.
Even in recent interviews (like the ones Artosis released) many players say that these big maps and these intense macro game favor protoss. They ain't as explicit as me or other people but it's pretty undeniable that P late game is imba.
I feel sorry for the Z players out there, they should be the ones complaining the most because playings vs P is absolutely ridiculous and broken
But sure, I am biased.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
