|
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. |
The problem isn't the amulet, the problem is the warp in mechanic. Having a reverse production cycle gives the impression of getting units whenever you want them, which isn't strictly true. Zerg players could just as easily produce Infestors in good time at a specific Hatchery which will need defending and get an effectively instant Fungal Growth.
|
On March 12 2011 10:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
[I find it funny everyone is saying "transition to something else, you can't stay tier 1 all game." Starport is technically tier 3. Terrans already use medivacs and vikings, ravens aren't super uncommon and it's not like they add any extra damage output to the army. Terrans aren't "staying on tier 1" but are rather "not using the factory units siege tanks/hellions/Thors," while getting nearly every other unit in their arsenal, lol.
well Thors certainly are underused and undervalued, Artosis qualifier come into my mind.
The Tier argument doesn't work either, cause they are just fanmade systems.
In the end a Terran has already at ~ 10mins most of his techbuildings down and can build all type of stuff.
Techswitch due to addon swapping is easily done.
Protoss can nowhere near come close to that, for everything that doesn't come out of Gateways Protoss has the same problem, teching is always a risk obviously. But Protoss has to take them, to even have a chance. Terrans are fine most of the time with Bio, that's why they feel it is way more harder to transition into something else.
(Same for Zerg, whose T3 is the most timeconsuming (though their techswitches are easier due to production capacity))
No one expects a Bio Play to transition into full mech, but even just getting some Tanks/Thors can almost nullify HTs due to their extended range.
And if you are playing more Mech oriented lategame your aren't even in the need to harass in the end.
Cause Terran has superior defense (&Macro) mechanics and a Mech Deathball is even stronger than a Protoss Deathball.
|
[QUOTE]On March 12 2011 08:14 JackDragon wrote:
[QUOTE]On March 12 2011 07:45 Xecutor wrote:
[quote]
- Increase the energy recharge rate for HT only by a factor of about 1.7x or 1.8x
[/QUOTE]
That's not ONLY, thats rather huge.
I'm personaly not sure about removing KA but I can say that it does not make it impossible to play, just a bit more focus on the HT and plan ahead. However it does hurt if Terran get some good emps. Becuase if you go HT you will lose of he get all your HTs, no question. So honestly with the change on EMP to only remove 100 energy might actually make it very ballanced.
On the note that removing KA makes all casters on same footing I would dissagree. Since the infestor can burrow and moves fairly fast(2.5 of creep) and the ghost can cloak and moves at a normal speed (2.5), while the HT is dead if he moves out alone since he don't have stealth and is slow as a building.
[/QUOTE]
Also all other casters have a KA equivilent, seems slightly unfair to just remove it for the HT, sure you can warp in at the battle and storm, but without it its pointless to warp in ht's during battle.
say all your ht's get emp'd warping in more at the battle will do absolutely nothing for you and they are so slow any you have warped in at your base to save up energy will never make it up to the battle in time. If they increased the speed of ht's maybe they could justify removing KA even then though its unlikely they will make it to the battle in time. Warp ins are just a macro mechanic for protoss, just like terran have reactors and mules and zerg has larva inject i dont think its fair to punish protoss for their unique macro mechanic wich in my opinion is less effective then the other races besides the fact that you can have units where you need them zerg and terran units are reasonably fast (especially zerg on creep) so rallying units to the rest of your army isnt as big of a deal.
|
On March 12 2011 10:32 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 10:28 XLTomato wrote:On March 12 2011 10:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:37 v3chr0 wrote:On March 12 2011 09:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:16 learning wrote:On March 12 2011 09:08 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 08:52 Aequos wrote:On March 12 2011 08:41 GiantEnemyCrab wrote:
for the people that love comparing ghost to HT so much.ghost
- cost more 150/150
- take 45 seconds to make
- EMP is a projectile and doesnt KILL and currently mainly used specifically in TvP
- ghost are hard to remake once they are dead, if you do make em you have to stop some MM production meaning smaller army
unlike HT, if you miss ur EMP you screwed
So after this patch you just cant panic spam Ht to defend youself, you need to use ur HT like you sentries and keep em safe. and people saying how HT tech is dead... dude all you have to do is wait like ~18 seconds for a storm to be rdy. lastly sentries + Colosis + HT = death to terran This isn't really a fair analysis. If I wanted to pick and choose points to support the Ghost over the High Templar, I'd do something like: - Available just after Barracks - Able to Cloak - Has a standard attack - Runs at standard speed - Doesn't require more than 2 or 3 to hit an entire army with their AoE. However, that isn't really an argument. They're different units. They don't even serve close to the same purpose. Perhaps you should take the same advice Terran players seem to want to give Protoss - If you're worried about losing all your Ghosts, why don't you just keep 1 or 2 sitting around your base, gathering energy so that you always have some available? I mean, Ghosts are even more survivable than HT, so logically, you can just sit them back and protect them (or even put them in a bunker to let them build their energy). Available just at rax? What? How is that