EPTSituation Report: Patch 1.3 - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:54 floor exercise wrote: Because it requires basically zero micro and dictates the flow of every match up. Well, it's like a tank micro wise. The micro comes from the positioning and support units protecting it. Unless you find tanks boring too? Understand the ubiquity being boring, but that's a balancing issue. | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:56 Yaotzin wrote: Well, it's like a tank micro wise. The micro comes from the positioning and support units protecting it. Unless you find tanks boring too? Understand the ubiquity being boring, but that's a balancing issue. Tanks are actually interesting because if they're in a bad position, they're screwed, but colossi can fix any positioning problem in a jiffy. They can even walk up cliffs! | ||
|
L3gendary
Canada1470 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote: 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. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On April 05 2011 01:35 Mommas Boy wrote: EMP now drains up to 100 energy instead of all available energy. The effect on protoss shields remains unchanged. We had three main reasons for implementing this change: We wanted ghost EMP to be less effective vs. infestors in the ZvT matchup. Infestors are fairly slow moving and have high costs. We felt that one EMP shutting down multiple Infestors was too much. After the high templar change, we noticed the ghost vs. high templar relationship was a bit too much in the ghost’s favor. Early/mid game sentries are almost a requirement vs. terran. However, there were scenarios at different skill levels where one EMP would manage to luck out and hit every single sentry, making it so that protoss had no chance to stop the mass Stimpack terran army. How does this EMP change effect the ghost vs high templar dynamic when the high templar needs to be at maxed energy to get hit with EMP and still be able to get a storm off? | ||
|
Tatari
United States1179 Posts
* David Kim is a Game Balance Designer for StarCraft II. He plays random against himself-- and wins. Mother of god... wtb playing against myself  | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote: 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. Increased warp in time rather than cooldown, maybe? A penalty to proxy warp-ins would help a lot of the matchups to be sure, but increased cooldown reduces the penalty significantly as you get further into the game and the P gets more gates up. Maybe it'd be countered by the scaling production of T and Z, but I can't really say. | ||
|
Mentymion
Germany259 Posts
We felt this upgrade reduced strategic choice. Absolutely! I clearly forgot that High Templars and Archons were at least somewhat viable to use, beforce this piece of garbage came out. Charging Zealots will now hit fleeing targets at least once. Even after researching Charge, there are times when Zealots aren’t able to hit the opponent even once and just end up getting kited to death Oh, after XYZ patches they finally decided to improve that and Marauders are still able to kite them even after the patch. I`am speechless! 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. Same could be said about the Carrier but since the Beta we got nothing. Maybe encourage Protoss players to use this unit by instantly replenishing Health/Armor of Interceptors when returning back like in BW ? And now they are tellings us that Bliz maybe wants to fix/nerf Colossi with the next patches ? Seriously WTF comes next ? Thermal Lance Upgrade removed ? Reducing the DPS ? First they started to turn every single tech tree besides robo into rubbish and finally the Colossus is on their stupid nerf/buff/fixing list. Glad that Iam stopped playing for a while...4gate/3gate robo into mass Coossi was so damn boring.... | ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
As far as the changes they've already done, I like that they're being transparent about it. Giving a community like this that kind of reasoning is a good way to deter any kind of dissent that arises from people who would otherwise see no point in the change. The changes themselves seem to be Blizzard taking small steps to change certain situations, which is appropriate given the still-changing nature of the game. | ||
|
syllogism
Finland5948 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:39 kzn wrote: What they actually said was: This doesn't mean they thought both were overpowered. It means precisely what it says - they thought the splash damage available to Protoss lategame was too strong, so they adjusted that. If anything, what they've said and done suggests that if Colossus get nerfed, that will come with a return of Khaydarin Amulet and/or a significant buff elsewhere that moves Protoss away from splash damage entirely. I believe you are interpreting it wrong as I believe it "precisely" says splash damage from both mentioned units, separately, was "slightly overpowered". Typically you don't go both tech paths at once, and thus it's unlikely they meant the problem was them being too strong together. This seems fairly clear to me, but given there's some room for alternative interpretations, I'm not going to debate this topic further. | ||
|
jacobmarlow
Canada100 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:59 L3gendary wrote: 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. This is absurdly complicated, and it means you can't MBS your gateways. | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:54 entropius wrote: 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. 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... | ||
|
RageOverdose
United States690 Posts
On April 05 2011 04:05 yamato77 wrote: If they are going to nerf Colossus in any way, I say they should take away (Or shorten) the range upgrade. It wouldn't affect their damage, but it would make them more micro-intensive to use effectively, and make it easier for Zerg/Terran to use Corrupters/Vikings (Or even Marauders/Hydras) to kill them. That way they're not long-range, mobile, and massive AOE. Making Colossus more vulnerable is a good idea. As far as the changes they've already done, I like that they're being transparent about it. Giving a community like this that kind of reasoning is a good way to deter any kind of dissent that arises from people who would otherwise see no point in the change. The changes themselves seem to be Blizzard taking small steps to change certain situations, which is appropriate given the still-changing nature of the game. You could also reduce the number of Colossus a Protoss can get out by increasing the build time of them, or increase the cost of the upgrade (in either resources or time). This could make things like Contaminate on a Robo building a Colossus more punishing. This could make going Colossus more risky in PvP because increased build time could allow the other player to get more units before Colossus get out. It could make Colossus weaker for longer and extend any sort of timings that go with Thermal Lance. Their insane power has felt necessary up to this point because of the power of bio balls and the devastating power Hydras can have on Gateway units. If you even just reduce the number of Colossus a player can have at a given point in time because they take longer to build, then their power is already reduced significantly because a player's response can be smaller. Just a thought. | ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
Not that it matters, but I completely lost it at the Stim paragraph. | ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
It's extremely noob-friendly. It has tons of hp, making it fairly easy to keep alive even while taking heavy focus fire. It has 9 range for it's basic attack, more than any other mobile unit in the game. It's basic attack is AOE, which no other mobile unit can do (siege tank does splash, but it's stationary). It also doesn't require positioning micro, as it can walk on top of other units and never be blocked. All of this put together makes it the quintessential a-move unit; just attack with it, and pull it back a bit when it starts taking heavy damage, and that's all you really have to do. | ||
|
Michaels
419 Posts
And queens should start with 50energy and spit only 3larva instead of 4. (it would not change early game so much because zerg would have one more larva spit and creep tumor already going and no one losses because of lack of larva in late game.) No more nerfs to terran please  )But overall patch 1.3 seems good to me. Good work blizzard. x) | ||
|
SKYFISH_
Bulgaria990 Posts
The reasoning behind the ghost nerf is also quite rage worthy | ||
|
Yaotzin
South Africa4280 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On April 05 2011 03:45 Yaotzin wrote: 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'd say gateways need an advantage over warpgates even after you research the tech. Changing all gateways into warpgates shouldn't be a no-brainer choice. | ||
| ||
