|
On April 06 2011 02:54 Gatored wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 00:18 ehalf wrote:
HT is not widely use just because colossus and forcefield are too strong combined together. HT + forcefield isnt that good. Even if blizzard nerf colossus first people will still not use HT since colossus + forcefield are so easy to use. HT and forcefield not good together? It is extremely effective to lock units into place and have them receive the full effects of a storm. The only reason you don't see this much in games is because it requires a lot of APM to effectively trap the units then storm them. If you can successfully pull it off though, it will do massive damage.
The answer is yes and no. You are talking of small battles during mid-game where only 1-2 HT exist. Trapping might be an good idea but normally people dont rely on it since sentries are too gas heavy. In the late game there is no need to trap at all. It actually block your zealot and stalkers to chase them running away.
|
The essence of forcefield is that it cut your opponent's army into small groups and you eat them one by one. HT's dps depends on mana and is normally instant dps which cant not last long. Colossus are long term steady dps. This is also why people prefer colossus since they are easy to use.
Even in the previous patch I hardly see any pure HT offensive plays. Normally it is mixed into colossus based army in late games. People just warp-in HT to defense, which is the exactly reason blizzard remove KA.
|
On April 05 2011 02:17 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:15 nvs. wrote:
I love their "we don't want to make big changes" argument to justify the neutering of an entire unit that has had a strong history in both SC1 and SC2. RIP HT's. Uhh HTs were never able to a) be instantly warped in and b) storm immediately after spawning. There is a gigantic difference between SC1 and SC2 HTs in both regards.
It's probably not worth comparing the SC2 HT to the SC1 HT. They occupy completely different roles in the game. The SC1 HT was the primary damage dealer vs Z, was useful vs P, and against T, the HT completely eliminated bio as a viable strategy. The SC2 HT is pretty bad against Z (because it's terrible against Z's bread and butter unit, the roach), it's utterly useless against P, and it's good against Terran bio, but not nearly as good as it was against Terran bio in SC1. The warpgate mechanic makes SC2 HT more mobile than their SC1 counter-parts, but they're much much weaker.
|
On April 06 2011 01:47 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 01:29 bovineblitz wrote:On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:On April 05 2011 22:30 beute wrote:On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
Terran
Battlecruiser movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Although we don’t want to see battlecruisers used in every terran late game, we noticed they’re hardly ever used at all. To encourage their use in more games, we decided to buff their biggest weakness, movement speed.
curiously they didnt have the same feelings for carriers... I find it important, or at least relevant, to note that the BC movement speed buff just put it on par with the Carrier's current movement speed. Do you know why it's a joke that no one builds Carriers? It's because carriers are actually good, but right now Protoss does not need them so they don't build them (with the exception of a tank farm). Right now it seems that the GW Colossus ball wins the majority of games that warpgate rushes/pressures fail to win. The BC buff was basically for TvT in my opinion. You still need air superiority, and four bases, before you can even think about BCs, but at least they are similar in speed to Vikings now. Try using carriers in actual competitive games and then come back and tell me they are good. Your implication may very well be true, but I think the lack of carriers is more a symptom of the metagame than it is the actual efficacy of the Carrier.
No. Carriers are truly bad. Vikings and corruptors are good against them and by the time P can have carriers, the opponent will already have the production facilities to quickly mass a response.
|
Huge props to DK/Blizzard for this; it's great to hear their reasoning etc, and it really shows how involved they are in the community.
|
On April 06 2011 03:31 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 01:47 TimeSpiral wrote:On April 06 2011 01:29 bovineblitz wrote:On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:On April 05 2011 22:30 beute wrote:On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
Terran
Battlecruiser movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Although we don’t want to see battlecruisers used in every terran late game, we noticed they’re hardly ever used at all. To encourage their use in more games, we decided to buff their biggest weakness, movement speed.
curiously they didnt have the same feelings for carriers... I find it important, or at least relevant, to note that the BC movement speed buff just put it on par with the Carrier's current movement speed. Do you know why it's a joke that no one builds Carriers? It's because carriers are actually good, but right now Protoss does not need them so they don't build them (with the exception of a tank farm). Right now it seems that the GW Colossus ball wins the majority of games that warpgate rushes/pressures fail to win. The BC buff was basically for TvT in my opinion. You still need air superiority, and four bases, before you can even think about BCs, but at least they are similar in speed to Vikings now. Try using carriers in actual competitive games and then come back and tell me they are good. Your implication may very well be true, but I think the lack of carriers is more a symptom of the metagame than it is the actual efficacy of the Carrier. No. Carriers are truly bad. Vikings and corruptors are good against them and by the time P can have carriers, the opponent will already have the production facilities to quickly mass a response.