different than HT available to be warped in at warpgate? Comparing the two, it's a disadvantage if anything, lol. You don't really need more than 2 or 3 storms to hit an entire army either with storm AOE :o he is saying you can make the ghost academy right after barracks, so you have a shorter tech route than HT requires (gate>core>tc>archives). Also, in reference to "hit an entire army" Protoss is known for 'deathball' whereas terran armies tend to spread out quite a bit, especially when you start staggering tanks for tank-lines. So its more common for Protoss units to be in a bunched ball than Terran ones, at least in the late-midgame. Also, along with the above point, EMP damage is not DoT like storm, its a flat dmg to shields and instant AOE energy drain. I don't even think comparing the casters for each race is a viable method to discerning any balance of the HT's upgrade by itself, so the whole comparison of the two casters is kind of pointless. Oh. I see. Although the entire deathball thing is nonsense. Show me an engagement where the toss army stays in a ball and the Terran army doesn't? And there is no reason to have staggered tank lines in TvP, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. lol at even getting tanks in the first place, they're just watered down colossus that can't be hit by air :S. Seiged Tanks are watered down Collosus? Lol, yea right. Seige Tanks are more, if not equally as efficient as Collosus, and much easier to mass. Seige Tanks work out great vs. any ground units. You must be pretty bad if you think Seige Tanks suck in TvP, and you're one of the people who are probably always outplayed by Protoss while you just mass marines and medivacs. The game is too new to say anything but the obvious is bad vs. something, especially saying Seiged Tanks don't work in TvP when they have already been used effectively, is probably the saddest and most vague display of your horrible knowlege on SC and SC2. Thanks for your blatant disregarding of Chill's little banner up top. Concerning my suckage, may I ask how many times you've been in the top 200 of your server? Or quite simply, what's your rank? Colossus have, I believe, the same range as siege tanks, with a higher damage output against light units, and a much faster firing rate. They are a million times more mobile than siege tanks, and even more so, mobile while moving. Yes, I think siege tanks are a very poor investment in TvP, after countless games of using them. Please enlighten me how you'd use them effectively on maps such as Metalopolis. Certain maps you can't even use them, other maps if you're going to use them you HAVE to successfully set up a contain - if you fail at that - you lose, quite simply. But no no, just assume I'm some random Terran player that "just masses marines and medivacs." Even more amusing is how you've apparently ascertained from that post my BW knowledge. Collosus have 6 range and 9 when upgraded. Tanks have 7 range and 13 in siege mode. I meant "almost the same," but I actually thought Colossus had 9 range and Siege tanks in siege mode at 11, not 13. I don't know why I thought it was 2 less than they are. My bad. Is it their vision that's 11, not the range?
My blatant disregard for Chills banner? I've been posting in this thread for a while, arguing the same points over and over because people just want to post whats on their mind asap. I never said you suck, I said your bad, and your SC2 knowledge sucks. Collosus don't do extra damage to light units either, and do less damage than Seige Tanks, where are you getting your information? Collosus can shoot 9yds w/TL and see 10. Tanks can shoot 13 and see 11. Collo can be hit by both air and ground, I think that makes up for their mobility that they have over seiged tanks, which can in fact - unseige... wow! And Air units are as mobile as anything can be - so your argument that Seiged Tank > Collosus is never going to work out - it's not true, and will likely never be. Seige Tanks will always be extremely efficient vs. ground Units. Like every other unit, you have to know how and when to use them. Seige Tanks are almost as staple as marauders, if you have bio to protect them, their efficiency goes up nearly 2 fold and they are masters of controlling the battlefield. Any engagement against seige tanks is usually not a wise choice unless you have units that are made to defeat them.
Tanks are great, and until this game isn't actually new, and majority of the pro players (not you or me) say that they are useless in TvP, I'll start to reconsider.
|
On March 12 2011 09:46 titan55 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 09:39 freetgy wrote:On March 12 2011 09:34 titan55 wrote:
Please watch SanZenith vs. ScFoU.. Definitely shows how strong KA is and how ridiculous it is when the bio ball attacks in to a smaller army and 12 HT's warp and the Bio ball is half dead.. and what the point in still attacking there with bio if Warp-In Storms is OP? Why should Pro Gamers do such a "mistake" if they didn't think they will win. that is not gold level play up there... just because a HT is a small unit doesn't mean it is weak by any means of course a AoE Spell Caster will deal alot of damage to units with low heal. No Terran would do such a reckless thing against Infestors, why do they still do it to Protoss? then what do u expect the Terran to do? not attack and back off? remember tech switching for Terran is impossible as we have to upgrade EITHER bio OR mech. If we go bio for 20 minutes, we can't just say fuck it lets go to mech now and expect to win. It's not like drop works either cuz just a couple of warp HT's can really render the drops ineffective.. What else can a Terran dO?? Don't say bring more ghosts as ScFOu brought a TON of ghosts but just the waves of warp in overpowered the ghost's speed to reinforce.. they need to walk to the battle vs getting warped in.
