|
On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Because they are even worse than bad.
They do less DPS than BC even with all 8 interceptors, Take longer to build than BC, Cost more than BC because of interceptors, don't have optional insane 100 DPS and 300 damage yamato like BC, have less life and armor than BC.. And people thought BC's were worthless? Carrier has it's picture in the SC2 dictionary under worthless.
Yamato is the only reason BCs are viable even with speed upgrade as they can take out immediate threats like VR, Corruptors and Vikings when they swarm them. If 20 VR roll up on your 8-9 BCs you can eliminate half almost instantly and stand a chance/win. Otherwise BCs would still be worthless even though it's better than Carrier. What does that tell you about carrier without Yamato...
|
Good to see the rationale and I agree with all the points they make. I think on the whole 1.3 is a great patch. But I still think they fucked up with KA. Removing KA removes HT from the game. It's OBVIOUS. So why not try what people suggested, making KA more like it was in BW?
|
Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
This is perhaps the 1.3 patch change that was most discussed by the community and we wanted to take some to time to explain the rationale behind it. Ultimately, there were two reasons we wanted to remove this item.
We felt this upgrade reduced strategic choice.
Isn't it nice that non-Protoss players now have access to more strategic choice. I hope that when people face continuous Colossi in the future, they will be thankful for the sacrifices we've had to endure for their strategic latitude.
Son of Adun, I've hated Colossi and avoided using them as much as possible since the beta, and loved High Templar since 1998. Could you at least buff storms back up to 110 damage, if not better?
|
On April 05 2011 11:07 Fanatic-Templar wrote:Show nested quote +Khaydarin Amulet upgrade (+25 starting energy) has been removed.
This is perhaps the 1.3 patch change that was most discussed by the community and we wanted to take some to time to explain the rationale behind it. Ultimately, there were two reasons we wanted to remove this item.
We felt this upgrade reduced strategic choice. Isn't it nice that non-Protoss players now have access to more strategic choice. I hope that when people face continuous Colossi in the future, they will be thankful for the sacrifices we've had to endure for their strategic latitude. Son of Adun, I've hated Colossi and avoided using them as much as possible since the beta, and loved High Templar since 1998. Could you at least buff storms back up to 110 damage, if not better?
The only solution is Carriers.
But seriously, Protoss is ridiculous in how badly you're forced into either Colossi or a 4gate/warpgate timing push. If they just straight nerfed colossi it'd break the race at this point, but if they leave things as is we're going to keep seeing the deathball and all the balance complaints that surround it.
Buffing other lategame options, like the warpgate unit upgrades, HT/Archons, Carriers, Immortals, plus a Colo nerf would level the race out a bit, IMO. I suppose HTs are still viable, but with the current state of the Colo-VR deathball why would any Toss bother?
|
They wanted infestor to be a core unit in ZvP but not templars apparently. Templar were already underused and now seems even less reason to bring them out. If they want to make protoss more diverse should probably be buffing templar and archons (archons need to be massive). If they nerfed collosi without buffing something else toss would be really screwed and probably have to rely on timing attacks early game.
|
If people are afraid of EMP they should put their spellcasters in Qarp Prisms / Overlords ... that would add an element of micro to the game again and remove the need to nerf EMP.
|
On April 05 2011 09:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:33 Amui wrote:
At lower levels stim is BRUTAL. When I first started playing and I was no good at forcefields I would literally leave my base, pop guardian shield and get stomped by an A-moving stimmed terran bio-ball. I had to go one base colossus or I just died. Good forcefield usage only means that you can afford to get splash units later with the exception of double forge builds. Colossi are the easier of 2 paths to AoE damage to deal with the insane dps density of a stimmed bio-ball.
The biggest tipping point is when medivacs come onto the field. At that point unless you are way ahead in upgrades, you lose to bio-ball if you are still on gateway units.
PvP is quite broken and basically has 3 options. Cheese, a version of 4gate, or 3stalker rush that MIGHT beat a 4wg if you find the probe/pylon. Anything other than this and essentially, you die to a hardcore 4gate. I totally agreed. I am getting better with force fields, but I still get SMASHED by stim every once and a while. I don't want protoss to become the race "only the higher level players can handle" if they nerf colossi to much. It won't be much fun for new players and will just make people play Terran more.
There's absolutely no point to balance the game for noob levels.
If you have difficulties to deflect such attacks, learn how to do it properly or
go for an alternative build. Theres always something you can do at low level to not die to such attacks.
The game should be balanced for the absolute high tier players, and stim pushes were only a problem at the earlier stages of the game when all people were bad / using bad builds. Right now every diamond player should be able to handle them.
|
On April 05 2011 08:15 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 05:48 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:On April 05 2011 05:24 pureball wrote:
"Stimpack timing pushes by terran players can be extremely difficult for opponents to stop without employing effective scouting. We wanted these types of pushes to come slightly later in order to provide more time for opponents to prepare for these attacks and to potentially get scouting units together to effectively scout for these types of pushes."
but proxi pylon 3 gate and 4 gate all ins are perfectly fine? give me a F'n break ......
