|
On March 18 2011 03:53 SugarBear wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't even see Ghosts/Infestors used at a high level, and HT only situationally. Why NERF them if they are already underused? Seems pointless IMO.
Uhhh. I don't know where you get this from. Theres been a lot of ghost play recently. Pretty much every TvP we've seen in GSL has included some kind of ghost play (if the game gets past 10 or so minutes). I think it was one of  San's games on Scrap Station there was some pretty epic back and forths between ghosts and HT's feed-backing and sniping each other.
As for infestors, they are pretty vital in ZvT, in dealing with mass Marine/Marauder balls. We've even seen  July use infestors to do some pretty cool fungal harass on Xel'naga. Not to mention that trying to beat mech would be near impossible without neural parasite.
|
I don't agree with the emp nerf it makes no sense because there are obviously other units out there that you can emp that are no the ht. Like the BC, RAVEN < maybe blizzard is trying to lead terran TVT to a path of total awesomeness... I wish they would just give terran lock down again and give the HT back their silly KA so we can have a lock down battle vs storm crazy awesomeness
|
On March 18 2011 04:24 hifriend wrote:
If I'm going to be forced into robo tech every single game from now on, I really hope they just rework protoss from scratch in the expansion and scrap the colossus. Such an uninteresting unit..
Agree, scrapping the collossus would be the best thing for protoss.
|
On March 18 2011 06:51 CampinSam wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2011 04:24 hifriend wrote:
If I'm going to be forced into robo tech every single game from now on, I really hope they just rework protoss from scratch in the expansion and scrap the colossus. Such an uninteresting unit.. Agree, scrapping the collossus would be the best thing for protoss.
That's not likely to happen... The entire Protoss race is balanced around the Colossi right now... maybe with changes in playing style over time, accompanied with some minor nerfs/buffs where appropriate (BUFF IMMORTAL RANGE), Protoss play will move away from Colossi and alternatives will appear. Or maybe changes in the air superiority balance will happen with HotS; for instance, it's ridiculous that there is no Zerg air caster unit (and no, Corruptors are not a real caster unit - they don't even have energy).
|
I've actually been wondering, would it be a better idea to change Khaydarin Amulet to only give a 25 energy bonus to High Templar that are NOT warped in? This would allow protoss to get their High Templar with enough energy to storm by building them from a Gateway, it might give some incentive to switch between Gateway and Warp Gate at some points in the game, and at the same time fixes the problem of High Templars storming directly when they are warped in.
|
It's stupid because then I'll just warp Ht in base and wait for thème to get 75 energy - ie. Wait 44s - ie. The build time of a HT. So after 45 s i have a Ht rdy to storm in my base. What's the point of your upgrade?
|
On March 18 2011 09:15 Barty wrote:
It's stupid because then I'll just warp Ht in base and wait for thème to get 75 energy - ie. Wait 44s - ie. The build time of a HT. So after 45 s i have a Ht rdy to storm in my base. What's the point of your upgrade?
Build time of high templar could be reduced. Right now the build time is irrelevant anyway as they are only being warped in.
|
Okay so I didn't have time to read all 20+ pages of this, but from what I did read, a lot of people are missing the point of the HT nerf in my opinion.
To me, the issue with taking away the amulet is that HTs will be losing mobility. My lategame usually involves cutting Colossus production entirely and switching into a very Chargelot/HT -centric force. I abuse the mobility of the amulet warp-in storms as well as small Zealot harasses all over the place. Without the amulet, I can no longer do that, and will have to go back to the big death ball style (which I kind of hate a lot) and rely on Colossi to deal with the nearly-comparable strength of an MMM Viking ball without being able to match their mobility.
To me, HTs are probably the least mobile unit in the Protoss arsenal until you get the amulet, at which point they become highly mobile units, and I try to abuse that mobility in my lategame. If you ask me, the HT nerf is way worse than anything else they could have done. I'd even prefer them just straight up nerfing the Storm damage (although to be frank, I feel like in PvT the answer is for the Terran player to maybe try making not only marines) so that I can at least keep my Templar mobile...