You know, guys, I get that. Vikings and Corrupters kill Carriers. I don't play Protoss as my main, so maybe they really do suck, but I try hard not to fall into the, "a counter to this unit exists, therefor I cannot build this unit."
And your next part, you say that by that time the opponent already has the production to mass a response. Well, I think once you get into late game scenarios both opponents should have the whole tech tree open with reasonable production capabilities - in ideal cases. These later game scenarios becomes about available supply, army comps and positioning, scouting, and reaction time.
|
On April 06 2011 01:59 Sanguinarius wrote:
Yeah thats a big hint for possible colossus nerf. I fear for future protoss late game.
They can't touch the collosus without significantly buffing the other protoss tech paths (or completely removing the race from the competitive scene, which I somehow doubt they'll do). Collosus are a key unit in every protoss match up and the only tech keeping the race viable. I would love a collosus nerf if they made the rest of the tech viable.
It's no real surprise collosus are the most used tech path, just look at the rest of the high tech units:
High templar: The best option of all protoss tech excluding the collosus. Deals decent damage but is super slow if all you're using hts for is in a direct pushing force. The things buoying hts were their defensive capabilities (removed) and the low mineral/food costs, which allowed a significantly higher gateway unit count compared to other tech paths.
Dark Templar: Not a bad late game harass unit but not something in the same league as hts, carriers, and collsi from a design perspective. More then one person has said dts can fill the defensive hole left by the removal of khaydarin, but I'm not convinced yet.
Carriers: An exercise in frustration. On paper, they deal good damage, have plenty of health, and decent armor. In reality, they're slow, and answered by too many things. Whereas a collosus can expect to roast marines, stalkers, and hydras while worrying about viking, corrupters, etc, a carrier can be stopped by either. Oh, and if it hasn't been mentioned yet, carriers cost way the hell more then collosus.
Mothership: Has two one gimmick use. Doesn't do much damage, costs an outrageous amount of money. Is effectively a more expensive, crappy arbiter.
Not to mention, none of the above units scale with forge upgrades except dts (and any resulting archons you make from templar in general). With gateway units being pretty much required, the collosus is the only tech that can fully take advantage of forge upgrades, collosi don't become obsolete at any point.
|
I like the idea of making smaller army skirmishes less ugly for Protoss, but making deathballs less deadly. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossi, and buff Immortals to handle 4 Gates and things beside Roaches.
Carriers should be cheaper for sucking so much, perhaps making the Interceptors cooldown based. Honestly a Raven is more powerful than the Mothership, which bothers me. Protoss needs a counter to an extreme amount of air like mass Vikings, mass Mutas, or mass Corruptors. Warp-in storm was really the only counter to that, but that's gone, so the Mothership could fill that void.
|
On April 06 2011 04:18 Cloak wrote:
I like the idea of making smaller army skirmishes less ugly for Protoss, but making deathballs less deadly. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossi, and buff Immortals to handle 4 Gates and things beside Roaches.
Carriers should be cheaper for sucking so much, perhaps making the Interceptors cooldown based. Honestly a Raven is more powerful than the Mothership, which bothers me. Protoss needs a counter to an extreme amount of air like mass Vikings, mass Mutas, or mass Corruptors. Warp-in storm was really the only counter to that, but that's gone, so the Mothership could fill that void.
There is a strange thing going on right now with Gateway units. Especially in TvP there is this constant fluctuating relationship between the two (Gateway <-> Barracks).
3gate, 4gate, and Blink rushes are insanely hard to deal with even with a 2rax opener. Stim pops, and now you have a short burst of time where you can fight toe to toe and with micro get an advantage, but forcefields, guardian shields, and the fact that medivacs are not out yet make it a super temporary flux in advantage.
Now we're seeing the popularization of double cb forge mass gateway plays. These upgrades, plus guardian shields really do wonders in negating the DPS reduction effect of medivacs once they are out.
I am starting to think it may not be as skewed as a brief perusal of Protoss posts on TL may lead one to believe.