MUCH harder to scout , hardly ANY warning, reinforce right outside your base (do NOT say you should scout because thats basicaly why they nerfed bunker buildtime)
absolute joke. well dont quite like your wording but agree with the point. how they can say stuff like that with warpgate variations dominating since the early days of beta is beyond me. esp when the stim also has huge affects on the ability to defend pushes .. ( how often did we see a T losing to a attack with 5-15 secs left on stim since 1.3?) also stim pushes were one of the easiest things to scout/expect and defend . not to mention bigger maps already decreasing the timing window a ton... i dont think its a huge gamebreaking point but the change was a bad one and their reasoning is even worse. I completely agree. Nerfing stim has made 1 rax FE, basically the only viable opening against protoss imo, much harder to hold against protoss allins (4 gate, 3 gate star) and has not made 3 rax stim rushes any less effective. The problem with protoss allins being too damn powerful since the beta isn't the strength of protoss units, but the warpin mechanic which I absolutely despise since early in the beta ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118657). Warp gate negates defender's advantage, even on HUGE maps, and at the same time makes it difficult to harass a protoss once a good amount of warp gates are online. Warp gate is what's wrong with protoss. Force fields seem imba at times but I think we'd see way less of "ok that's ridiculous" moments if warp gate was flat out removed or heavily nerfed.
Dude, I actually love your idea for warp-in. I've personally hate the idea of warp-ins myself. If you could only warp-in with cheap warp prisms they could easily buff Gateway units and nerf colossi without completely breaking the game.
|
On April 05 2011 10:25 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote: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. Because they are even worse than bad. They do less DPS than BC even with all 8 interceptors, Take longer to build than BC, Cost more than BC because of interceptors, don't have optional insane 100 DPS and 300 damage yamato like BC, have less life and armor than BC.. And people thought BC's were worthless? Carrier has it's picture in the SC2 dictionary under worthless. Yamato is the only reason BCs are viable even with speed upgrade as they can take out immediate threats like VR, Corruptors and Vikings when they swarm them. If 20 VR roll up on your 8-9 BCs you can eliminate half almost instantly and stand a chance/win. Otherwise BCs would still be worthless even though it's better than Carrier. What does that tell you about carrier without Yamato...
Carriers are ''worse'' than BCs because there are void rays which are insanely powerful. If they make Carriers better than BCs, then protoss will be too powerful and Terran won't have an answer to the protoss deathball.
|
This is what the Blizzard mindset is. If you don't like it, too bad. Complaining here is pointless. They read their own forums and they get their opinions from their website. You have to post there in order to be noticed.
|
On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. This applies both to high templars and colossi. We felt that if we were to nerf both of these units protoss may end up too weak in the late game. Therefore, we decided to adjust high templars first and see how the game plays out
I wish they had nerfed the colossus instead. At least storm takes some micro ability to do insane damage to light targets.
|
On April 05 2011 12:25 bearhug wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 10:25 tdt wrote:On April 05 2011 06:36 HeroMystic wrote: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. Because they are even worse than bad. They do less DPS than BC even with all 8 interceptors, Take longer to build than BC, Cost more than BC because of interceptors, don't have optional insane 100 DPS and 300 damage yamato like BC, have less life and armor than BC.. And people thought BC's were worthless? Carrier has it's picture in the SC2 dictionary under worthless. Yamato is the only reason BCs are viable even with speed upgrade as they can take out immediate threats like VR, Corruptors and Vikings when they swarm them. If 20 VR roll up on your 8-9 BCs you can eliminate half almost instantly and stand a chance/win. Otherwise BCs would still be worthless even though it's better than Carrier. What does that tell you about carrier without Yamato... Carriers are ''worse'' than BCs because there are void rays which are insanely powerful. If they make Carriers better than BCs, then protoss will be too powerful and Terran won't have an answer to the protoss deathball.
Vikings and banshees are pretty good too.
|
It looks like Void Ray rush is back in fashion in Korea thanks to stim nerf . A lot of T's are QQ'ing about it @PlayXP.
|
As much as people are against the Warp Gates mechanic, I really don't think that Blizzard will remove it. Unfortunately, without it, Protoss and Terran would play very similarly. Zerg already has a pretty unique unit-production method built into the race, which makes it difficult to play to new players. Without Warp Gates, Protoss and Terran would both play in a style that is basically:
1) Build Production Building
2) Build Tech Building
3) Research in Tech Building, Queue unit in Production building.
What Warp Gates do is mess with the natural order by setting a reversed production queue to Protoss units. Although it would be possible to integrate this without Warp-in, it would essentially be the same as Terran in terms of play-style. It would simply be each unit has the build time of its predecessor.
In a way, I'd have preferred the change to Colossi first. Because Banshees can destroy our base completely if unscouted and not prepared for, we need to lead out with the Robotics Facility. This naturally leads us into Colossi, as they require only 1 additional tech building. If High Templar were more powerful than Colossi, they would be riskier to get to, but would be worth teching to first.
