|
United States1388 Posts
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."
I think Blizzard could make a lot of people happy if they managed the nerf the Colossus with a change that makes it more interesting at the same time.
|
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.
|
I just wish they had chosen to 'adjust' the colossus instead of the HT which are a far more dynamic and entertaining unit imo than the distinctly beige colossus...
|
I am actually very excited for a collosus nerf, as a protoss player, as long as they throw us a bone some other places. The two main places I am talking about are the archon and the carrier. The archon needs some love (massive + bigger splash?), and would make templar tech more viable if it itself was a viable unit. We all know the jokes that have been going around about carriers not existing, and these jokes are not without a shred of truth...
|
Wow, their reasoning just further goes to prove that they are far out of touch with their own game and the issues affecting it.
|
On April 05 2011 02:49 Cofo wrote:Show nested quote +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." I think Blizzard could make a lot of people happy if they managed the nerf the Colossus with a change that makes it more interesting at the same time.
I would be happy with a unit that did less damage, but wasn't the linch pin of the protoss army. It would be nice to have a fall back to do reasonable DPS.
Maybe we can hope for a carrier buff? Just to make them slightly useful. Just slightly, thats all I want.
|
Good and reasonable statements by David Kim. I still think Protoss late game is ridiculous though, no matter what race you are, even for PvP (where whoever has one more colossus wins). Watching Kiwi chronoboost colossi out of three robos vs Select made me cry. Maybe Select could've dropped on the robo facilities but from there it's kind of a guessing game where you hope your opponent's warp-in is still cooling down so they can't respond to your drop as quickly.
|
i say rid of colossus and bring back reaver, (colossus is pretty much reaver+shuttle), the games can be so much more dynamic. especially when used with prism warp-ins.
i think there should be fundamental changes to the game that can make it better but i guess its too late.
|
On April 05 2011 02:53 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:49 Cofo wrote: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." I think Blizzard could make a lot of people happy if they managed the nerf the Colossus with a change that makes it more interesting at the same time. I would be happy with a unit that did less damage, but wasn't the linch pin of the protoss army. It would be nice to have a fall back to do reasonable DPS. Maybe we can hope for a carrier buff? Just to make them slightly useful. Just slightly, thats all I want.
The problem with having the Colossus modification/replacement act as a support unit is that there would, probably, need to be a buff to Gateway units to compensate, which Blizzard is incredibly hesitant to do given the Warp Gate mechanic. The Colossus is designed to do a lot of damage and do it quickly to help offset the weaknesses defensively and offensively of zealots/stalkers, which allows Warp Gates to be versatile. The race as a whole would require a pretty massive overhaul, which likely won't happen until HotS/LotV if at all.
On April 05 2011 02:55 LoLAdriankat wrote:
Good and reasonable statements by David Kim. I still think Protoss late game is ridiculous though, no matter what race you are, even for PvP (where whoever has one more colossus wins). Watching Kiwi chronoboost colossi out of three robos vs Select made me cry. Maybe Select could've dropped on the robo facilities but from there it's kind of a guessing game where you hope your opponent's warp-in is still cooling down so they can't respond to your drop as quickly.
A single round of warp-ins is rarely enough to handle a couple medivacs full of M&M, especially if given room to kite.
|
I get a good feeling from these comments, better than last time, it looks like they are mostly on the ball. I'd rather had they nerfed colossi and kept the templar but hey, you can't have everything.
|
I'd like to see archons made less clumsy. Make them massive and immune-to-everything (a la Ultras) -- it's a sentient ball of psionic energy, should it really stop moving from a little fungus growing on it?
Then improve their movement speed and acceleration, or maybe tack on +1 range, and you're good to go.
Not sure how you make gateway units better later without making 4gate even worse. The buff to zealot charge is a step in the right direction. Increasing stalker upgrade buff to +1 (+1 armored) would also make them better in the late-game but not in the early game.
Actually, if late-game Protoss AoE is nerfed, I'd like to see immos buffed. At the moment they're only really used vs. mass roach and sometimes vs. blink stalker. This would also help to suppress colossus numbers (competition for production) and create a dynamic between P units with high mobility that are somewhat weaker (gateway) and immortals, which don't have warpin but are more beefy.
|
+ Show Spoiler +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.
Why not just nerf the Collosi then, its much more overpowered and more boring than the templar.
|
I take this as great news. It's awesome to see their reasoning behind each nerf/buff/bug fix. And combined with the fact that it's been asked that we see their reasoning, the fact that Blizz is doing this makes me a happy camper.
GJ Blizz!
|
On April 05 2011 02:46 celious wrote:Show nested quote +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.
How can you possibly compare PF to cannons? You can't kill a PF without a huge army. It makes it nearly impossible to do any sort of harassment attack on a Terran expo. By the same logic Blizzard used to nerf Templars, it should also be nerfed.
|
On April 05 2011 03:00 Daralii wrote:Show nested quote +On April 05 2011 02:55 LoLAdriankat wrote:
Good and reasonable statements by David Kim. I still think Protoss late game is ridiculous though, no matter what race you are, even for PvP (where whoever has one more colossus wins). Watching Kiwi chronoboost colossi out of three robos vs Select made me cry. Maybe Select could've dropped on the robo facilities but from there it's kind of a guessing game where you hope your opponent's warp-in is still cooling down so they can't respond to your drop as quickly. A single round of warp-ins is rarely enough to handle a couple medivacs full of M&M, especially if given room to kite.
In long macro games (which is the case in the game I was talking about), we usually see 12+ warpgates, which is definitely enough to handle a couple of medivacs.
|
They had a choice, nerf HT or Colossi, they picked HT and left it at that.
They outright said they would not nerf both as that would make Toss too weak.
I suggest anyone hoping for a Colossi nerf to forget about it since HT were nerfed.
|
I don't understand....the fungal change was for...mutalisks? And they think the change kept it the same strength against Terran?
|
I am glad they released this info, I think this is great that we get to see their reasons.
|
On April 05 2011 02:53 zanmat0 wrote:
Wow, their reasoning just further goes to prove that they are far out of touch with their own game and the issues affecting it.
Could you put some examples into your reasoning? Because I'm actually curious as to where any of this post says to you that they are "far out of touch".
I like their reasons behind the changes, but I want to comment on one thing. They mentioned a couple times how important scouting is, especially when discussing the stimpack change. I feel like a better option would be to allow more scouting opportunities (talking from a Zerg perspective here, maybe overlord speed on hatchery tech?) instead of simply delaying the research time.
I do like the Khydarian amulet change reasoning in particular though. I've noticed in my games that it's much easier (not TOO easy of course, but easier) to harass a Protoss around the map.
|
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.
IT's are pretty solid. They're excellent harassment vs other Zergs and they do pretty well in helping you to engage a marine/tank ball when you're still on ling/bling/infestor or the like. A few ITs can take a ton of tank shots really letting your units close in safely then hatch and help clean up anything left.
ITs would be great harassment vs T/P except that there's never a situation where a T or P player has 0 detection at an expansion and cannons or PFs will blow apart the harassing infestor or ITs before any damage is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