For the san vs SC games i see how you can look at it that way, but san outplayed SC in most of those games (was up bases made less mistakes) and he barely won using HT tech with KA without KA san would have defenetly lost most of those games and most likely the series (had he still tried to use HT tech wich i doubt he would have)
So on one hand with KA it may seem slightly overpowered (if even as Sanzenith was defenetly the better player of the two in that series) without it sanzenith should he have chosen HT tech and outplayed his opponent like he did probably still would have lost, SC got off soooo many good emp's 90% of those storms would have never happened had it not been for KA, should protoss just not be allowed to storm if a terran player is half decent at laying down emp's (wich less face it is easier than laying down storms as it is instant and cant be dodged) i agree that maybe KA should be tweaked , with either a 5-10 second cooldown on the storm ability when i high templar is warped in or they start with around 70 energy instead of 75 with KA either one would fix the problem of instant storms and not completly destroy a tech path for protoss.
|
On March 12 2011 11:18 v3chr0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 10:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 10:28 XLTomato wrote:On March 12 2011 10:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:37 v3chr0 wrote:On March 12 2011 09:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:16 learning wrote:On March 12 2011 09:08 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 08:52 Aequos wrote:On March 12 2011 08:41 GiantEnemyCrab wrote:
for the people that love comparing ghost to HT so much.ghost
- cost more 150/150
- take 45 seconds to make
- EMP is a projectile and doesnt KILL and currently mainly used specifically in TvP
- ghost are hard to remake once they are dead, if you do make em you have to stop some MM production meaning smaller army
unlike HT, if you miss ur EMP you screwed
So after this patch you just cant panic spam Ht to defend youself, you need to use ur HT like you sentries and keep em safe. and people saying how HT tech is dead... dude all you have to do is wait like ~18 seconds for a storm to be rdy. lastly sentries + Colosis + HT = death to terran This isn't really a fair analysis. If I wanted to pick and choose points to support the Ghost over the High Templar, I'd do something like: - Available just after Barracks - Able to Cloak - Has a standard attack - Runs at standard speed - Doesn't require more than 2 or 3 to hit an entire army with their AoE. However, that isn't really an argument. They're different units. They don't even serve close to the same purpose. Perhaps you should take the same advice Terran players seem to want to give Protoss - If you're worried about losing all your Ghosts, why don't you just keep 1 or 2 sitting around your base, gathering energy so that you always have some available? I mean, Ghosts are even more survivable than HT, so logically, you can just sit them back and protect them (or even put them in a bunker to let them build their energy). Available just at rax? What? How is that different than HT available to be warped in at warpgate? Comparing the two, it's a disadvantage if anything, lol. You don't really need more than 2 or 3 storms to hit an entire army either with storm AOE :o he is saying you can make the ghost academy right after barracks, so you have a shorter tech route than HT requires (gate>core>tc>archives). Also, in reference to "hit an entire army" Protoss is known for 'deathball' whereas terran armies tend to spread out quite a bit, especially when you start staggering tanks for tank-lines. So its more common for Protoss units to be in a bunched ball than Terran ones, at least in the late-midgame. Also, along with the above point, EMP damage is not DoT like storm, its a flat dmg to shields and instant AOE energy drain. I don't even think comparing the casters for each race is a viable method to discerning any balance of the HT's upgrade by itself, so the whole comparison of the two casters is kind of pointless. Oh. I see. Although the entire deathball thing is nonsense. Show me an engagement where the toss army stays in a ball and the Terran army doesn't? And there is no reason to have staggered tank lines in TvP, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. lol at even getting tanks in the first place, they're just watered down colossus that can't be hit by air :S. Seiged Tanks are watered down Collosus? Lol, yea right. Seige Tanks are more, if not equally as efficient as Collosus, and much easier to mass. Seige Tanks work out great vs. any ground units. You must be pretty bad if you think Seige Tanks suck in TvP, and you're one of the people who are probably always outplayed by Protoss while you just mass marines and medivacs. The game is too new to say anything but the obvious is bad vs. something, especially saying Seiged Tanks don't work in TvP when they have already been used effectively, is probably the saddest and most vague display of your horrible knowlege on SC and SC2. Thanks for your blatant disregarding of Chill's little banner up top. Concerning my suckage, may I ask how many times you've been in the top 200 of your server? Or quite simply, what's your rank? Colossus have, I believe, the same range as siege tanks, with a higher damage output against light units, and a much faster firing rate. They are a million times more mobile than siege tanks, and even more so, mobile while moving. Yes, I think siege tanks are a very poor investment in TvP, after countless games of using them. Please enlighten me how you'd use them effectively on maps such as Metalopolis. Certain maps you can't even use them, other maps if you're going to use them you HAVE to successfully set up a contain - if you fail at that - you lose, quite simply. But no no, just assume I'm some random Terran player that "just masses marines and medivacs." Even more amusing is how you've apparently ascertained from that post my BW knowledge. Collosus have 6 range and 9 when upgraded. Tanks have 7 range and 13 in siege mode. I meant "almost the same," but I actually thought Colossus had 9 range and Siege tanks in siege mode at 11, not 13. I don't know why I thought it was 2 less than they are. My bad. Is it their vision that's 11, not the range? My blatant disregard for Chills banner? I've been posting in this thread for a while, arguing the same points over and over because people just want to post whats on their mind asap. I never said you suck, I said your bad, and your SC2 knowledge sucks. Collosus don't do extra damage to light units either, and do less damage than Seige Tanks, where are you getting your information? Collosus can shoot 9yds w/TL and see 10. Tanks can shoot 13 and see 11. Collo can be hit by both air and ground, I think that makes up for their mobility that they have over seiged tanks, which can in fact - unseige... wow! And Air units are as mobile as anything can be - so your argument that Seiged Tank > Collosus is never going to work out - it's not true, and will likely never be. Seige Tanks will always be extremely efficient vs. ground Units. Like every other unit, you have to know how and when to use them. Seige Tanks are almost as staple as marauders, if you have bio to protect them, their efficiency goes up nearly 2 fold and they are masters of controlling the battlefield. Any engagement against seige tanks is usually not a wise choice unless you have units that are made to defeat them. Tanks are great, and until this game isn't actually new, and majority of the pro players (not you or me) say that they are useless in TvP, I'll start to reconsider.