With the amulet being removed but Colossi staying at their current strength, High Templar become a far "pickier" option for winning. It's the same as Stargate-first plays in PvT; not worthless, but harder to use than robotics tech, and not quite as useful overall. It'd be nice if this was reversed - the tech we have to get should be weaker/harder to use effectively than the tech we can choose to get.
|
What Protos needs the most is a removing of range upgrade and decreasing colossi splash area. At now colossi are just mobile SiegeTank in siege mode.
In late game vs Z the Toss death ball with colossi, stalkers, VR and few sentry almost unstoppable, it's just so ridiculous.
And also, Protoss needs almost no micro with its deathball (A-move, and just make FF) unlike Terran and Zerg.
|
On April 05 2011 02:42 unaliased wrote:
"We felt this upgrade reduced strategic choice. When combined with stalker or charge zealot warp-ins, this upgrade made it nearly impossible to do any sort of harassment attack anywhere there was a pylon."
How is that much different than PF? At least you can snipe a pylon in 2 seconds.
What?
I don't think you put much thought into this...how much does a pylon cost and how many of those do you have late game scuttered all over the map? Now compare these numbers to PFs...
|
On April 05 2011 03:09 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +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. The more I think about it, the more I think that warpgates shouldn't have made it past beta. Negating defender's advantage removes one of the cornerstones of any strategy game. And the balancing Blizzard did to compensate (weak gateway units, colossus) has had a bad effect on the game. Nearly every single problem in any vP match-up is caused directly by warpgates or the balancing Blizz did to compensate for warpgates.
Exactly, the WP mechanic is retarded IMHO and is the source of P problems. I sure hope they find some way to fix it in HOTs.
|
On April 05 2011 03:59 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. PvP just needs some sort of improvement to defender's advantage. A shield damage bonus to cannons, say. I'm sure creative people could think of better ones. Maybe bring back the shield battery! I think defender's advantage should exist without any sort of investment in static defense. An interesting change to warpin would be to make the warpgate cooldown based on the distance from the warpgate to the warp location, so proxy warpins require a longer cooldown than in-base ones. It would also encourage P to spread warpgates around their bases, which would be interesting. Warpin is an interesting mechanic, but there should be some penalty for proxy warpins -- in this case, that you have to build more warpgates to warp in at the same rate as the defender. This is actually a really good suggestion. To avoid things like having protoss stick all their gateways near the edge of their base to gain slight advantages I would use a tiered system. Have short, medium and long distance (no in betweens) which results in a short, medium or long cooldown.
I have been saying this for a really long time, if they won't remove the warp in they need to put a penalty to it depending on distance (a zero-small-high penalty system sounds good) so that the defender has some advantage. In that way the solve the too strong early all ins without Ps having problems themselves in defending. It is a change that is consistent to the spirit of their approach up until now, that is to reduce the effectiveness of early all ins (Terran nerfs, bigger maps) and makes good sense when you put the ever increasing average map size.
Mark my words, this thing is coming for sure and Blizzard should do it sooner rather tha later!
p.s.
|
On April 05 2011 04:14 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote:On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote:On April 05 2011 03:35 Gigaudas wrote:On April 05 2011 03:27 arterian wrote:
I wish Blizzard would address PvP. Removing warp-in is necessary to do that imo and they won't remove warp-in. PvP just needs some sort of improvement to defender's advantage. A shield damage bonus to cannons, say. I'm sure creative people could think of better ones. Maybe bring back the shield battery! I think defender's advantage should exist without any sort of investment in static defense. Why? You need defender's advantage but I can't think why the means of getting there matter. It's only an issue in PvP anyway, so it's far simpler to make a PvP change than try to rebalance warpgates entirely. Show nested quote +
An interesting change to warpin would be to make the warpgate cooldown based on the distance from the warpgate to the warp location, so proxy warpins require a longer cooldown than in-base ones. It would also encourage P to spread warpgates around their bases, which would be interesting.
Would be a nightmare for Protoss macro having all sorts of different cooldowns. Do you play P? Longer cooldowns would sort of defeat the point of warpgate...
Exactly...warpgate is the root of all evil when it comes to P problems, the faster BLIZZARD aknowleges that the better for everyone.
|
On April 05 2011 10:09 tdt wrote:Well Protoss is supposed to be strongest, according to blizzard: Show nested quote +Protoss Characteristics
Heavy Hitters
Pound for pound, the protoss field StarCraft II’s strongest and most durable units. That power comes at a price, as their units tend to be costly. Price is the problem. If you make it so a 200 vs 200 are even on the battle field, you have to reduce costs of all protoss units or they will get destroyed in follow up battles as Zerg and Terran can remax and Protoss can't. I'd like to see blizzard leave things as is with very different strengths and weaknesses between races rather than every game a TvT type rock paper scissors match up.
Why can't Protoss remax? Actually, they remax better than Terran does, since with warpin they can start rebuilding *instantly*, and then use all that saved chronoboost on their production facilities.
45 seconds after an engagement, each T production building costing 200/25 has built a marauder and a half.
Meanwhile, each P production building costing 150/0 has warped in TWO stalkers/zealots and almost ready to warp in a third if it's being chronoboosted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
