|
I just don't get the templar change explanation.
They say that Protoss AOE may be to strong:
We see colossi in the majority of the PvT/PvZ games, templar's are used, but basicly only towards the later game.
They also disliked the fact that you can just warp in templar at a pylon and hold off agression.
So why did they decide to remove the amulet then?
Has anything really changed in terms of the aoe output? Not really, protoss just gets more colossi.
They always go on about how they want more unit diversity, but then why promote the usage of colossi even harder?
Why didn't they actually for example nerf the colossi, and add the proposed change of like (no storm after X seconds after warpin).
The aoe output is nerfed, and you actually have a reason to go for HT tech towards the later stages, because storm does more damage then colossi then.
"nerf to something they are worried about and more unit diversity"
vs
"everyone just going colossi now if they want aoe."
Anyway, just some speculation/thoughts on my end, because I guess more was going on behind the templar change then just "we think protoss aoe might be to strong"
|
On April 05 2011 01:47 never_toss wrote:Show nested quote +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
Yeah because zerg has no problem with gate units at the moment.
A colossi nerf and a buff to the carrier sounds like a better way to go.
Edit: And perhaps reworking the Mothership to make it a useful unit toi have.
|
On April 05 2011 02:00 TheResidentEvil wrote:
I think blizzard needs to leave this game alone for a long while. A few months back before MC protoss was getting owned in tournaments. What has really changed for them??
1. cheaper obs
2. faster phoenix build time
3. faster halluc
4. remove amulet
5. Void ray "nerf"
Thats it. thats all the changes to toss. Now suddenly everyone complaining protoss so OP. its so ridiculous. the game goes in stages so right now, play through it!!
So, in your opinion the nerf to stim research has nothing to do with Protoss being stronger in 1.3? Introducing a ton of large maps while removing the smaller ones, making warp in much more powerful?
You have to look at the whole picture, not just at some small part of it.
|
And don't lie to yourself.
To fend off drop, most protoss use DTs instead of HTs with great succes already.
Kiwikakki vs Select game on Tetsbug during MLG was a great exemple how protoss don't need amulet templars to fend off drop play.
|
On April 05 2011 02:27 Logo wrote:
This is the most well thought out situation report they've written, but it's funny how they wanted mutas to be better in ZvZ, but they actually made them worse.
Since infestors are more of a core/staple unit in ZvZ capable of handling roaches you can put out more infestors than you could before. So with the increased # of fungals its more practical to kill mutas purely via fungal and you can skip hydras entirely. It's also easier to do due to the reduced amount of time, and with the increased DPS if you fungal mutas over something important they deal less damage and won't live long enough to take out anything like tech.
You can also do things like devout more resources towards spore crawlers because you have infestors + roach which can hold off their roach transition whereas before you needed to make sure to have an equal or greater # of roaches in comparison.
I though i'd read it wrong the first time. The infestor change was to make muta stronger in ZvZ? Huh. I'm pleased their trying, but wow, way to do the complete opposite.
|
I actually agree that there should be a gateway buff if they shit on the Colossus. Nothing big but something like giving Stalkers +2 attack per upgrade instead of +1 might work. Unless they changed that already D:
|
Strange reasoning to be honest. BC change was fine I guess, but what about the other races capital ships? Carriers almost never see use outside of FFA and people messing around, and Corruptors/Broodlords only see use out of necessity because not much else can break turtles as well. Terran just haven't had a reason to use them, even after the quicker tech time, because they're too busy being ridiculously cost effective with MMM balls.
And instead of really addressing the issue with the colossi ball (especially against zerg) they change the infestor and say ZvZ muta was their focus and add in the bonus damage to armor as a bandaid.
What about fixing Neural Parasite as an answer for that? That's hardly used because it often times does nothing or you just barely lose a battle because it wears off and wrecks the rest of your army. Make the mind control permanent or at least tick down until the infestor is out of energy.
Infested terrans aren't even very useful anymore. You can't land a fungal and stick a few IT below an overseer and take that out. I'd like to see the IT last longer and move faster.
I think that would create a nice dynamic between the HT and Ghost and Infestor.