Suck =/= bad. It's beyond me how you can't comprehend this. I never said Colossus do extra damage to light units. Siege tanks suck vs light units, Colossus are good vs them, was clearly the point. I admitted I was wrong about the range. I thought it wasn't as drastic of a difference as it is. I also already addressed they could be attacked by air. I also argued that Siege Tank < Colossus, but whatever. Siege tanks are not extremely efficient vs ground units which is why Siege tanks are not prevalently used vs Protoss. People talk it up as if people are for some reason stubborn to use Siege Tanks because "bio is so effective anyways." Guess what, when MMM wasn't working so great vs Zerg people started building... tanks!
And a majority of the pro players don't even use them. Jinro has already explicitly stated they are highly situational units around late December, I believe.
Either way, my main concern (or annoyance) was your seemingly random flaming attitude saying I sucked (you said I was bad, apparently, and yes those are equivalent). I am curious to hear your ladder rank, however, and see how good you truly are in comparison!
FYI, I play Zerg.
|
On March 12 2011 11:31 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 11:18 v3chr0 wrote:On March 12 2011 10:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 10:28 XLTomato wrote:On March 12 2011 10:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:37 v3chr0 wrote:On March 12 2011 09:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:16 learning wrote:On March 12 2011 09:08 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 08:52 Aequos wrote:
[quote]
This isn't really a fair analysis. If I wanted to pick and choose points to support the Ghost over the High Templar, I'd do something like:
- Available just after Barracks
- Able to Cloak
- Has a standard attack
- Runs at standard speed
- Doesn't require more than 2 or 3 to hit an entire army with their AoE.
However, that isn't really an argument. They're different units. They don't even serve close to the same purpose.
Perhaps you should take the same advice Terran players seem to want to give Protoss - If you're worried about losing all your Ghosts, why don't you just keep 1 or 2 sitting around your base, gathering energy so that you always have some available? I mean, Ghosts are even more survivable than HT, so logically, you can just sit them back and protect them (or even put them in a bunker to let them build their energy).
Available just at rax? What? How is that different than HT available to be warped in at warpgate? Comparing the two, it's a disadvantage if anything, lol. You don't really need more than 2 or 3 storms to hit an entire army either with storm AOE :o he is saying you can make the ghost academy right after barracks, so you have a shorter tech route than HT requires (gate>core>tc>archives). Also, in reference to "hit an entire army" Protoss is known for 'deathball' whereas terran armies tend to spread out quite a bit, especially when you start staggering tanks for tank-lines. So its more common for Protoss units to be in a bunched ball than Terran ones, at least in the late-midgame. Also, along with the above point, EMP damage is not DoT like storm, its a flat dmg to shields and instant AOE energy drain. I don't even think comparing the casters for each race is a viable method to discerning any balance of the HT's upgrade by itself, so the whole comparison of the two casters is kind of pointless. Oh. I see. Although the entire deathball thing is nonsense. Show me an engagement where the toss army stays in a ball and the Terran army doesn't? And there is no reason to have staggered tank lines in TvP, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. lol at even getting tanks in the first place, they're just watered down colossus that can't be hit by air :S. Seiged Tanks are watered down Collosus? Lol, yea right. Seige Tanks are more, if not equally as efficient as Collosus, and much easier to mass. Seige Tanks work out great vs. any ground units. You must be pretty bad if you think Seige Tanks suck in TvP, and you're one of the people who are probably always outplayed by Protoss while you just mass marines and medivacs. The game is too new to say anything but the obvious is bad vs. something, especially saying Seiged Tanks don't work in TvP when they have already been used effectively, is probably the saddest and most vague display of your horrible knowlege on SC and SC2. Thanks for your blatant disregarding of Chill's little banner up top. Concerning my suckage, may I ask how many times you've been in the top 200 of your server? Or quite simply, what's your rank? Colossus have, I believe, the same range as siege tanks, with a higher damage output against light units, and a much faster firing rate. They are a million times more mobile than siege tanks, and even more so, mobile while moving. Yes, I think siege tanks are a very poor investment in TvP, after countless games of using them. Please enlighten me how you'd use them effectively on maps such as Metalopolis. Certain maps you can't even use them, other maps if you're going to use them you HAVE to successfully set up a contain - if you fail at that - you lose, quite simply. But no no, just assume I'm some random Terran player that "just masses marines and medivacs." Even more amusing is how you've apparently ascertained from that post my BW knowledge. Collosus have 6 range and 9 when upgraded. Tanks have 7 range and 13 in siege mode. I meant "almost the same," but I actually thought Colossus had 9 range and Siege tanks in siege mode at 11, not 13. I don't know why I thought it was 2 less than they are. My bad. Is it their vision that's 11, not the range? My blatant disregard for Chills banner? I've been posting in this thread for a while, arguing the same points over and over because people just want to post whats on their mind asap. I never said you suck, I said your bad, and your SC2 knowledge sucks. Collosus don't do extra damage to light units either, and do less damage than Seige Tanks, where are you getting your information? Collosus can shoot 9yds w/TL and see 10. Tanks can shoot 13 and see 11. Collo can be hit by both air and ground, I think that makes up for their mobility that they have over seiged tanks, which can in fact - unseige... wow! And