Observation: Why are Protoss players skipping shield upgrades? I was always under the impression that Armor does not take effect until after the shields have been depleted. All Protoss units have a natural Armor of at least (1). I've always felt that get shields early is a better choice.
|
Never have though that they changed infestors because of mutas in ZvZ :o
|
United States12244 Posts
On April 06 2011 04:31 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 04:18 Cloak wrote:
I like the idea of making smaller army skirmishes less ugly for Protoss, but making deathballs less deadly. Buff Gateway, nerf Colossi, and buff Immortals to handle 4 Gates and things beside Roaches.
Carriers should be cheaper for sucking so much, perhaps making the Interceptors cooldown based. Honestly a Raven is more powerful than the Mothership, which bothers me. Protoss needs a counter to an extreme amount of air like mass Vikings, mass Mutas, or mass Corruptors. Warp-in storm was really the only counter to that, but that's gone, so the Mothership could fill that void. There is a strange thing going on right now with Gateway units. Especially in TvP there is this constant fluctuating relationship between the two (Gateway <-> Barracks). 3gate, 4gate, and Blink rushes are insanely hard to deal with even with a 2rax opener. Stim pops, and now you have a short burst of time where you can fight toe to toe and with micro get an advantage, but forcefields, guardian shields, and the fact that medivacs are not out yet make it a super temporary flux in advantage. Now we're seeing the popularization of double cb forge mass gateway plays. These upgrades, plus guardian shields really do wonders in negating the DPS reduction effect of medivacs once they are out. I am starting to think it may not be as skewed as a brief perusal of Protoss posts on TL may lead one to believe. Observation: Why are Protoss players skipping shield upgrades? I was always under the impression that Armor does not take effect until after the shields have been depleted. All Protoss units have a natural Armor of at least (1). I've always felt that get shields early is a better choice.
On the topic of shield upgrades, it's more beneficial to go from 1 to 2 armor than 0 to 1 shield, especially considering the only unit that has more shield than hull life is the Archon, and shields are more expensive to upgrade.
|
On April 06 2011 04:08 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 01:59 Sanguinarius wrote:
Yeah thats a big hint for possible colossus nerf. I fear for future protoss late game. They can't touch the collosus without significantly buffing the other protoss tech paths (or completely removing the race from the competitive scene, which I somehow doubt they'll do). Collosus are a key unit in every protoss match up and the only tech keeping the race viable. I would love a collosus nerf if they made the rest of the tech viable. It's no real surprise collosus are the most used tech path, just look at the rest of the high tech units: High templar: The best option of all protoss tech excluding the collosus. Deals decent damage but is super slow if all you're using hts for is in a direct pushing force. The things buoying hts were their defensive capabilities (removed) and the low mineral/food costs, which allowed a significantly higher gateway unit count compared to other tech paths. Dark Templar: Not a bad late game harass unit but not something in the same league as hts, carriers, and collsi from a design perspective. More then one person has said dts can fill the defensive hole left by the removal of khaydarin, but I'm not convinced yet. Carriers: An exercise in frustration. On paper, they deal good damage, have plenty of health, and decent armor. In reality, they're slow, and answered by too many things. Whereas a collosus can expect to roast marines, stalkers, and hydras while worrying about viking, corrupters, etc, a carrier can be stopped by either. Oh, and if it hasn't been mentioned yet, carriers cost way the hell more then collosus. Mothership: Has two one gimmick use. Doesn't do much damage, costs an outrageous amount of money. Is effectively a more expensive, crappy arbiter. Not to mention, none of the above units scale with forge upgrades except dts (and any resulting archons you make from templar in general). With gateway units being pretty much required, the collosus is the only tech that can fully take advantage of forge upgrades, collosi don't become obsolete at any point.
Pretty sure MC just won a GSL finals without making a single colossus. Also, HT's might not make you immune to drops from instant storms, but they're still pretty much as strong as before in your army. I can see maybe a buff to carrier or mothership speed happening though.
|
On April 06 2011 02:04 zanmat0 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 00:56 nkr wrote:My accusations are grounded in the fact that he had 1 Hellion against Huk's 3 gate robo push. You're defending him based on speculation that it would have developed into a viable strategy which there is no proof of and seems quite unlikely given the facts. Haha your accusations are based off ONE match, while my opinion is based on the result of all his matches, not that single one. Hilarious. And we're talking about that ONE match. Drop it dude, you're losing sight of the original argument.