Overall I like that they're giving some feedback on what the logic is and that they're still working on balancing the game, but I think they're way off on a lot of the reasons. Like they're listening to the community then just making up reasons and balance changes as they go along.
|
On April 05 2011 02:27 Gescom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:25 nvs. wrote: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. Never said they were the same, just that they are now essentially unusable. A 10 energy reduction as a bonus from KA seems more justified than removing the upgrade completely. I haven't made a single HT since the change.  Pretty hyperbolic statement there... You know that you can still instantly feedback right? ^^
Don't waste your breathe dude, that guy/girl is the type of player who thinks HT's are useless because you now have to plan their use instead of just warping in and laughing. They usually follow up the arguments with "but ghosts can EMP right away", which you counter with "but they take 40 secs to build" and they then counter with "but you remove all my energy and my shields" we then counter once more with "But EMP can't kill anything, feedback and storm can" and finally they counter with "well, i know you are but what am I?".... shortly after this they begin to cry like a child.
On topic..........
I really like that blizz actually explains themselves, I'm not the sort of player who sees patch notes and screams, I have generally thought every change made since release worked out pretty well. I challenge anyone to present a logical and well thought our argument that refutes that statement. The game is slowly moving towards perfect balance, it will never get there, much like accelerating to the speed of light, as you get closer to your goal you need exponentially more energy to accellerate, with balance the closer you get to 100% balance, the harder it is to make the tiny tweaks needed.
Anywho, bring on the BC's...... Late game TvT just got more interesting.
|
so they had the choice between nerfing colossi and high templars.....and they chose the templar?
|
"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.
|
As a protoss, changes I would be ok with to fix the ZvP match up would be.
A: Increasing energy cost of forcefield from 50 to 75.
B: Buff corruptors... Voidrays>Corruptors? That shouldn't be the case.
|
On April 05 2011 02:02 Noocta wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 01:50 the9thdude wrote: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. Collossi are big and can be targeted by air, High Templars can be warped in anywhere there is a Pylon and can basically kill anything when they spawn. Templars are harder to get than Colossi, and harder to use. Templars aren't a unit we saw in 99% of PvP PvT PvZ either. If they think protoss aoe is too strong, why would they nerf the one we don't see very often, beside PvT after 25min ?
The first part of this is something that Blizzard has mostly neglected in SC2. Even with the apm of top BW players like Flash and Jaedong, some units are still harder to use than others. Queens in BW were rarely used because of the apm needed to use them, even though some players could reach 800 apm in battle situations.
There was a trade-off in BW where units with higher apm requirements and were generally harder to use, on average, were more cost effective and powerful than units with lower apm requirements if used correctly. This has been mostly neglected in SC2, which rears its ugly head in the colossus vs high templar debate.
I can use colossi almost as effectively as top players do with my 30 apm. I can't use templars effectively at all and some pros still make mistakes every now and then aiming storms at the high level. Blizzard can't just treat these units the same, when using one requires a few more clicks and whose effectiveness is dependent on the player's aim while using the other is just as simple and brainless as can be.
Blizzard needs to balance these units taking into account the skill factor. Even pros mess up. Even pros don't have the apm to do everything, even with smart spellcasting, unlimited unit selection and all that new UI jazz. Even pros mis-aim from time to time. If a unit requires more clicks, if it has more room for error, then using that unit needs to be more rewarding than another unit you can just a-move somewhere.
|
On April 05 2011 02:30 Icx wrote:
I just don't get the templar change explanation.
They say that Protoss AOE may be to strong:
We see colossi in the majority of the PvT/PvZ games, templar's are used, but basicly only towards the later game.
They also disliked the fact that you can just warp in templar at a pylon and hold off agression.
So why did they decide to remove the amulet then?
Has anything really changed in terms of the aoe output? Not really, protoss just gets more colossi.
They always go on about how they want more unit diversity, but then why promote the usage of colossi even harder?
Why didn't they actually for example nerf the colossi, and add the proposed change of like (no storm after X seconds after warpin).
The aoe output is nerfed, and you actually have a reason to go for HT tech towards the later stages, because storm does more damage then colossi then.
"nerf to something they are worried about and more unit diversity"
vs
"everyone just going colossi now if they want aoe."