Air units are as mobile as anything can be - so your argument that Seiged Tank > Collosus is never going to work out - it's not true, and will likely never be. Seige Tanks will always be extremely efficient vs. ground Units. Like every other unit, you have to know how and when to use them. Seige Tanks are almost as staple as marauders, if you have bio to protect them, their efficiency goes up nearly 2 fold and they are masters of controlling the battlefield. Any engagement against seige tanks is usually not a wise choice unless you have units that are made to defeat them. Tanks are great, and until this game isn't actually new, and majority of the pro players (not you or me) say that they are useless in TvP, I'll start to reconsider. Suck =/= bad. It's beyond me how you can't comprehend this. I never said Colossus do extra damage to light units. Siege tanks suck vs light units, Colossus are good vs them, was clearly the point. I admitted I was wrong about the range. I thought it wasn't as drastic of a difference as it is. I also already addressed they could be attacked by air. I also argued that Siege Tank < Colossus, but whatever. Siege tanks are not extremely efficient vs ground units which is why Siege tanks are not prevalently used vs Protoss. People talk it up as if people are for some reason stubborn to use Siege Tanks because "bio is so effective anyways." Guess what, when MMM wasn't working so great vs Zerg people started building... tanks! And a majority of the pro players don't even use them. Jinro has already explicitly stated they are highly situational units around late December, I believe. Either way, my main concern (or annoyance) was your seemingly random flaming attitude saying I sucked (you said I was bad, apparently, and yes those are equivalent). I am curious to hear your ladder rank, however, and see how good you truly are in comparison! FYI, I play Zerg.
You said suck isn't equal to bad btw. From what you're saying, it sounds like your game knowledge is... highly flawed. You're saying seige tanks don't have a place a lot of the time, and you admit a lot of pro players don't use them. It reinforces my point that when the pros do decide to use them, people like you, will be enlightened that they aren't such a measly unit, just how when the pros started using them for TvZ many were enlightened, and once again people were enlightened when collosus or atleast robo was figured out to be the most stable/safest tech after gateways.
Khaydarin Amulet with HT's are new in SC2 and as a play style, people don't know what else aside from Ghosts and anything but marines to use. Marauders are a good start as SC has shown, why not tanks? Why not Ravens? Yea they have counters, but so does anything else - it doesn't mean its bad or you shouldn't use it. If pros won't try it out extensively then nobody can really say jack shiz but theorycraft. Which is what it comes down to until they do.
For one, my rank doesn't have to do with anything. If I was someone who played random at the masters level maybe I could support my theories with personal replays, but that isn't the case, and its likely not for 99% of the people posting. Watching is enough to learn about Starcraft 2, TheWind wouldn't be such a good coach if he didn't observe more than he plays. Just to satisfy your curiosity, I'm ranked about 33 Platinum and play Protoss mainly, Terran and Zerg in beta before deciding on toss.
I will give you this... tanks may be a tiny bit worse than Collosus, but that is because they are easier to mass produce and don't need to be as versatile as Collosus, Terran have more options thus their units are efficient at their specialty roles, tanks however function nearly the same as collosus - they punish players for engaging their line of fire. Sorry however if I came off as someone trying to flame you, thats not the case - I've just said this stuff before, so I am a little bit annoyed.
|
On March 12 2011 12:19 v3chr0 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 11:31 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 11:18 v3chr0 wrote:On March 12 2011 10:32 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 10:28 XLTomato wrote:On March 12 2011 10:26 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:37 v3chr0 wrote:On March 12 2011 09:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 09:16 learning wrote:On March 12 2011 09:08 FabledIntegral wrote:
[quote]
Available just at rax? What? How is that different than HT available to be warped in at warpgate? Comparing the two, it's a disadvantage if anything, lol. You don't really need more than 2 or 3 storms to hit an entire army either with storm AOE :o he is saying you can make the ghost academy right after barracks, so you have a shorter tech route than HT requires (gate>core>tc>archives). Also, in reference to "hit an entire army" Protoss is known for 'deathball' whereas terran armies tend to spread out quite a bit, especially when you start staggering tanks for tank-lines. So its more common for Protoss units to be in a bunched ball than Terran ones, at least in the late-midgame. Also, along with the above point, EMP damage is not DoT like storm, its a flat dmg to shields and instant AOE energy drain. I don't even think comparing the casters for each race is a viable method to discerning any balance of the HT's upgrade by itself, so the whole comparison of the two casters is kind of pointless. Oh. I see. Although the entire deathball thing is nonsense. Show me an engagement where the toss army stays in a ball and the Terran army doesn't? And there is no reason to have staggered tank lines in TvP, so I'm not sure where that's coming from. lol at even getting tanks in the first place, they're just watered down colossus that can't be hit by air :S. Seiged Tanks are watered down Collosus? Lol, yea right. Seige Tanks are more, if not equally as efficient as Collosus, and much easier to mass. Seige Tanks work out great vs. any ground units. You must be pretty bad if you think Seige Tanks suck in TvP, and you're one of the people who are probably always outplayed by Protoss while you just mass marines and medivacs. The game is too new to say anything but the obvious is bad vs. something, especially saying Seiged Tanks don't work in TvP when they have already been used