My fear is that Protoss mobility is getting slowly nerfed, bit by bit, and we're becoming limited ever further into the "I have a 200/200 army and I hope it doesn't die" play style. Blink Stalkers can be great; Phoenixes can be great; unfortunately, all of that can be dealt with fairly easily it seems. Protoss tier 3 has basically no mobility to it without amulet, and that makes me worried for the future of Protoss lategame tactics.
|
On March 18 2011 09:07 DizzyDrone wrote:
I've actually been wondering, would it be a better idea to change Khaydarin Amulet to only give a 25 energy bonus to High Templar that are NOT warped in? This would allow protoss to get their High Templar with enough energy to storm by building them from a Gateway, it might give some incentive to switch between Gateway and Warp Gate at some points in the game, and at the same time fixes the problem of High Templars storming directly when they are warped in.
who exactly has the ability to constantly switch between warpgates and gateways? that is absurd. regardless, even with a +25 energy bonus for gateways only, it would still be faster to warp in a high templar and wait for it to get 75 energy than it would be to build it. for example, if you warp it in and wait 20 secs (or whatever it is), you will have 75 energy for a total of like 20-25 secs; whereas if you build it from scratch, it will take 45-50 secs (i dont know exact numbers). so basically you are saying they should put in an upgrade that no reasonable person would ever get.
|
I like the new changes in the op. Good job blizz ;D
I'd like it if they made hallucinated obs have detection. It would allow protoss to get away from colossus and actually open into stargate tech or templar.
|
how about removing warpgate? won't this solve 4gate and KA complaints?
Poll: Remove Warpgate?No (78) 53% Yes (70) 47% 148 total votes Your vote: Remove Warpgate? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
i know its a huge change and probably will never happen but just wondering if others might see this as a solution.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 19 2011 08:40 jinorazi wrote:how about removing warpgate? won't this solve 4gate and KA complaints? Poll: Remove Warpgate?No (78) 53% Yes (70) 47% 148 total votes Your vote: Remove Warpgate? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
i know its a huge change and probably will never happen but just wondering if others might see this as a solution.
remove the most interesting thing about the protoss race for a balance fix? this is a no vote.
|
On March 19 2011 08:42 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 19 2011 08:40 jinorazi wrote:how about removing warpgate? won't this solve 4gate and KA complaints? Poll: Remove Warpgate?No (78) 53% Yes (70) 47% 148 total votes Your vote: Remove Warpgate? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
i know its a huge change and probably will never happen but just wondering if others might see this as a solution. remove the most interesting thing about the protoss race for a balance fix? this is a no vote.
i think it's be cool if it allowed them to warp units in immediately after they were made from gateways, IE: you research warp gates and if you rally point to pylon power it warps the unit there when it's done from a gateway. just removing the warp gate building but not the upgrade. this would also allow someone who has control of the area around gateways to control the flow of units, as they would be vulnerable at both ends of the warp.
and sigh at then removing the projectile ( the minor aspect of the fungal nerf ) and kept the ubernerfed duration. not much you can do in 2.2 seconds real time.
EDIT:
still want a +25 energy upgrade for sentries though. Protoss deserves that, and it would make guardian shield a lot more used if you could warp in +2 armor vs ranged for your units/drops
|
@jinorazi, i'm guessing you don't play protoss, do you? i'm sorry, but this is a bad idea on SOO many levels. the only way to keep toss competitive in the early game without warpgate would be to buff gateway units beyond belief, and zergs already complain about the protoss deathball enough...
just... no.
|
On March 19 2011 08:40 jinorazi wrote:how about removing warpgate? won't this solve 4gate and KA complaints? Poll: Remove Warpgate?No (78) 53% Yes (70) 47% 148 total votes Your vote: Remove Warpgate? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
i know its a huge change and probably will never happen but just wondering if others might see this as a solution.
I don't really know how to respond to this. It's just such a bad idea for so many different reasons.
For one, it would remove lots of mechanics that makes Protoss unique. It would also destroy just about the entire Protoss arsenal of strong tactics. It would make Warp Prisms almost useless. It would destroy the entire strength of mobility that Protoss possesses. I could go on and on. Just... no.
|
as a protoss player I don't like that emp only removes 100 energy...it made it cool when a ht and a ghost had feedback and emp battles
|
On March 19 2011 08:55 VarpuliS wrote:
@jinorazi, i'm guessing you don't play protoss, do you? i'm sorry, but this is a bad idea on SOO many levels. the only way to keep toss competitive in the early game without warpgate would be to buff gateway units beyond belief, and zergs already complain about the protoss deathball enough...
just... no.
only issue i see is mobility, or rather, fast reinforcements where there is power.
as for the units, why would it be different? if the the production time is the same as warp-cooldown+warp-in i dont see other problems.
warp prism and what not is a separate issue. the warp field could easily replaced by shield battery, which i wouldn't mind.