The original argument was wether David Kim had a clue or not. If you want to make it something else then that's up to you, but the thing you seem to be arguing about is not only pointless but also a bit dumb.
|
i do have 1 simple suggestion to really make protoss much much more fun to watch:
get rid of mothership
bring in the arbitor
i honestly dont know why blizzard went the way of mothership.
i guess being able to recall multiple places with multiple arbitors on top of warpgate is too much?
warpgate + mothership vs gateway + arbitor. i'll take the latter.
|
On April 06 2011 04:08 Offhand wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 01:59 Sanguinarius wrote:
Yeah thats a big hint for possible colossus nerf. I fear for future protoss late game. They can't touch the collosus without significantly buffing the other protoss tech paths (or completely removing the race from the competitive scene, which I somehow doubt they'll do). Collosus are a key unit in every protoss match up and the only tech keeping the race viable. I would love a collosus nerf if they made the rest of the tech viable. It's no real surprise collosus are the most used tech path, just look at the rest of the high tech units: High templar: The best option of all protoss tech excluding the collosus. Deals decent damage but is super slow if all you're using hts for is in a direct pushing force. The things buoying hts were their defensive capabilities (removed) and the low mineral/food costs, which allowed a significantly higher gateway unit count compared to other tech paths. Dark Templar: Not a bad late game harass unit but not something in the same league as hts, carriers, and collsi from a design perspective. More then one person has said dts can fill the defensive hole left by the removal of khaydarin, but I'm not convinced yet. Carriers: An exercise in frustration. On paper, they deal good damage, have plenty of health, and decent armor. In reality, they're slow, and answered by too many things. Whereas a collosus can expect to roast marines, stalkers, and hydras while worrying about viking, corrupters, etc, a carrier can be stopped by either. Oh, and if it hasn't been mentioned yet, carriers cost way the hell more then collosus. Mothership: Has two one gimmick use. Doesn't do much damage, costs an outrageous amount of money. Is effectively a more expensive, crappy arbiter. Not to mention, none of the above units scale with forge upgrades except dts (and any resulting archons you make from templar in general). With gateway units being pretty much required, the collosus is the only tech that can fully take advantage of forge upgrades, collosi don't become obsolete at any point.
You did make a very good point. HT are "Deals decent damage but is super slow if all you're using hts for is in a direct pushing force". This should be exactly the future for colossus. You cant expect a unit to be perfect. Being massive AOE, move up/down cliffs, walk fast, long HP, long range, overlap with ground unit ... dude zerg player will laugh to death if they had some unit which has any of those two abilities at same time.
|
On April 05 2011 17:35 tdt wrote:
WG moving to templar would solve a lot of the bullshit in PvP like 4 gating and sentry rushing against Z&T.
I still think 200 vs 200 protoss should win because of unit cost and slow rebuild not to mention it offers more dynamics to the game.
Protoss: strong, slow and expensive
Zerg: Cheap, fast and weak
Terran: balanced.
I think weakening toss to be equal 200 vs 200 is just another TvT. While TvT is good, every macro economy RTS game is like that, Starcraft is/was great because of it's differentiation between races and ever changing meta game which won't happen with equal races.
They have pretty much the fastest remax time out of the three races once you're getting a decent number of resources, although you have to remax with gateway units. Notice the new PvZ trend isn't voidray colossus but often has been blink stalker colossus with only like 3-4 colossi? You instead MASS warpgates that you aren't even producing out of, so after the first battle, you literally warp in FIFTEEN friggin' stalkers instantly with blink, chrono the warpgates, and then warp in ANOTHER fifteen stalkers BEFORE the Zerg units have had any chance to group whatsoever. And when does toss ever even loss 30 supply, lol.
|
On April 06 2011 02:28 bentski wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 01:47 TimeSpiral wrote:On April 06 2011 01:29 bovineblitz wrote:On April 05 2011 22:52 TimeSpiral wrote:On April 05 2011 22:30 beute wrote:On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote:
Terran
Battlecruiser movement speed increased from 1.406 to 1.875.