effectively, is probably the saddest and most vague display of your horrible knowlege on SC and SC2. Thanks for your blatant disregarding of Chill's little banner up top. Concerning my suckage, may I ask how many times you've been in the top 200 of your server? Or quite simply, what's your rank? Colossus have, I believe, the same range as siege tanks, with a higher damage output against light units, and a much faster firing rate. They are a million times more mobile than siege tanks, and even more so, mobile while moving. Yes, I think siege tanks are a very poor investment in TvP, after countless games of using them. Please enlighten me how you'd use them effectively on maps such as Metalopolis. Certain maps you can't even use them, other maps if you're going to use them you HAVE to successfully set up a contain - if you fail at that - you lose, quite simply. But no no, just assume I'm some random Terran player that "just masses marines and medivacs." Even more amusing is how you've apparently ascertained from that post my BW knowledge. Collosus have 6 range and 9 when upgraded. Tanks have 7 range and 13 in siege mode. I meant "almost the same," but I actually thought Colossus had 9 range and Siege tanks in siege mode at 11, not 13. I don't know why I thought it was 2 less than they are. My bad. Is it their vision that's 11, not the range? My blatant disregard for Chills banner? I've been posting in this thread for a while, arguing the same points over and over because people just want to post whats on their mind asap. I never said you suck, I said your bad, and your SC2 knowledge sucks. Collosus don't do extra damage to light units either, and do less damage than Seige Tanks, where are you getting your information? Collosus can shoot 9yds w/TL and see 10. Tanks can shoot 13 and see 11. Collo can be hit by both air and ground, I think that makes up for their mobility that they have over seiged tanks, which can in fact - unseige... wow! And Air units are as mobile as anything can be - so your argument that Seiged Tank > Collosus is never going to work out - it's not true, and will likely never be. Seige Tanks will always be extremely efficient vs. ground Units. Like every other unit, you have to know how and when to use them. Seige Tanks are almost as staple as marauders, if you have bio to protect them, their efficiency goes up nearly 2 fold and they are masters of controlling the battlefield. Any engagement against seige tanks is usually not a wise choice unless you have units that are made to defeat them. Tanks are great, and until this game isn't actually new, and majority of the pro players (not you or me) say that they are useless in TvP, I'll start to reconsider. Suck =/= bad. It's beyond me how you can't comprehend this. I never said Colossus do extra damage to light units. Siege tanks suck vs light units, Colossus are good vs them, was clearly the point. I admitted I was wrong about the range. I thought it wasn't as drastic of a difference as it is. I also already addressed they could be attacked by air. I also argued that Siege Tank < Colossus, but whatever. Siege tanks are not extremely efficient vs ground units which is why Siege tanks are not prevalently used vs Protoss. People talk it up as if people are for some reason stubborn to use Siege Tanks because "bio is so effective anyways." Guess what, when MMM wasn't working so great vs Zerg people started building... tanks! And a majority of the pro players don't even use them. Jinro has already explicitly stated they are highly situational units around late December, I believe. Either way, my main concern (or annoyance) was your seemingly random flaming attitude saying I sucked (you said I was bad, apparently, and yes those are equivalent). I am curious to hear your ladder rank, however, and see how good you truly are in comparison! FYI, I play Zerg. You said suck isn't equal to bad btw. From what you're saying, it sounds like your game knowledge is... highly flawed. You're saying seige tanks don't have a place a lot of the time, and you admit a lot of pro players don't use them. It reinforces my point that when the pros do decide to use them, people like you, will be enlightened that they aren't such a measly unit, just how when the pros started using them for TvZ many were enlightened, and once again people were enlightened when collosus or atleast robo was figured out to be the most stable/safest tech after gateways. Khaydarin Amulet with HT's are new in SC2 and as a play style, people don't know what else aside from Ghosts and anything but marines to use. Marauders are a good start as SC has shown, why not tanks? Why not Ravens? Yea they have counters, but so does anything else - it doesn't mean its bad or you shouldn't use it. If pros won't try it out extensively then nobody can really say jack shiz but theorycraft. Which is what it comes down to until they do. For one, my rank doesn't have to do with anything. If I was someone who played random at the masters level maybe I could support my theories with personal replays, but that isn't the case, and its likely not for 99% of the people posting. Watching is enough to learn about Starcraft 2, TheWind wouldn't be such a good coach if he didn't observe more than he plays. Just to satisfy your curiosity, I'm ranked about 33 Platinum and play Protoss mainly, Terran and Zerg in beta before deciding on toss. I will give you this... tanks may be a tiny bit worse than Collosus, but that is because they are easier to mass produce and don't need to be as versatile as Collosus, Terran have more options thus their units are efficient at their specialty roles, tanks however function nearly the same as collosus - they punish players for engaging their line of fire. Sorry however if I came off as someone trying to flame you, thats not the case - I've just said this stuff before, so I am a little bit annoyed.
First part was a typo, my fault, I've been trying to type at work in between doing admin work. I'd just like to say, yes, the game is new, but in all honesty it's not that new. SC2 has probably been the fastest dissected game ever to hit the market. I'm not doubting strats will become refined, new units roles might appear, but in the current state of the game, tanks are highly highly situational and simply not usable on certain maps.