Anyway, just some speculation/thoughts on my end, because I guess more was going on behind the templar change then just "we think protoss aoe might be to strong"
Seriously did you read the blog? David Kim said the reasoning was that they didn't like how easy it was to shut down harassment using HT's late game, they felt it reduced tactical options for the opponent, forcing big engagements where you might want to harrass instead. Protoss didn't ever need to keep any units at home or even move back to defend Medivac drops in the late game, they would just warp in and storm. Thats why they nerfed the HT instead of the collosi. HT's are insanely powerful, especially with the ghost nerf, warp them in early and build up that energy, even with a perfect EMP you will have energy for atleast 1 storm on most of your HT's.
more over, i've seen more use of HT's since the patch than before. And i've defninately taken way more damage from them since i can't EMP them all in one hit anymore
|
On April 05 2011 02:34 Noocta wrote:
And don't lie to yourself.
To fend off drop, most protoss use DTs instead of HTs with great succes already.
Kiwikakki vs Select game on Tetsbug during MLG was a great exemple how protoss don't need amulet templars to fend off drop play.
Understand that a dark shrine takes an incredibly long time to build, any lategame terran is going to have 2-3 orbitals minimum, P already tends to end up starved on gas because of how much Colossi cost, and DTs aren't as efficient. It's ultimately the better choice strategically to just turtle, which leads to some pretty boring games.
|
On April 05 2011 02:40 Ohdamn wrote:
so they had the choice between nerfing colossi and high templars.....and they chose the templar?
this isn't the first time blizzard has shown its retarded.
bnet 2.0
User was warned for this post
|
On April 05 2011 02:42 EnderCraft wrote:
As a protoss, changes I would be ok with to fix the ZvP match up would be.
A: Increasing energy cost of forcefield from 50 to 75.
B: Buff corruptors... Voidrays>Corruptors? That shouldn't be the case.
Don't be silly please...
Understand that a dark shrine takes an incredibly long time to build, any lategame terran is going to have 2-3 orbitals minimum, P already tends to end up starved on gas because of how much Colossi cost, and DTs aren't as efficient. It's ultimately the better choice strategically to just turtle, which leads to some pretty boring games.
I don't think getting a Dark Shrine is longer than getting Templars archives THEN Storm THEN amulet.
And yep, DTs defense is still not as good as amulet templars, but i think it was the goal.
It's just, some people are like " Protoss have no way to stop drops anymore ! " which is not the case. If a terran have to blow up a scan each time he drops somewhere, that's a freaking lot of MULES he won't have. And a DT + a few zealots still clena up drops like boss.
|
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.
How can you possibly compare warp-in storms to a PF? build cannons.
|
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.
Are you really comparing a unit with a building? lol.
1) PF's can't hit things stood behind the mineral line without the range upgrade, even with it you can still out range the PF.... AND IT CANT MOVE TO GET YOU IN RANGE
2) Terrans have no anti-ground static defence except the PF. P have cannons and Z have Spinecrawlers. We get PF's.
3) choosing to get a PF reduces T economy, and frankly, on some maps, you have no choice but to build them. If you don't you can't defend your bases.
I could think of more reasons why you can't compare a PF to a HT but in reality, comparing race mechanics as a way to justify your opposition to a balance change is just stupid.
|
On April 05 2011 02:17 WGarrison wrote:
Protoss has a bit of an issue on a fundemental level at the moment and its centered around the deathball. There are two reasons that the deathball gets created, the first is that all of the protoss army is extremely efficient when clumped up, more so that any other force, so protoss like to be clumped up. Also protoss units are horrible when seperated into small groups, so they have to be in clumped up groups.
For example, with terran 8 marines and a medivac is small but strong. A few harrass hellions in a group is small but strong. Little groups of infantry is small but strong. With zerg, small muta groups are strong, small zergling packs are strong. Protoss does not have that, they until the patch had zealot templar warp in groups that were strong but not even that anymore.
Protoss currently have to have a deathball to make up for the fact that they can't engage in small army battles (without way outbasing oppoenent). I would like to see a nerf to the deathball, particularly in the aoe area, but there has to be some sort of buff that allows us to fight the small battles too. Just strictly nerfing the deathball could leave protoss broken.
I agree with WGarrison that toss changes need to be carefully considered. I imagine that he deathball will be here to stay until the next expansion.
Overall, a well-reasoned analysis by Blizzard. I hope the balancing works out. Only time will tell.
|
On April 05 2011 02:45 shakenbake wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:40 Ohdamn wrote:
so they had the choice between nerfing colossi and high templars.....and they chose the TempLar this isn't the First time blizzard has shown its retarded. bnet 2.0
Then don't play the game. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