i know this won't happen because warpgate is "so cool" but other than not being able to warp units anywhere, there's no other issue i can think of. perhaps you can share some of your thoughts on how it can ruin the game.
this is just a "what if" i threw out, nothing serious because i know it'll never happen.
and protoss is my best race...what does this have to do anything lol
it is a huge change, a unique feature of protoss for sc2. i think it can solve some balance issues if removed.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On March 16 2011 14:52 Fwiffo wrote:
I agree with posters like HolyArrow - removing upgrades or erring on nerfs makes the game more simplistic and less enjoyable. Blizzard needs more lateral thinking when it's trying to address balance. They have the PTR implemented, they should use it to it's full ability to explore solutions.
An idea. Instead of removing the KA, how about prevent production of HTs from Warp Gates (with Warp-In) and rather can only be produced from Gateways (old style). This is substantial and should be accompanied with a reversion of Immortals built back at the Gateway (w/ Twilight Council), and likewise cannot be Warped-In. For those who complain about Protoss macro being easy, this should add a little extra complexity (forcing a mix of Gateways and Warp Gates), while keeping KA. The Immortal move (reversion) allows Toss the flexibility to respond to early mass Roaches and Marauders.
+ Show Spoiler +On March 17 2011 07:36 Fwiffo wrote:
Ahem, hold on there Dr. Phil, my suggestion was to restrict HTs to build only from Gateways (and not Warp Gates) to remove Warp-In Storms and keep KA, NOT to remove Warp Gates. WGs are a great step forward from BW. To suggest their removal is like asking to remove Larva Inject and Reactors.
Plus (as I already posted) I'd like to see a reversion of Immortals being built back at the Gateway (w/ Twilight Council and no Warp-In either) to compensate for early mass armored enemy builds while at the same time increase the complexity of Toss macro by requiring to mix up Gateways and Warp Gates.
@jinorazi et al (and others) it'd be nice if you guys would quote or reference my original post/suggestion rather than co-opt it to suggest a major nerf. Warp Gates have become so integral to the Protoss strategy/tactics and balance, to remove them now, even IF it was warranted, would represent such a fundamental change it would revert this game to PRE-Alpha! That you got as many respondents as you did in support of this is quite honestly shocking. And although I love to Theory-Craft, this latest example makes it blatantly clear the wisdom of why it's frowned upon.
But I can't help myself. So, in defense of my original suggestion, restricting the HTs to be built only at Gateways (and not Warp Gates) would not represent too drastic a change. I've consigned myself that Blizzard will remove KA to prevent Warp-In Storms, so I present this as more of a 'tweak' to achieve the same thing while keeping KA. To go from this to suggesting to take out Warp Gates is mind boggling and lays bare that many people have no care for balance or fairness in the game.
The idea of moving the Immortal BACK to Gateways (and not Warp Gates for no Warp-Ins as well) also isn't major since that's how it was for much of Beta (and therefore tested). The reason why this was changed was b/c Dustin Browder felt that the Gateway/Warp Gate Tree had too many units it. It had nothing to do with balance. I'm suggesting a reversion to address Protoss difficulties in handling mass Marauder and Roach plays without upsetting things too much. Other benefits of doing so would be to indirectly discourage Colossi builds by encouraging Twilight Council and Immortal builds at the Gateway (instead of the Robotics Facility). Further, by mixing up Gateways and Warpgates, you're increasing the complexity of Protoss macro a bit to add a little more depth to the game, as I see it.
|
GSL Spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +MC said he wanted to show Protoss was still strong even though it's being nerfed with the next patch, but MC didn't really use anything that's being nerfed if the OP is correct. All the talk about the Khaydarin Amulet I've heard seems to indicate it may have been overpowered, but it was underused anyways in favor of Collosus. So I don't really get MC's comments as he never used high templars.
|
On March 19 2011 18:34 BlackMagister wrote:GSL Spoiler + Show Spoiler +MC said he wanted to show Protoss was still strong even though it's being nerfed with the next patch, but MC didn't really use anything that's being nerfed if the OP is correct. All the talk about the Khaydarin Amulet I've heard seems to indicate it may have been overpowered, but it was underused anyways in favor of Collosus. So I don't really get MC's comments as he never used high templars.
GSL Spoiler
+ Show Spoiler +
I think MC's point was that the thing being nerfed isn't even needed for Protoss to roll face. Thus, if you don't use the thing being nerfed to win games convincingly, the nerf is completely irrelevant, and Protoss is still strong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