A rank has everything to do with anything if you're talking about what's viable. No, I'm not pro, but I've taken games off many pro players, and had my fair share of losses to them to. The simple fact that I've even been matched against pros says something in and of itself.
Tanks are versatile whatsoever, they're the opposite, they're incredibly situational and have a very specific uses.
Also, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not you're annoyed - I don't believe I was responding to you in the first place, and I quite clearly disagree with your analysis anyways. Watching the game cannot get you to the same spot as playing it and understanding the intricacies of how the units work - I watched nearly every BW game post Savior era, and while yes, my game knowledge was quite high as a result, my game knowledge still paled in comparison to what the pros were at. You plateau much sooner if you can't play at a competitive level yourself (no, I'm not saying I could even compete regularly with the pros or even be a suitable practice partner, but I'm not exactly *far* off, the skill gap between pro and top ladder isn't exactly immense).
|
On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did.
You agree that San outplayed SC.
San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'.
From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat.
So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed?
He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement.
|
On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement.
KA isn't a MASSIVE problem when there are only HT, it's when you go Colossus first then get HT; at least, that's the opinion I have. I think it needs a nerf no matter what, but the San game didn't exactly highlight the issue that most people have problems with.
|
On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement.
Lets make new mechanic, that in every game players randomly win each with 50% chance. This is not based on skills or anything, simply 50% that red player wins, 50% that blue player wins.
It is perfectly balanced - with 50% win ratio for everyone.
Is it worth changing? Should red be nerfed? Should blue be nerfed? Why to change it if it is already balanced?
Perhaps because it is wrong mechanic?
+ Show Spoiler +It is irelevant whether current HT is balanced or not, KA has to go.
|
Being able to produce both colo and ht in regular amounts will probably never happen in a close game since as we saw it takes massive gas to even just produce enough HTs if a terran goes ghost. (Like 90% of gsl terrans haven't been getting ghosts much so far.) So the only thing to worry about is a transition really, likely when protoss takes their third. At that point just stop building vikings.
|
On March 12 2011 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. KA isn't a MASSIVE problem when there are only HT, it's when you go Colossus first then get HT; at least, that's the opinion I have. I think it needs a nerf no matter what, but the San game didn't exactly highlight the issue that most people have problems with.
Why because Terran make too many vikings when they see col and cbf to land them to attack or harass with them after transition? Terran should have ghost out long before HT have KA so I'm really failing to see your reasoning. Using 50 energy is hard guys nerf protoss instead.
|
On March 12 2011 12:52 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. Lets make new mechanic, that in every game players randomly win each with 50% chance. This is not based on skills or anything, simply 50% that red player wins, 50% that blue player wins. It is perfectly balanced - with 50% win ratio for everyone. Is it worth changing? Should red be nerfed? Should blue be nerfed? Why to change it if it is already balanced? Perhaps because it is wrong mechanic? + Show Spoiler +It is irelevant whether current HT is balanced or not, KA has to go.
sarcasm?
direct port of bw would solver all the problem, dont you all think? 
(i was hoping for this though i knew there was no chance of happening)
|
On March 12 2011 12:52 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. Lets make new mechanic, that in every game players randomly win each with 50% chance. This is not based on skills or anything, simply 50% that red player wins, 50% that blue player wins. It is perfectly balanced - with 50% win ratio for everyone. Is it worth changing? Should red be nerfed? Should blue be nerfed? Why to change it if it is already balanced? Perhaps because it is wrong mechanic? + Show Spoiler +It is irelevant whether current HT is balanced or not, KA has to go.
Thats not even close to a reasonable argument for removing it. I could just as easily say
+ Show Spoiler +It is irrelevant whether current marine is balanced or not, stim has to go.
and people would argue because it has no basis in fact.
The point of the game is to essentially make it so that players of equal skill, even if they play different races, have essentially a 50% win ratio. You are arguing that removing every decision from the game is the exact same thing as having KA in the game, which is a bit absurd.
|
On March 12 2011 13:02 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. KA isn't a MASSIVE problem when there are only HT, it's when you go Colossus first then get HT; at least, that's the opinion I have. I think it needs a nerf no matter what, but the San game didn't exactly highlight the issue that most people have problems with. Why because Terran make too many vikings when they see col and cbf to land them to attack or harass with them after transition? Terran should have ghost out long before HT have KA so I'm really failing to see your reasoning. Using 50 energy is hard guys nerf protoss instead.
Jesus, really? For fucks sake, really? What's with the responses in this thread? "Oh it's because T played 2 bad lawls." Stop mentioning irrelevant shit. No, it has nothign to do with "overproducing vikings." Guess what, if you overproduce vikings, they won't have colossus then the Colossus/HT combo ISN'T A PROBLEM.
|
On March 12 2011 13:42 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 13:02 Baarn wrote:On March 12 2011 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. KA isn't a MASSIVE problem when there are only HT, it's when you go Colossus first then get HT; at least, that's the opinion I have. I think it needs a nerf no matter what, but the San game didn't exactly highlight the issue that most people have problems with. Why because Terran make too many vikings when they see col and cbf to land them to attack or harass with them after transition? Terran should have ghost out long before HT have KA so I'm really failing to see your reasoning. Using 50 energy is hard guys nerf protoss instead. Jesus, really? For fucks sake, really? What's with the responses in this thread? "Oh it's because T played 2 bad lawls." Stop mentioning irrelevant shit. No, it has nothign to do with "overproducing vikings." Guess what, if you overproduce vikings, they won't have colossus then the Colossus/HT combo ISN'T A PROBLEM.
