|
On April 06 2011 06:05 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:23 FabledIntegral wrote: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.
Watch G2 of KiWiKaKi vs Select
KiWi rebuilt is deathball at least three times
|
On April 06 2011 05:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:48 tdt wrote: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.
The only way gateway is viable is having a couple bases over a terran or even with Zerg and just throw units away like Adelscott did with MVP. Lost like 35000 to 20000 but still won the game. Slight mid game buffs to WG and col nerf could be very interesting but without it they just die in droves.
|
On April 05 2011 01:43 Mommas Boy wrote:
It definatley sounds like a Collosi nerf is on the way.
"2.We felt late game protoss splash damage was slightly overpowered. This applies both to high templars and colossi."
yeah, that was my understanding of it to, but to nerf both at the same time would kill any positive view of Protoss (I mean, they keep nerfing Terrans and look at how many people are playing toss now, this is just a viewpoint, I may just be entirely wrong).
|
On April 06 2011 03:25 kcdc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:17 Excalibur_Z wrote: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.
I wouldn't say it is bad against Zerg, it is bad as a primary source of damage but it works out much better as a "straw that broke that camels back", something like Immortal/Templar, the bulk of your damage comes from Immortal/Stalker but the Storm AOE speeds things up.
Against Protoss it is the only viable (or efficient rather) way of handling mass Voidray lategame. It is hard to determine their usefulness, generally because they are so gas heavy and Protoss have shields and can choose to back out, but an army with 2-3 Templars is always stronger than an army without when at 200/200.
Maybe it is just me but I find Templars incredibly inefficient vs Terran now, I use to have a few sacrificial Templars and just warp-in more after the EMP-s were eaten, but now it really isn't possible to do that. It just feels like you are always banking on your opponent being incompetent with their EMP's because the Ghost vs Templar battle favors Ghosts ridiculously. You watch White-ra vs Bomber and see the point where he ends up getting 16 Templar but all but 3 get EMP'd anyway even though he spread them..
I do agree with the sentiment that how a Raven is better than a Mothership, at least in PvT, but I think that is more to do with how Terran is,with EMP's, Vikings and Scans. The Mothership is such a terrible unit against Terran and it is impossible to do anything but Mass Recall with it. I don't understand why they don't give it feedback/EMP immunity at the very least, the thing is so freaking huge and slow that it is near impossible to not be able to EMP it
Watch G2 of KiWiKaKi vs Select
KiWi rebuilt is deathball at least three times
That was never a deathball, it was just an army of assorted units. It didn't reach Deathball status until super late into the game where Kiwi managed to destroy SelecT's economy with 5 Stalkers and make it impossible to keep up
|
On April 06 2011 03:04 ehalf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 02:54 Gatored wrote: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.
GSL Spoilers
+ Show Spoiler +San used FFs to prevent MVP from retreating, and got several storms off despite getting EMPed, because his HTs has 175+ energy
This actually wasn't possible 1.2, because the EMPs would've killed all the Sentry energy.
|
On April 06 2011 07:51 Ribbon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 03:04 ehalf wrote:On April 06 2011 02:54 Gatored wrote: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. GSL Spoilers + Show Spoiler +San used FFs to prevent MVP from retreating, and got several storms off despite getting EMPed, because his HTs has 175+ energy This actually wasn't possible 1.2, because the EMPs would've killed all the Sentry energy.
+ Show Spoiler +
He got several Storms because the three Templar that got hit barely even had energy to Storm :S, he baited the EMP's and then brought in the two Templars that he didn't emp, which had 125+ energy on both and feedback one ghost and Stormed three times. Despite all that he still lost the battle and had to retreat, but if MVP had one more EMP then San would have died in that one moment
|
On April 06 2011 06:05 tdt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 05:23 FabledIntegral wrote: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.
Are you kidding? Watch any of the games, never is that the case. Toss is sitting on three bases fully saturated when this happen. When you attack when you're maxed, you're making enough to have in the bank around 2k+ when you go to remacro.
|
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.
Dude, not to be rude, but carriers are not weak to vikings per se. Carriers are pretty cost effective against anything with base armor smaller than 2(thats only corruptors/BC/ultras/carriers). Of course they take forever to build and no one I know of did a good transition into carriers as of yet.
That´s their main weakness imho: You can´t get them without dying in the timing window.
Though the unit itself is pretty good. They kill comparable amounts of vikings in a way you wouldn´t think possible. Range 8 for launch of fighters, then range 14 before fighters retreat and thanks to the upgrade they do burst damage of ~80(16 attacks of 5) with a cooldown of 3 seconds. Outrange any ground besides maybe Thors.
On the other hand, Voidrays are better ZvP, if you hit max(and you will). Supply for supply, VR dominate any zerg unit except for infestor. So that´s one less Matchup you will ever see them in.
|
On April 06 2011 02:04 zanmat0 wrote:
And we're talking about that ONE match. Drop it dude, you're losing sight of the original argument.