Although we don’t want to see battlecruisers used in every terran late game, we noticed they’re hardly ever used at all. To encourage their use in more games, we decided to buff their biggest weakness, movement speed.
curiously they didnt have the same feelings for carriers... I find it important, or at least relevant, to note that the BC movement speed buff just put it on par with the Carrier's current movement speed. Do you know why it's a joke that no one builds Carriers? It's because carriers are actually good, but right now Protoss does not need them so they don't build them (with the exception of a tank farm). Right now it seems that the GW Colossus ball wins the majority of games that warpgate rushes/pressures fail to win. The BC buff was basically for TvT in my opinion. You still need air superiority, and four bases, before you can even think about BCs, but at least they are similar in speed to Vikings now. Try using carriers in actual competitive games and then come back and tell me they are good. Your implication may very well be true, but I think the lack of carriers is more a symptom of the metagame than it is the actual efficacy of the Carrier. No, bovineblitz is right. Carriers suck and not because of the metagame, but because they take forever to get, cost a shitload of money, and die to basically anything that hits air... except maybe hydras. But you know what's better at killing hydras anyway? Collosi! Even with your example of a tank-heavy terran. It's usually much better to just get void rays or even phoenix to gravitron beam the tanks because any marine support whatsoever just destroys the interceptors. BTW - not trying to rip on you TimeSpiral. I just miss the awesome carriers of BW... and I'm tired of people saying "Carriers have the highest DPS in the game, therefore they are awesome."
People saying "Carriers have the highest DPS in the game, therefore they are awesome." are wrong
Carrier = 26.7 air and ground
BC = 26.7 air
36.6 Ground
100 air and ground with yamato.
Carriers cost more
Carriers have less HP and Armor
Carriers take longer to build
Carriers are a complete joke which is why they get owned in competitive play and are rarly usedd useless you are far ahead anyway.
|
On April 06 2011 01:59 Sanguinarius wrote:
Yeah thats a big hint for possible colossus nerf. I fear for future protoss late game.
Same here. As of now Toss is boring as fuck with only a couple paths to take a victory, Early game gate pushes with FF or col ball with FF. Lets strip another one out, good idea.
If they are going to nerf col:
HT needs to be back on field with mana upgrade like other casters have available to them and Carrier needs a significant boost to make other strategies viable late.
|
On April 06 2011 05:48 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 01:59 Sanguinarius wrote:
Yeah thats a big hint for possible colossus nerf. I fear for future protoss late game. Same here. As of now Toss is boring as fuck with only a couple paths to take a victory, Early game gate pushes with FF or col ball with FF. Lets strip another one out, good idea. If they are going to nerf col: HT needs to be back on field with mana upgrade like other casters have available to them and Carrier needs a significant boost to make other strategies viable late.
I think most of the communit is in agreement they would like to see some mana upgrade (over nothing, at least), such as +15. Everyone hates colossus balls, I find gateway units much more fun to play against and with. Blink stalkers are fun, and chargelots might be a little more fun if their base speed was increased by like .8 instead of .5 after the upgrade.
|
On April 06 2011 05:23 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 17:35 tdt wrote:
WG moving to templar would solve a lot of the bullshit in PvP like 4 gating and sentry rushing against Z&T.
I still think 200 vs 200 protoss should win because of unit cost and slow rebuild not to mention it offers more dynamics to the game.
Protoss: strong, slow and expensive
Zerg: Cheap, fast and weak
Terran: balanced.
I think weakening toss to be equal 200 vs 200 is just another TvT. While TvT is good, every macro economy RTS game is like that, Starcraft is/was great because of it's differentiation between races and ever changing meta game which won't happen with equal races.
They have pretty much the fastest remax time out of the three races once you're getting a decent number of resources, although you have to remax with gateway units. Notice the new PvZ trend isn't voidray colossus but often has been blink stalker colossus with only like 3-4 colossi? You instead MASS warpgates that you aren't even producing out of, so after the first battle, you literally warp in FIFTEEN friggin' stalkers instantly with blink, chrono the warpgates, and then warp in ANOTHER fifteen stalkers BEFORE the Zerg units have had any chance to group whatsoever. And when does toss ever even loss 30 supply, lol.
Usually it's Zerg with 3000 banked and toss is in financial ruins to field his army. But sure if a toss is ahead or even financially other races are at significant disadvantage vs. gateway units like the newer blink stalker warp-ins. That's becoming only way to win after Col are all gone because you can't field high energy sentries and Col fast enough to meet the other races faster production. Kinda proves my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