No it's called learning timings which your argument clearly lacks, again. It's easier to just say fuck it and nerf I guess, right?
|
On March 12 2011 13:30 Aequos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 12:52 Sek-Kuar wrote:On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. Lets make new mechanic, that in every game players randomly win each with 50% chance. This is not based on skills or anything, simply 50% that red player wins, 50% that blue player wins. It is perfectly balanced - with 50% win ratio for everyone. Is it worth changing? Should red be nerfed? Should blue be nerfed? Why to change it if it is already balanced? Perhaps because it is wrong mechanic? + Show Spoiler +It is irelevant whether current HT is balanced or not, KA has to go. Thats not even close to a reasonable argument for removing it. I could just as easily say + Show Spoiler +It is irrelevant whether current marine is balanced or not, stim has to go. and people would argue because it has no basis in fact. The point of the game is to essentially make it so that players of equal skill, even if they play different races, have essentially a 50% win ratio. You are arguing that removing every decision from the game is the exact same thing as having KA in the game, which is a bit absurd.
Warp-in changes one of core mechanics, so Protoss requires 5 sec of planning in situations where T/Z require 1-2 min.
Stim changes attack/move speed. Thats only balance question. And you should not compare balance and mechanics.
|
On March 12 2011 13:45 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 13:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 13:02 Baarn wrote:On March 12 2011 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. KA isn't a MASSIVE problem when there are only HT, it's when you go Colossus first then get HT; at least, that's the opinion I have. I think it needs a nerf no matter what, but the San game didn't exactly highlight the issue that most people have problems with. Why because Terran make too many vikings when they see col and cbf to land them to attack or harass with them after transition? Terran should have ghost out long before HT have KA so I'm really failing to see your reasoning. Using 50 energy is hard guys nerf protoss instead. Jesus, really? For fucks sake, really? What's with the responses in this thread? "Oh it's because T played 2 bad lawls." Stop mentioning irrelevant shit. No, it has nothign to do with "overproducing vikings." Guess what, if you overproduce vikings, they won't have colossus then the Colossus/HT combo ISN'T A PROBLEM. No it's called learning timings which your argument clearly lacks, again. It's easier to just say fuck it and nerf I guess, right?
Timings? What the hell are you talking about timings? Please, enlighten me on what the fuck timings you're talking about, when I never referenced a friggin' timing.
|
On March 12 2011 14:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 13:45 Baarn wrote:On March 12 2011 13:42 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 13:02 Baarn wrote:On March 12 2011 12:45 FabledIntegral wrote:On March 12 2011 12:43 STenSatsu wrote:On March 12 2011 10:37 HighQuality wrote:
You're putting words in my mouth I never said; you're right that SC was outplayed for most of the games, and I agree that he deserved to lose the series. However, San basically used a strategy that abused sc2 mechanics to the point of absurdity. You say that San NEEDED the base because it allowed him to support the HT, but that's exactly the point i'm arguing. He KNEW that the ONLY things he needed to defend those bases were a couple of cannons and instant storms. Repeat: he constantly warded off armies that were +40 food in size because he had 10 HT in every engagement: 5 at the start, 5 warp ins later. In a more balanced situation, San should never have been able to defend those bases as well as he did. You agree that San outplayed SC. San barely held on in games 3 and 4 (the only games SC attempted to macro) with a huge eco advantage and 'op' KA 'abuse'. From this a terran of equal skill would have beat San easily if he attempted this strat. So if a decent terran could beat this 'absurd abuse' of KA regularly, is KA worthy of being nerfed? He also never would have been able to hold against those 40+ food armies if SC hadn't just a-moved his army and let it sit in full time storms every engagement. KA isn't a MASSIVE problem when there are only HT, it's when you go Colossus first then get HT; at least, that's the opinion I have. I think it needs a nerf no matter what, but the San game didn't exactly highlight the issue that most people have problems with. Why because Terran make too many vikings when they see col and cbf to land them to attack or harass with them after transition? Terran should have ghost out long before HT have KA so I'm really failing to see your reasoning. Using 50 energy is hard guys nerf protoss instead. Jesus, really? For fucks sake, really? What's with the responses in this thread? "Oh it's because T played 2 bad lawls." Stop mentioning irrelevant shit. No, it has nothign to do with "overproducing vikings." Guess what, if you overproduce vikings, they won't have colossus then the Colossus/HT combo ISN'T A PROBLEM. No it's called learning timings which your argument clearly lacks, again. It's easier to just say fuck it and nerf I guess, right? Timings? What the hell are you talking about timings? Please, enlighten me on what the fuck timings you're talking about, when I never referenced a friggin' timing.
The timing between the col and the first ht so you know what build is coming so you make something besides mmm so you don't get rolled anymore. Or is the entire point here that regardless of what happens it should be viable to keep the same army comp and it be a reasonable expectation to 1a move into every storm to victory like our hero sc was trying to do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
