EPTLet's not forget base SC had serious problems, only BW made it great.
Situation Report: Patch 1.3 - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
Let's not forget base SC had serious problems, only BW made it great. | ||
|
baltimoretim
United States1 Post
On April 05 2011 05:32 sandroba wrote: Colossus just needs to do less dmg or have way less hp imo. They are just too beefy, mobile and high damaging for a support unit. They are like an easy mode counter to everything earthbound. Can we play with the nerf we were just handed (Hts) before instituting new ones? | ||
|
Khalleb
Canada1909 Posts
On April 05 2011 06:15 baltimoretim wrote: Can we play with the nerf we were just handed (Hts) before instituting new ones? we already playt his nerf, see there is no more HT | ||
|
Bonham
Canada655 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On April 05 2011 06:05 Yaotzin wrote: This is good They won't rework them gateways are just an anti-cheese building /mutters. They aren't meant to be useful. Same with stuff like conc shell. Not everything is supposed to be a choice, some tech is there simply to slow things down. Sure, that's what gateways were initially for. But there's no reason that they should always be just a weaker warpgate. If warpgate cooldown time is higher than gateway build time, then there's a reason for players to keep gateways. It might help PvP, too, since the attacker would need more warpgates to keep up production with the defender, who could stay at gateways. Without the power of the early warpgate rush, they might be able to buff gateway units enough that they could make the colossus more difficult to effectively use. | ||
|
Nakas
United States148 Posts
On April 05 2011 06:00 hugman wrote: It'd be kinda cool if Gateways would be better than Warp Gates defensively, but I really don't think Blizzard will tweak that stuff all that much. I remember in beta thinking that warpgates had a longer cooldown than gateways, so they had less throughput in exchange for being able to warp in wherever you wanted and faster build time after the resources are spent. When I learned that warpgates also had a shorter cooldown, I thought "Why would anyone ever want a gateway over a warpgate then?" The answer is, of course, that you wouldn't. I do agree that it would be more interesting as a choice. | ||
|
HelloThere
United States14 Posts
I've noticed that going vikings in TvP is pretty much no longer viable as every decent toss has learned to prevent vikings from sniping colossi. It's absurd that I can micro my vikings while kiting with my bio army and still get rolled by the 3 colossi and 20 stalkers that remain. I need to make 13 vikings to one shot a colossus and 7 to 2 shot it. Since I'll be making them from a reactored port, this means I'll end up with 14 for 1 shot and 8 for 2 shot kills. 8 vikings cost 1200 minerals and 600 gas and 16 supply. 14 vikings cost 2100/1050/28. That's a pretty massive investment to just throw away considering the fact that every single one of them dies and there's still usually at least one colossus left at the end. A range nerf would defeat their purpose and nerfing their damage would allow the bioball to roll through the deathball. The easy solution is to remove a decent chunk of their hp/shields. This would allow both vikings and corruptors to do their job at a better cost efficiency. After all, isn't the counter to something supposed to kill it at a cost efficient rate? | ||
|
Khalleb
Canada1909 Posts
| ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On April 05 2011 06:23 Bonham wrote: Thanks for posting this; it's always interesting to see the rationale for these changes. Doesn't answer every question, of course (If never getting use is a criteria for a buff, why the change to BCs but not carriers? If toss AoE is OP lategame, why not nerf colossi instead?), but still cool to read. Kudos to Blizzard for putting their decision making into the public eye like this. BCs were never used because they were just plain bad. I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question. | ||
|
proxY_
United States1561 Posts
| ||
|
Losiff
8 Posts
On April 05 2011 05:24 Rabiator wrote: Nerfing the concept seems pretty impossible, but I might imagine increasing the warp-in time from five to 10-15 seconds or so to make Protoss less flexible and require them to plan ahead more. Warping in during a battle rarely enables the opponent to target the warping units and thus the "more damage during warp-in"-disadvantage isnt a true disadvantage. Being able to not spawn at the corresponding building could be advantage enough ... If they changed the warp-in time to something much longer the Khaydarin Amulet might be introduced back into the game IMO. The warp-in time should depend on the distance between the warping unit and the gateway. It would fix pvp and make Protoss all ins less effective. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On April 05 2011 06:25 andrewlt wrote: Sure, that's what gateways were initially for. But there's no reason that they should always be just a weaker warpgate. If warpgate cooldown time is higher than gateway build time, then there's a reason for players to keep gateways. I guess in the very early game. After that you'd be mad not to just make 1-2 more warpgates though. It might help PvP, too, since the attacker would need more warpgates to keep up production with the defender, who could stay at gateways. You have two choices then: Make current warpgates slower (nerf cooldown), or make current gateways faster. The latter will result in crippling rushes - the return of the 10/10 zealot push etc. The former will force Protoss to stay on gateways to stop various pushes. This will make them incredibly defensive and probably cripple them, in the way Zerg was crippled having to try deal with zealot/reaper/etc pushes. ETA: This is basically why you can't have warpgates and gateways doing different things. When you do that, you need to somehow balance them both, which is near impossible. Without the power of the early warpgate rush, they might be able to buff gateway units enough that they could make the colossus more difficult to effectively use. Gateway units are not weak. If they were any stronger they would stomp both other races into the ground early game. They ONLY start to fail against mass ranged units. Colossus deals with this specific problem. Making melee units stronger would not help with that, and making stalkers stronger would make early stalker pushes unstoppable. I assume you don't think the sentry needs any buffing ^_^. | ||
|
VenerableSpace
United States463 Posts
let me build immortals from the gateway only (not warpgate, still robo requirement), lower their stats/cost a bit. give them an air attack and range upgrade from robo bay. gimme the reaver and the shuttle, make chargelots do better against roaches (not win, but compete), and re-instill a +15 energy upgrade for HT's (old one was +25). Im having more fun with Z then P atm. and will just play them unless protoss becomes less dull If they do something like this, yeah sure it will feel more like BW protoss but is that REALLY a bad thing? | ||
|
malaan
365 Posts
Think about it - Voidray colossi would be more vulnerable, more use of banelings pretty much saved ZvT early game balance when everyone was 2 raxing with SCV's and bunker rushes... Would scourge help deal with the colossi ball late game? Corruptors where supposed to be the answer for zerg anti-air. But as Idra was saying not too long ago - sadly they are just far to expensive and if you over-make them (which is easily done given how difficult it can be to scout protoss atm) it's over. Just my 2 cents of course. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote: BCs were never used because they were just plain bad. I'd like to know why Carriers are never used. Serious question. Because they're more expensive, slower then, and not as good as collosus when it comes to killing massable ground units. Massable ground units describes most of the rest of this game, to the point where anti-air units are used primarily against a ground unit that's tall. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On April 05 2011 06:51 malaan wrote: I wonder how the game would be effected if zerg had a specific unit that does splash damage to air. (scourge anyone?) Think about it - Voidray colossi would be more vulnerable, more use of banelings pretty much saved ZvT early game balance when everyone was 2 raxing with SCV's and bunker rushes... Would scourge help deal with the colossi ball late game? VRs don't overkill. Pretty much ideal for wasting lots of low hp units, like scourge. Could have some success by getting the VRs to target something else, perhaps, but they'd be far from a hard counter. Killing the colossi is the real issue for Zerg anyway. Because they're more expensive, slower then, and not as good as collosus when it comes to killing massable ground units. Massable ground units describes most of the rest of this game, to the point where anti-air units are used primarily against a ground unit that's tall. More specifically, while carriers aren't bad per se, there's just a better answer for every Protoss question. | ||
|
MajorityofOne
Canada2506 Posts
| ||
|
etherwar
United States45 Posts
On April 05 2011 02:51 da_head wrote: i wouldn't mind a collosus nerf in the slightest (as long as it would be accompanied by a gateway unit buff). however, this immediately breaks 4 gate, which is an issue that blizzard acknowledges as well. hmm.. i wonder what they're gonna do. Pardon the theorycraft, but slightly buff wg unit damage and then make it so they warp in without shields? | ||
|
pwadoc
271 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Making it so normal gateways have a slightly shorter build time than warp gates would be an amazing change to Protoss, both for PvP and in general, in terms of strategic variety. Lore-wise, you could say it takes slightly longer to warp-in due to psionic whatever limitations, and gameplay-wise it would be amazingly awesome. Change HT per LiquidTyler's suggestion of having 5-10 seconds post warp-in before they can storm. Make colossi move more slowly. This will make them more fragile and vulnerable, more realistic-looking, and more dynamic of a unit (one OP strength, two weaknesses like reaver - hp and movement speed) or just replace them with something more exciting that impedes spectating less (like a reaver shot). Slower colossi would nerf late-game toss AoE while still promoting the more exciting high templar usage. Also, buff Archon AoE, and give Zerg the Lurker back at Lair evolving from roaches, with a Hive upgrade that lets them move while burrowed maybe. Move burrow to hatch tech. | ||
| ||