Keep in mind that when David Kim plays during work hours, it's for work. He may have been trying out a hypothetical build that didn't work. He may have been practicing a build he hadn't yet learned to execute well. He may have been getting some replays to settle an argument from a theorycrafting session with his peers. You just don't know what he was doing in that game, and extrapolating from one ladder game to generalize about his skill (particularly when his MMR and ladder ranking are very high as random) is not reasonable.
|
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.
I really think that the only way to fix the colossus would require a total rehaul on the entire protoss race
the way it stands now the colossus is the only thing keeping protoss in the late game.
|
On April 05 2011 01:42 Noocta wrote:
I like that they wanted to hit protoss aoe damage.
Don't understand why they would focus on templars while colossi are almost breaking the game.
Templar can't be killed by air to air.
|
On April 06 2011 12:46 Wr3k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:42 Noocta wrote:
I like that they wanted to hit protoss aoe damage.
Don't understand why they would focus on templars while colossi are almost breaking the game. Templar can't be killed by air to air.
having air to air colusi's weakness is what actually screws up the balance imo. its not enough when there stalkers and voidrays mixed in.
|
What if they nerfed collosus but made toss ground upgrades more powerful? This would buff mid to late game gateway units while keeping their early game usage the same.
|
They need to either nerf Colossus or HTs, can't nerf both b/c Protoss is gonna be so weak in both early or late game. Both defend and attack
|
On April 06 2011 06:14 hugman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 06:05 tdt wrote:On April 06 2011 05:23 FabledIntegral wrote: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. Watch G2 of KiWiKaKi vs Select KiWi rebuilt is deathball at least three times
deathball is Colossus + VRs, not bunch of DTs, Zealots and Colossus. In that game SeleCT just fell apart, he was up like 3 bases more than kiwi but got out macro in later.
|
On April 06 2011 12:44 Mataza wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 03:31 kcdc wrote: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. Dude, not to be rude, but carriers are not weak to vikings per se. Carriers are pretty cost effective against anything with base armor smaller than 2(thats only corruptors/BC/ultras/carriers). Of course they take forever to build and no one I know of did a good transition into carriers as of yet. That´s their main weakness imho: You can´t get them without dying in the timing window. Though the unit itself is pretty good. They kill comparable amounts of vikings in a way you wouldn´t think possible. Range 8 for launch of fighters, then range 14 before fighters retreat and thanks to the upgrade they do burst damage of ~80(16 attacks of 5) with a cooldown of 3 seconds. Outrange any ground besides maybe Thors. On the other hand, Voidrays are better ZvP, if you hit max(and you will). Supply for supply, VR dominate any zerg unit except for infestor. So that´s one less Matchup you will ever see them in.
Trading Carrier for Viking is never a good trade, you need a critical mass for Carriers to do well, combine that with their cost and build time as well as their cost to operate...being "cost effective" isn't enough
People tend to leave out cost of interceptors too. When you have a fleet of 6+ Carriers, your money drains FAST, you can easily spend 1k+ Minerals every fight, and even if your winning you really aren't because you just spent 1k+ minerals that fight on interceptors.
A single BattleCruiser can change how a game is played yet even when you have four Carriers you still don't get the effect.
The unit needs less cost effective counters. Marines, Viking and Battle Cruisers do so darn well against Carrier where as Protoss very inefficient counters to Battle Cruisers, the only real good cost effective counter to Battle Cruisers Protoss has does terrible against everything else. That same dynamic needs to exist for Carriers, just as Protoss counters aren't very cost effective against Battle Cruisers, Terran counters have to be less effective against Carriers, so that even a few Carriers can have the same gameplay shift you get when a few Battle Cruisers are in the field. Marines in broodwar were never as good against Carriers how Marines in SC2 are, they should return a little of that balance back.
|
Im a little concerned with the apparent hint toward colossus nerf. Is protoss on its way to be the 4 gate or die strategy?....if anything nerf the 4 gate somehow
|
Marines counter carriers better than vikings. Which is sad.
|
nerf colossus =/= nerf it's damage. Like nerf HT just remove KA. nerf colossus could mean speed nerf, production time nerf, hp nerf, etc
I dont see colossus are so important as nerf it protoss will die. Terran's core is bio and the core of bio is stim, I didnt see terran wouldnt use stim coz the huge nerf. Just deal with it, people will still have to use colossus coz they will lose more if they dont go colossus.
|
On April 05 2011 03:32 GinDo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:47 never_toss wrote:On April 05 2011 01:45 Heraklitus wrote:
Yea, the hint at a possible future collossus nerf is the big news there. if this means no more mass collo battles in pvp  shoul buff gate units if thats the case though Gateway units aren't that weak people are finding out. Notice how many Zergs are losing to mass Gateway units and Terren Bio suffering too with well placed Force fields. Not to mention warp in abilitiy gives toss strong allins. The only way i will agree to a buff is if Warp ability is removed, which it won't be.
Agree with this. I've always felt gateway units are strong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
